Talk:Ravana Falls
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ravana Falls article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reverts on images
[edit]I'm commenting here because I have this article on my watchlist since 2009, and I am once more seeing unnecessary conflicts. User:A.Savin and User:Dan_arndt both need to stop. Dan_arndt reversal is not making sense as WP:NOTAGALLERY does not apply in this case, and A.Savin is breaking WP:3RR. I see this has now spilt over your talkpages as well 1 2. If you disagree on something, use the article talkpage, and if that doesn't work, get a WP:3O. Don't let it escalate unnecessarily like last time please. Rehman 14:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- My statement on this page because Dan.arndt doesn't discuss with me in principle:
- a) On WP:NOTGALLERY, they say that WP is not a file repository. So, if a gallery is just a random collection of similar photos, it is to be removed. This is a valid example. They don't say that galleries are prohibited in general. And there is no such policy otherwise.
- b) I don't know why Ravana Cave is in the waterfall article: the cave is not close to the waterfall. Perhaps it needs own article, but as long as it is here, I am free to add one or two pictures illustrating the cave.
- c) If you delete the gallery and add a picture under the infobox instead, there is just too much place left below the text. This isn't good for the external appearance of the article. On the contrary, a gallery does not do it any harm, at the very least.
- d) Same applies to Demodara railway station article. Compare my version with gallery, and the current one that Dan arndt is pushing via editwar. The pic at the left breaks the headings; with a gallery it all looks much more decent, and an additional relevant picture is possible.
- --A.Savin (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Neither of you have explained why WP:NOTAGALLERY doesn't apply here. The images in no way add to the understanding of the article. Moreover, as WP:GALLERY states, "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article". This is what's happening with all these galleries.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, for my part I think I've explained all sufficiently, and if you don't get it, that's not my fault. --A.Savin (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mature comment.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, for my part I think I've explained all sufficiently, and if you don't get it, that's not my fault. --A.Savin (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Neither of you have explained why WP:NOTAGALLERY doesn't apply here. The images in no way add to the understanding of the article. Moreover, as WP:GALLERY states, "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article". This is what's happening with all these galleries.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- A.Savin/Rehman - The premise of WP:NOTAGALLERY is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and articles should not be a collection of images, each image should illustrate specific facets of the article and relate to the description in that article, they should not simply be a repetition of images already present. I am simply trying to ensure that irrelevant images are removed, wherever possible. If there are multiple images then there should be a link to Wikicommons provided. Dan arndt (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- I completely agree with your above statement. But, the version you removed does not fit this criteria. The images were of different subjects/perspectives (and the gallery format was also better presented than the resulting version with large whitespace). Rehman 10:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Which is why I kept an image of the cave because it was relevant to the text in the article however an image of the base of the falls doesn’t add any value to the article/there is no detailed text that warrants or supports such an image. Yes, the formatting needs work as a result but there is no need for a collection of images as proposed. Dan arndt (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Did you actually read my statement above? --A.Savin (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I have and simply adding captions to a gallery of images doesn’t mean that they should be retained in an article. The images should relate to aspects of the article and not simply images of the same thing.Dan arndt (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Did you actually read my statement above? --A.Savin (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Which is why I kept an image of the cave because it was relevant to the text in the article however an image of the base of the falls doesn’t add any value to the article/there is no detailed text that warrants or supports such an image. Yes, the formatting needs work as a result but there is no need for a collection of images as proposed. Dan arndt (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- I completely agree with your above statement. But, the version you removed does not fit this criteria. The images were of different subjects/perspectives (and the gallery format was also better presented than the resulting version with large whitespace). Rehman 10:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly, a caption to an image doesn't count as "accompanying text". The image of the inside of the provides no encyclopedic context whatsoever.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)