Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

Archives
August 2002 – March 2003 April 2003 – April 2003 (1) April 2003 – April 2003 (2) April 2003 – April 2003 (3) May 2003 – December 2003 January 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – August 2006 September 2006 – December 2006 January 2007 – September 2007 October 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – January 2009 February 2009 – 2010 –
Noncommercial-use Discussion of image sizes Specific image-related copyright issues
Sound help Image markup

Controversial images

There are (at least) three huge time sinks around images at the moment: Pregnancy, Muhammad and Suicide. They all revolve around the use of controversial images that some argue add little or nothing to the readers' understanding.

At Pregnancy and Muhammad, the board's May 2011 statement of principles and guidance concerning controversial content was invoked. This Foundation resolution says, in part

Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable. "Controversial content" includes all of these categories. [...] We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement.

That wording seems to say if content may be offensive to some viewers and has no real educational value, it should be avoided. But a number of editors have challenged this, asserting that, if an image is related to the topic and carries any information, avoiding it because it is controversial would be a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED.

Most images in Wikipedia, per this policy, educate the reader on the topic of the article, some are worth a thousand words. But many others could be replaced by one line of text without losing one bit of information relevant to the article, or are simply emblematic of the topic and add nothing of educational value at all. (See the emblematic image I added to the infobox at Pain.) We tolerate such images if they make the article more welcoming and appealing. But I believe the Foundation is telling us we should not tolerate images that do not add to the readers' understanding of the topic if they are "controversial" per the Foundation's use of the term.

I'd like this apparent conflict between the Foundation resolution and WP:NOTCENSORED to be resolved. The issue at Muhammad was recently put to ArbCom but was declined as something that needs to be dealt with by community discussion. This seems as good a place as any to discuss it. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

The Foundation uses "curating" to refer to all aspects of managing images and other content, including placement of images in articles. [1] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There will always be a pool of people who use not censored to justify the useage of some ridicoulous images. Frankly i just wish people would use common sense and that we didnt have to revisit this over and over. Its a sad state, and it runs off so many users from this project. I personally am fine with 'that policy' but i can understand that it would be easily preverted around and used to suppress images that might be needed. The issue is where do you draw the line when you have hundreds of lines that are all in different places which people will never move, just some thoughts. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is older, has more community support, and is much, much less ambiguous. I view the foundation statement as a vague "let's say something nice to cover our asses" affair. Having reviewed all those threads recently, I personally see enough educational value in all of the images proposed to pass the value test set forth by the foundation. More broadly, if there's even a moderate amount of support for the inclusion of an image, it can be implied that enough people have decided that it has value that the foundation statement is not applicable in that case. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree; there will always likely be a minority of people that feel some images are inappropriate but as long as that's not the consensus view, then it makes no sense to block that. I do appreciate the statement of "least astonishment", meaning that the lead images should be the most tasteful ones, and thus to a point, the current lead image at Pregnancy (a fully naked woman during pregnancy) is probably inappropriate at that specific location in the article but not down lower in the text of the article. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback people. Ambiguity is difficult, but we deal with it on WP:DUE and other policies. I know it would meet a lot of opposition and I, for one, don't have the energy to push it through, but I reckon "only use a controversial image when the same educational value can't be achieved using an uncontroversial image or minimal text." would make this a better project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sven, Masem: while I appreciate what you've said, I need to point out that there's a serious problem lurking in it. On any controversial topic there are always going to be people with axes to grind on both sides of the issue - that's the nature of a controversial issue - and people with axes to grind will rarely respond to common sense. It's an unfortunate aspect of human nature that I think we all have ample experience with on project. In such cases, controversial images become weapons and NOTCENSORED becomes a tool for subverting or bypassing NPOV and Consensus to impose a bias on the article. I like Anthony's suggestion because it puts some rational limits on NOTCENSORED: people have to demonstrate that a controversial image does something meaningful and useful in an article, and are precluded from slapping some controversial image on the article and digging in under NOTCENSORED to wait out all protests.

