Closeup stereo of a cake photographed using a Fuji W3. Taken by backing off several feet and then zooming in.
Stereo image
Left frame
Right frame
Parallel view ()
Cross-eye view ()
Sterescopic image of Greenland P-3D by Volkan Yuksel.
The stereo image template allows a stereo image to be used in such a way that it is displayed as flat image by default but can be seen as cross or parallel by simply clicking on the appropriate option without leaving the article. This makes the stereo image readily available for those who wish to see it without "imposing" it on others. Perhaps the policy should be changed to "no anaglyphs" as stereo pairs can enhance many subjects that wikipedia articles are written about.
There doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason to object to stereo images inserted in this fashion. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 04:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Generally I feel like policy and guideline status only should be granted to pages where there is both a robust consensus and said consensus need documentation since it is not obvious and a recurring issue. This is a view that is supported by our policy on policies and guidelines which mentions policies or guidelines being instruction creep as a reason for demotion. Having a lot of unnecessary policies can lead to the barrier of entry to be perceived as higher by new users learning about policies and guidelines when they see our huge list of several hundred policies and guidelines.
This guideline is a prime example of an unnecessary guideline. That we shouldn't use 3D images in articles without good reason should be obvious to basically anyone. It is also so rarely an issue to be worth documenting in guideline form based on the number of pageviews (about 2 a day on average most probably from the guideline lists), the number of pages using {{3d alt}} (2 articles) and the number of pages using {{3D glasses}} (22 articles, most on topics related to stereographic 3D or with no 2D substitute). In fact when going through these images I only found one image that I felt was proper to remove (but can see an argument for removal for a couple of others). --Trialpears (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strangest thing. I was looking through the guidelines category looking for an example of a really obscure one, in order to prove a point about how many obscure guidelines we have. I find this, check the talk to see if anyone else thinks it's as strange a guideline as I do, and here we are. So yes, demote and mark historic. Instruction creep, seemingly never used in practice. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)09:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
