Hi all,
Do content policies still get discussed on this list? I'm a bit out of touch.
Anyway, I seem to keep running afoul of the "image use policy".
Several galleries that I've added to articles have been removed. (And
see this response to my second attempt to gallerise one article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevage&action=edit…
)
The key parts of the policy
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IG#Image_galleries) are:
* "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are
discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of
images."
-- it's not clear whether this includes articles that currently lack
text (as opposed to articles that could never be much more than a
gallery)
* "However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a
tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of
an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should
generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or
moved to Wikimedia Commons."
-- It's not clear what "moving...a gallery...to Wikimedia Commons"
means. It sounds like this was intended for cases where the images
existed only in Wikipedia itself, rather than being linked from
Commons.
On the other hand:
* "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value
and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a
gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both
to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery"
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Thoughts? Comments? Am I on the fringe? Are guidelines like this still
subject to debate and change?
Steve