Template talk:Too many photos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Styling / cats[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup#Standardisation of template styling is a proposal for general cleanup and standardisation of ambox templates, which has been rolled out undisputed across a good many high-profile templates over the last few months. So the template should follow that layout. My preferred version is this one, although this one (with two images, and slightly different wording) is also okay.

As for the categories, it is standard for cleanup templates to be in Category:Cleanup templates, so that doesn't seem at all controversial to me. The cleanup category pages with too many photos also seems appropriate here, and as the guidelines suggest it shouldn't be depopulated prior to discussion said category's fate (if it is to be deleted, as ipatrol (talk · contribs) apparently wishes).

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A few points and counter points about your edits:
  1. The standardazation proposal just got off the ground, it has very little exposue and very few comments, see WP:NOMORE.
  2. This template has very few transclusions, there currently is no need for a category.
  3. This template would always be used at the article top, a section may have a small gallery.
--Ipatrol (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. WP:NOMORE is an essay, a fringe one at that, and one which concerns policy and not mundane consensus on such things as styling (note that the MoS isn't policy).
  2. There is a good argument that all cleanup templates should categorise articles, because many editors use them to guide their cleanup efforts; in particular, I do. There is no harm in categorising articles, and again, so long as the cat exists then policy is that it shouldn't be depopulated for the purpose of obsolescence.
  3. That's fine by me; that note is something which belongs in the template documentation, however.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no point in standarization, we don't need the Wikipedia version of ISO. I see that the way this template is and is used, it just needs a specific setup. If you want to present standarization an its reasons as arguements, go ahead. However, we need to look at those arguements on a case-by-case basis, at least until complete adoption.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Standardisation, whether you see a point to it or not, has broad consensus across the project. The case was presented over two months ago in a central location with no rebuttal. Pretty much every widely-deployed ambox has consistent styling these days; there is no practical upside to not following it. At the very least, the categories need added back, or the template is useless for tag-and-sweep cleanup (as well as being difficult to find in the first place). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Due to the need to include the appropriate cleanup category, I have now restored the last version. Adoption is hardly going to proceed if the template does not actually add pages to the relevant cleanup category. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Before you apply this template...[edit]

Before you apply this template, please consider...

  1. What is your definition of "encyclopaedic"?
  2. Should Wikipedia operate under the same restrictions as a traditional encyclopaedia (e.g. how expensive is Wiki-paper)?
  3. How many photographs is "too many"? Eight? Twelve? Fifteen? Thirty? Are the number of photographs related to the length of an article?
  4. That you might be able to reorganise the article to place the existing photographs in more appropriate categories within the article (or split the article's photographs into sub-articles).
  5. Whether each photograph adds to the understanding of the article? Are you presuming to decide what is important for other editors? Perhaps the content of a photograph could be important to someone researching an aspect of the article at some stage in the future?
  6. Whether "too many" photographs hurt an article?
  7. If you could perhaps comment-out a photo (using HTML comment <!-- and --> tags) in order to keep the photograph reference close to an article in case someone finds a reason to reinstate a photograph that you currently consider to be in the category of "too many"?
  8. That by placing this template on a page, you are not actually improving an article. At the very least, please take the extra step to discuss the merits of photographs that trouble you on the article's talk page.
  9. Whether your actions are going to discourage editors who have gone to the trouble of gathering original material and donating it to Wikimedia/Wikipedia?

 HWV258.  09:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Might we also consider whether adding a nag header to the page contributes to the perceived "clutter" of "too many images"? --Dystopos (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Scope[edit]

Should this not be expanded to include excessive use of audio samples? ―cobaltcigs 03:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)