In short, we should be more concerned about the positive aspect of adding information to the article and less about the negative aspect of preserving controversial images. As I read the foundation resolution, they are asking us to take a more nuanced, reader-centered approach to controversial material; still keeping the ideal that wikipedia is not censored, but not allowing that to be used as an excuse to trod all over our readers' preferences and beliefs for no good reason. --Ludwigs2 16:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, consider the three cases that are in question right now (as best I understand them):

• Pregnancy - the use of a naked woman at late term (as to be clear that the woman is pregnant, not fat), including showing the impact of pregnancy on the mother, seems completely legitimate. The only aspect is that as a lead image, it isn't the first thing you'd expect to see nor immediately necessary to grasp the concept of the lead. Images of tastefully clothed women but their mid-rift bare as to see the pregnancy makes much more sense as a lead, simply to avoid unexpected shock of the topic.
• Muhammad is to me a no-brainer. It makes no sense to have an article on the figure without having an image of the image to show what the prevailing belief on the figure looks like, and in the lead. It doesn't matter that its religion seems opposed to it; as long as it is accurate and/or what the religion states is correct, not to display the image would be harmful to readers.
• Suicide involves the use of piece of art depicting suicide - most of the ones selected are tasteful (unless you're told and/or look closer, it looks like a figure sleeping), or it is the case that it is a obviously historical piece of art (like greek/roman figures) that shows the act. As I've read that, the issue is around giving any glorification to the act for fear that readers may try attempt it itself. Here's a case where I would ask myself "What type of image would I'd expect on opening the Suicide article?" and really, the answer I would give is "none", there's no easy singular image (like there is with the above two cases) I could assign to make the connection between the topic and picture easily. That's not to say the images can't be used (suicide has been depicted in artwork for centuries, that you can't deny), but its impossible to visually link the term to anything that is otherwise highly inappropriate.

So the one case that I would raise is that of the lead image, the one that is attempting to make the visual-verbal link between the topic and the image. The lead image needs to be of non-shock value (a clothed-verses-naked woman), but should be one that we would expect to see (eg the image of Muhummad) for that topic, but if there is no immediate answer to the question "What image is the best we can use to connect this topic to a visual image for the reader?" and the use of any related images is contested, it may be better not to use said images until later in the article and have an image-less lead. Anywhere else in the article is fair game (well, arguably, anything in the first screen's worth, but lets stick to lead to be clear). --MASEM (t) 13:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason a debate exists in all these cases is because all the images in question serve an immediate educational purpose. The question is not whether we should be using images that aren't educational in articles (we obviously shouldn't) but given two or more choices of images, what the right tradeoff is between educational value and offensiveness to some part of our audience. It's natural not only that some people place more value on one or the other, but that different people "rate" the educational value or offensiveness of a given image differently, which makes this a very complicated question. Dcoetzee 19:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, they're all educational, there's no question, and as I've argued for these three cases they should have no question being used on the article page somewhere. The issue seems to be specifically the lead image which is often not directly attached to any text discussing the image but as a means of visual connectivity. Given that this is the first image that a reader will always see when landing on this page, we need to avoid the idea of shock value, and thus goes back to my point above: the image for the lead only should be chosen to be one that one can reasonably expect to see on that article's page. See my three examples above. Again, what happens in the body is not as critical a problem, but the lead should be carefully chosen to be of generally community standards appropriate for the topic, understanding that some topics can only be demonstrated by a image that may be controversial but otherwise educational (eg "penis"). --MASEM (t) 19:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

On the general question, it might be reasonable for this policy to send editors to the guideline at Wikipedia:Offensive material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd never read that. Very apposite. I suppose I'm attempting to elevate elements of that into this policy, so that WP:NOGRATUITOUSOFFENCIVENESS can balance WP:NOTCENSORED. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The point that many of these approaches tends to miss is that some of the "offensive" issues aren't offensive in any secular sense. This is a secular encyclopedia, and we should not take notice of offense taken due to religious beliefs. It shouldn't tip the scale towards inclusion, of course, but it shouldn't bias us towards exclusion, either. Any effort to codify a policy based on offensiveness needs to clearly indicate what kinds of offensiveness are even candidates for consideration.—Kww(talk) 04:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

I agree that it would be useful to have some guidance on lead images specifically. We wasted nearly a year debating the lead image for abortion, before finally settling on the obvious choice: no image at all. There seems to be a strong bias towards using lead images, even when it doesn't make much sense, such as in suicide. You can't always sum up a huge topic with a single image. Kaldari (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the above, I think it's fair that we should include advice (But not considered prescriptive guideline/policy) under "Content" for "Lead images", pointing out that these will always been seen and thus should have more careful scrutiny of inclusion than for any other image on the article. There's three points to make towards this:

1. The lead image(s) should be ones that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that we would want readers to envision when they are given the term.
2. The lead image(s) should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred. (eg the partially clothed pregnant woman over the fully nude one).
3. Lead images are not required, and the lack of a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic per #1.

