"Karl Eichwalder" ke@gnu.franken.de schrieb:
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
I think it would be very nice to be able to have portfolios of images of specific topics, even when we only use 1 or 2 of the images in a particular article on a particular wikipedia.
I'd like to support your proposal.
For example, we might quickly end up with 50 different pictures of the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
Yes, those series are very useful. Don't hesitate to upload detailed pictures (with descriptions, of course) and link them together on a main page.
In my opinion, it kind of depends on what the pictures show, and on what descriptions are given. I don't want 50 similar pictures of the tower of Pisa. I do want 50 pictures if this one is taking at sunset, that one shows the surroundings as well and the third one is from an unusual direction.
I have said something against this kind of thing on the Wikicommons discussion page, but please understand that I am not against having many pictures on one subject. I am against having many very similar pictures and against pictures with insufficient description.
I don't want 100 pictures of "a yellow flower". I do want 10 pictures each of a 1000 different yellow flowers. I don't want 50 portraits of George W. Bush. I do want 200 pictures of George W. Bush if some are portraits, others show him sign a law as governor of Texas, others show him speaking to the congress, others show him among soldiers in Iraq, etcetera.
In short, what I want is to request that pictures are either * because of what they show (the 50th tower of Pisa, but only the second one from this angle) * because of the additional information (the 30th George W. Bush signing a law, but we are being told _which_ law is being signed) duplicates of not more than a few pictures in the collection.
Andre Engels
In my opinion, it kind of depends on what the pictures show, and on what descriptions are given. I don't want 50 similar pictures of the tower of Pisa. I do want 50 pictures if this one is taking at sunset, that one shows the surroundings as well and the third one is from an unusual direction.
I agree with you each picture should bring some information, it unuseful to have 30 time the same picture. I think that it's very useful to have many picture (and detailed one) of the same object. Picture ofen bring more information than a long text. Currently I have also a problem on how to incorporate those images in an article. Currently I m creating a gallery where I m putting all the images with a short comment on each picture. see for instance: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cath%C3%A9drale_de_Lausanne/galerie http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris/galerie
Greatpatton
In my opinion, it kind of depends on what the pictures show, and on what descriptions are given. I don't want 50 similar pictures of the tower of Pisa. I do want 50 pictures if this one is taking at sunset, that one shows the surroundings as well and the third one is from an unusual direction.
I agree with you each picture should bring some information, it unuseful to have 30 time the same picture. I think that it's very useful to have many picture (and detailed one) of the same object. Picture ofen bring more information than a long text. Currently I have also a problem on how to incorporate those images in an article. Currently I m creating a gallery where I m putting all the images with a short comment on each picture. see for instance: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cath%C3%A9drale_de_Lausanne/galerie http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris/galerie
Greatpatton
engelsAG@t-online.de (Andre Engels) writes:
I don't want 50 similar pictures of the tower of Pisa. I do want 50 pictures if this one is taking at sunset, that one shows the surroundings as well and the third one is from an unusual direction.
Yes, I agree with you. And I want details. Similar pictures are also okay if they were taken at different times (every year or so); this way you can see what happened to the monument.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org