On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Good points - although it's annoying that the weakness of our layout
engine affects the content we can display.
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.
We're not serving our readers well by putting images behind a link
that they won't see or use.
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.
Indeed - it *is* possible to include enough text. Should the current
absence of such text preclude images? (A genuine question: is it ok
for an article to be unbalanced in the short term?)
You can try but you are unlikely to get very far.
Yeah, figured.
Steve