It should be clear these are not restrictions or advice for article body images. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I like where this is going. I've placed it under a different section heading because it's addressing a different and much more straightforward issue, and is likely to get agreement and action much sooner than the issue I'm raising (curation of offensive images in general). Please revert if you disagree. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this topic is better suited for the MOS page on images, rather than the policy page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The MOS is generally about issues like placement, captions, etc., eg the style issues around images. This is specifically about the choice of an image, which is already covered here under "Content". This seems like the best place for it, as long as it is cautioned that while this whole page is Policy, this is strictly guidance towards resolution of controversial images. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Point 3 seems to fit Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. 1 and 2 could be combined into one statement, and this page seems their natural home to me, per MASEM's rationale. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Point 3 could go to the image mos, but at the same time, if you are discussing the issue of controversial images, it is always the case that one accept choice is "no image", if there are other image choices available. Hence, discussion of the "no image" option needs to be kept here, though that one facet can be duplicated at images MOS ("a lead image is not required"). --MASEM (t) 12:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing that this is the wrong place to look for or insert that. The guideline WP:Images would be a more appropriate place to insert such recommendations. I don't see any hard or fast rules that would require mention in a policy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead images make articles look very much more inviting, even when the image's informational content is not essential to the topic. I think they should be used whenever possible. 109.157.167.162 (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the section headers at IMAGES. We've got some potentially useful advice in the comments above. Do we have any BOLD editor who is willing to take a stab at adding something about ===Images for the lead=== to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Choosing_images? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I wrote the above, I will add it. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done and timely. --JN466 22:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if, rather than (or in addition to) "the type of image that we would expect readers to envision when they think of the term", it might be worth saying something about "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Default image size versus infobox widths

WP:IMGSIZE "In general: do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images lists some (presumably) good reasons. I'd like to hear views on the pros & cons of a notion of promoting the forcing of right-aligned images to the same width as infoboxes on article pages so as to improve the look of pages. I prefer pages in which infoboxes and right-aligned images are of the same width to those which have narrower image widths than the infobox width - solely on aesthetic grounds. Am I alone in this preference? Is there reason to reconsider our guidelines on default image sizing for the stylistic reason I allude to?

The policy says "some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult." Presumably the same would hold for infoboxes, yet these invariably exceed 220px.

The policy says "In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference." Which could be overcome by adding a user preference asking if the user's preferred image size should override a forced image size.

Any views? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should not force image size (except the ones in the infoboxes). What may look better on your screen may wreak havoc on other people's screens. 220px is a sane default (it used to be 120px; which encouraged a lot of fixed image sizes), and we sould respect user's preferences for other sizes. Infoboxes simply need the space in the infobox to display the text, that is why it's default width is set to 22em. And as em scales with text size, you cannot reliably match the images (which are sized in px) with the infoboxes anyway. — Edokter (talk) — 10:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of this, we probably need a guideline for infobox widths. I recently tried to adjust the width of an infobox to more closely match the default infobox width (22em), as well changing the default picture size for that infobox (I reduced it from 300px to 250px). Just look at Rocket-powered aircraft: very wide infobox, the vertical half-right of which is empty space (outside of the picture, of course). The sole purpose of that extra width seems to be to display a picture way bigger than normal thumbnails. I was quickly reverted for the sole reason that the changed hasn't been discussed. [2] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Tagishsimon's suggestion is a good idea, especially for adjacent images (ones that abut the infobox). Pages look messy when things do not quite line up. If the resulting image size doesn't work on a user's screen then the infobox itself generally wouldn't work either, so it's not like we would actually be breaking anything much (generally, anyway; no doubt some pathological exceptions exist). The problem, as I understand it, is as Edokter says: we do not actually know how wide, in pixels, the infobox is going to be. I have in the past resized a few images to align with infoxboxes on my screen, before I figured that I did't know if they would align on anyone else's, or even whether I might be making things even less aligned for other readers. 109.157.167.162 (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The default infobox widths are specified in em units. The MILHIST ones are specified din pixels. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard Nixon

Could somebody here please review the article Richard Nixon for compliance with the image use policy? I count about two dozen manually-sized images, with some sized as high as 470px. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What Yworo fails to mention is that he started a discussion at Talk:Richard Nixon and consensus was against him. He also fails to mention that the image use was discussed at the FAC, and achieved consensus. I believe the technical term for this is "forum shopping".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the only "forum" I've brought it to, and the correct one at that. Do remember that article talk pages are not forums, and that small cliques of editors do not get to override policy. I am completely within reason to ask for expert opinions on the matter, rather than editors with a heavy ego-investment in the article. Yworo (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've glanced through the FAC for the article and the discussion there, and I think I have to agree with Wehwalt and others - the use of block-centered, larger images as major section headers (at least, when they are free images) is certain a possible option. The various arguments on bandwidth, screensize, etc. are all met by the image, it just looks weird because many articles don't have a wealth of free images like that. I would probably say there's a handful of guidance we can write when these are appropriate, as I don't think every article can support that. But it seems like a completely reasonable option if it can be done. --MASEM (t) 06:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A clarification on image galleries

May I ask for a clarification and opinions on galleries? In taxonomic articles on plants, animals, fungi, etc., we often struggle with plentiful small stubs with an abundance of excellent and beautiful images of the different anatomical parts of the organism. For example, an article on a little-known tree species might have excellent photo coverage of the flowers, fruit, seeds, bark, wood, leaves, young wood, buds, etc. These are all diagnostic features of the organism.

