| Revision as of 22:57, 9 April 2003 editMav (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users77,874 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:29, 9 April 2003 edit undoMartinHarper (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,927 edits How common is common practice? :)Next edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| :The article namespace is not appropriate for such an image gallery. We should tweak the policy instead to allow this use of image description pages ''so long as'' the article from which the page is linked (in this case ]) has explicit text indicating to the user that the page they are going to has alternate images of the subject. ] already complies with this. In this case common practice is not reflected in the policy and the policy needs to be updated. If no images whatsoever were allowed to be displayed on image description pages then the developers would write one line of code to prevent this. --] | :The article namespace is not appropriate for such an image gallery. We should tweak the policy instead to allow this use of image description pages ''so long as'' the article from which the page is linked (in this case ]) has explicit text indicating to the user that the page they are going to has alternate images of the subject. ] already complies with this. In this case common practice is not reflected in the policy and the policy needs to be updated. If no images whatsoever were allowed to be displayed on image description pages then the developers would write one line of code to prevent this. --] | ||
| :: There seem to be a couple of views - some people seem to agree with the policy (eg BigFatBuddha) and some people don't. Both sides have good arguments, I think. I'll raise it there... tomorrow! :) ] | |||
Revision as of 23:29, 9 April 2003
Why in the world are there so many images in this article? This is overkill in the extreme. Unless there is a good argument for keeping them I will turn many of them into media links that are linked to the main image's description page. Just because there are many images of cows doesn't mean we have to use all of them. Also, what about people on dial-up modem? This page will take way too long to download with so many images. --mav
- It does, indeed. And in my browser the top right image is overlapping the table. -- isis 23:40 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)
Moving them sounds good. I'm against deleting them altogether, because as a digital encyclopedia we should have a lot of multimedia content and I'm conservative about deletion. But as an Internet encylopedia we should be open to dial-up users and users with small screens. --Ellmist Saturday, September 21st 2002
- OK then. Which image should stay and which should be moved? --mav
- BTW, I've had this same problem come up with a few articles--I have several images & feel I shouldn't display all of them, even if I want to. dragonfly has two and probably shouldn't; Spanish moss has 3 but shows only one. The other two are linked from the image description page of the first. Maybe we should suggest a policy on this one way or the other. --KQ 23:50 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)
- I think what you have done is perhaps the optimal solution. To improve upon it I would simply add a very short statement under the image saying "Larger and alternate images" and have that be a link to the image description page where the images are linked. --mav
- I vote for "cow with calf" or "calves grazing" (the one beside it). --KQ
- I vote for "calves grazing" too. --mav
Could you move some of them to pages illustrating the different breeds, please? I'd like to be able to see pictures to go with the names. -- isis 23:53 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)
I'd like to move them to Images of cattle rather than on the :Image page that they're on now, because I think this is more in line with wikipedia:image use policy. comments? Martin
- The article namespace is not appropriate for such an image gallery. We should tweak the policy instead to allow this use of image description pages so long as the article from which the page is linked (in this case cattle) has explicit text indicating to the user that the page they are going to has alternate images of the subject. Cattle already complies with this. In this case common practice is not reflected in the policy and the policy needs to be updated. If no images whatsoever were allowed to be displayed on image description pages then the developers would write one line of code to prevent this. --mav
- There seem to be a couple of views - some people seem to agree with the policy (eg BigFatBuddha) and some people don't. Both sides have good arguments, I think. I'll raise it there... tomorrow! :) Martin