On 8/1/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yeah, it can be hard to judge what "images are needed" before visiting a place though. And sometimes you only turn up the complete collection of photos once you start going through Commons. Anyway, it's not like I'm not going to take a photo at all just because it exists in Commons - but maybe I'll put my girlfriend in it or something instead ;) Steve

On 8/2/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote: It's hard to know how similar is too similar. I tend to think that the more images, the better, and if there are even a few more details in one than the other, it may be worth it. Particularly in the case of an article with very little text, you can get a surprising amount of information just by including several photos. I don't know about "a thousand words", but often several hundred or so. An example fresh in my mind: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_de_Grangent Can you imagine this without the images? Nowhere in the text does it describe the surrounding scenery, or help you picture the shape of it at all. By contrast: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac_de_Grangent is about the artificial lake - no image (yet), no way of understanding anything about this lake except in purely abstract terms. Steve

On 8/2/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote: Yep. There seems to be disagreement about what happens when a long article has too many images though (too many meaning, if they were all laid top to bottom without overlapping, they would be longer than the text). Some responses I've seen: * Try and cram them in anyway :) * Stick the "surplus" in a "gallery" section down the bottom * Move the surplus to a separate article called "Images of X" (not a fan of this) * Just leave out the excess and possibly point to a category or Commons. Steve

On 8/2/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yeah I was looking at that, trying to decide "what it all means". Was the foliage in the previous version artificially pruned? Are we seeing the same foliage, or is this an annual growth? etc. So, there's some benefit in multiple photos of the same thing over differet years :) Haven't yet made up my mind if I like captioning photos "July 2006" or whatever in the article itself. Steve