Some feel that on short articles where not much text has been written suffer without these photos. They argue that, as described under WP:IG, "... the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." They then promptly ignore the rest of the policy, or argue that it's irrelevant. I contend that these series of images are easily and adequately described by text, as we often do in the case of missing images of critical parts. For example, on the FA Drosera regia, I did not have photos of the pollen or roots, but I can described them without images. Images would help, but they can't stand alone. So when the text is lacking, I contend that an image gallery of the anatomy of the organism is inappropriate as the main goal is to cram more images into the article. And for the sake of argument, we're mostly discussing images already uploaded to Commons, categorized or in a gallery page there.

In these cases, I think a Commons link or template is preferable to the galleries, which are almost always under the heading "Gallery," which is telling. For an example of a recent gallery addition to a stubby article, check out Pachnoda sinuata. The headings are unnecessary and not in line with WP:HEAD and WP:LAYOUT, so ignore the length of the article, which should be just about one paragraph with what little text is there right now. Is this gallery compliant with WP:IG? If not, how can we amend WP:IG to be clearer that these "indiscriminate collection[s] of images of the article subject" should not be shoehorned into the articles? It's already clear to me, but I have had many discussions with other editors that I respect who believe the galleries fit within policy. And if consensus goes the other way, how could we amend the policy to make it clear this kind of usage, along with the 1750–1795 in fashion example, are implicitly acceptable gallery usage? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I contend that these series of images are easily and adequately described by text, as we often do in the case of missing images of critical parts". I strongly disagree with that statement. Look at bretèche for instance, and also look in the books cited, which contain plenty of illustrations in a style similar to the Wikipedia's gallery feature. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I was making a point specifically about organism articles, where anatomy is often described without images. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as we're talking images from Commons, I'm not seeing a problem with having a one-line gallery (4-5 images at most) at the end. A 20 picture gallery on a stub article, yes, that's a problem, but one line of photos is not harming much.

I'm not sure on the matter of the 1750–1795 in fashion article. The disjoint between the image and captions is a problem - they should be inside the gallery, but as for having large galleries of free images, that seems to be ok, again specifically due to the fact that it is a visual element that is hard to describe changes and variations throughout the period. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

But what to call the section with the gallery? In every case I've seen, the title is merely "Gallery." WP:IG states that a rule of thumb could be that "if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons." I can't think of any other descriptive titles for these galleries. They are simply an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject. They are not generally used to compare and contrast or for any other function that for cramming images into the article that otherwise wouldn't fit because there's too little text. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps that rule of thumb isn't a useful one, since it seems to lead you in the direction of assuming that ten-sentence stubs like Pachnoda sinuata should only contain a single image, rather than the six clearly useful and non-redundant images that are currently present and whose acceptance at FA could be reasonably expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the gallery at Pachnoda sinuata is exactly what we want to permit: Five images showing three visibly different developmental stages, and the one stage shown in three pictures is shown from different angles (dorsal, ventral, and rear). None of them could possibly be described as redundant, and all of them have descriptive captions. I admit that the article is WP:NOTFINISHED, but each of these images might well be present in an FA-quality article.

What we're really trying to discourage is the problem of "Oh, look, there's a dozen pictures of people kissing at their weddings, so I should add a practically identical picture of me kissing at my wedding". We don't want large galleries, and we don't want redundant images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The example at Pachnoda sinuata is one of the better galleries. It shows valuable information, but the purpose of creating the gallery seems not to compare and contrast or any other valid function of the gallery. My perspective is that these galleries are inserted for the sole purpose of cramming more images into the article. A good question to ask yourself is whether the gallery would remain as it is if the article was sufficiently expanded so that there was room for the images to the left and right of paragraphs about those features of the organism. The answer would invariably be no, the gallery would be dismantled and images moved to near the associated text. So why should they remain when the article is a stub? At the stubby stage of an article, a link to a Commons category or gallery is sufficient and fills the same role as a gallery in the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The images might some day be rearranged, but so what? If they should be in the article when it reaches FA status, then they should be in the article today. The specific arrangement of the images in between now and then is just not that important.

