On 18 February 2013 23:24, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, here's my thinking in response to the above:
> 1) "Wikipedia is not for images, Commons is for images" is just bad
> logic. Commons is a dumping ground for *all* images. Wikipedia is an
> encyclopaedia, and should illustrate its articles with as many or as
> few images as appropriate. (It's not like duplicated storage is a
> problem.)
However the overall format in the article is considered when
considering what is appropriate. Image galleries create large breaks
in the text and messy formatting due to issues with screen resolution.
As a result there are best limited to where there is a solid need for
such things. The other problem with image galleries is that they are
often use to keep poor quality images in the article. Certainly when
I've expanded articles with image galleries I've often killed of the
images in the galleries entirely rather than using them in the article
proper.
> 2) The Commons links are incredibly obscure, and I don't think the
> average punter ever sees or visits them. It's like telling someone to
> ring the hotline for more information - they just don't. The link
> doesn't give any indication whether there are 2 images on Commons on
> 200.
Not relevant.
> 3) Galleries let you illustrate a much wider range of the subject
> matter than by simply placing images in the margins. For example, in
> the contentious [[Lamington National Park]], we could illustrate all
> the waterfalls, most of the important flora, fauna, and geological
> features.
We could but if they were that important it should be possible to
include enough text for the image to sit next to the. We also have
extensive articles on flora, fauna, and geological features that
people can go and look at if they want images of those things.
> 4) An image of captioned animals under a section entitled "fauna" (and
> likewise for flora etc) seems perfectly in keeping with the guideline
> under ("on the other hand") above.
Not really. Again we generally have articles on specific animals so
links pointing to the article on that animal will general suffice.
> Thoughts? Comments? Am I on the fringe? Are guidelines like this still
> subject to debate and change?
You can try but you are unlikely to get very far.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