Galleries are not supposed to be an excuse for adding images that shouldn't be there in the first place. The gentle discouragement of galleries is not a rule that says you can't align images horizontally (e.g., in a gallery) if there isn't enough text to align them vertically right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. We seem to have a different interpretation of the language there. I see the words "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article..." and you take it to mean it's acceptable to shoehorn images as long as they're not redundant. I see it as a general discouragement of including too many images in any arrangement that overwhelms the existing text. Rkitko ^(talk) 19:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Shoehorn in" refers to adding images that should not be present at all in the article. It does not refer to adding images that do belong in a decent article on the subject. Assuming the images would belong in a well-developed version of the article, then presenting the images horizontally, on the grounds that you haven't got enough text to present them vertically, is not "shoehorning in" the images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The current policy was a carefully-crafted compromise between the "galleries are good/a picture = a thousand words" crowd and the "galleries are abused/most galleries are garbage" crowd. The consensus at the time was that many galleries are well done and improve their respective articles, some topics in particular can potentially benefit greatly from a gallery, but unorganized galleries made up of indiscriminate collections of images are generally not great. The goal was to ensure that galleries are crafted as carefully as the text of an article, and not seen as an afterthought or a dumping ground for unrelated images that don't otherwise fit in an article. I don't think the policy was intended to prevent the use of galleries in stub or start class articles - just because the images might not be presented in gallery form once the article is longer doesn't mean that a gallery isn't appropriate at this time.

I note that WhatamIdoing said "[t]he gallery at Pachnoda sinuata is exactly what we want to permit: Five images showing three visibly different developmental stages, and the one stage shown in three pictures is shown from different angles (dorsal, ventral, and rear). None of them could possibly be described as redundant, and all of them have descriptive captions." As someone unfamiliar with the article topic, none of that jumped out at me when I viewed the gallery. It did look like a collection of random and unorganized images, but based on WhatamIdoing's information, it wouldn't take much to make it a very useful gallery. Rename it "Development stages of the Pachnoda sinuata", put the stages in order, make clear that the adult (?) stage is shown from three angles, and you would have an excellent gallery for a stub/start class article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the history of the policy; I found that most useful. I, too, think that the gallery as it is right now at Pachnoda sinuata isn't put together nicely, but I see your point that it could be a decent gallery. Would it be useful to call it "Developmental stages" even if it's not complete? There are no photos of the eggs, and each instar is not represented. On plant articles, galleries are used in a variety of ways, some of which I don't think are useful. For example, on Geranium, the gallery is showcasing different species in the genus. This is already sufficiently done at List of cranesbill species. This usage is common on genus articles. The most common use of galleries on plant articles, however, seems to be of the distribution variety - indiscriminate images of the plant in similar habitats throughout the plant's range, e.g. in Drosera rotundifolia we have images from Oregon, Minnesota, and Newfoundland. I'm at a loss, though, on how to clarify this distinction in the text of the policy. The problematic area to me seems to be the discussion on usefulness and how encyclopedic it is. I've removed galleries where it was of the type on the Drosera rotundifolia article and then got into a discussion with an editor of that article. When I point to WP:IG, the proponent of the gallery points to the first paragraph and asserts that the images are useful, encyclopedic, and can't be replaced by text. So it seems that any indiscriminate collection of images can fall under the broad view of that first paragraph. I'll think about this more and perhaps propose changes if you think it's necessary. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentally, Wikipedia is a work in progress. There is no rule that says editors have to write the text before they add the images, or that they have to add good captions when they add the images, or that they have to add all of the relevant images or information (so yes: it's good to rename that section even if it is an incomplete list of developmental stages). Part of working collaboratively is figuring out how to build on the incomplete efforts of previous people. That means, for example, that (as Skeezix suggests) you rename sections from ==Gallery== to ==Developmental stages==, that you re-order the images as needed, and that you write much more useful captions, rather than saying "Oops, horizontal presentation of images currently using a 'banned' section heading in an incomplete article: delete!"

I'd also like to draw your attention to the wording of the line about section headings, since you seem to be quoting it on occasion. It's talking about what's possible for a section heading, not what's currently in use. If the images were truly such a mishmash that no alternative is possible, then IG tells you to either remove it or to revamp it (an alternative that you seem to be overlooking). But if a more descriptive section heading is possible, none of that applies. As Skeezix proved, "Gallery" is not the only possible section heading for the example we've been discussing, and consequently the existence of the bland section heading isn't a reason to delete the images. It's only a reason for you to WP:BOLDly improve the section heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)