Talk:Peltophorum pterocarpum

Too many images for such a small article

Whether or not they're encyclopedic is not a concern. There's a link to the Commons category where these images are found. A gallery is not supposed to be a way for the images to be shoehorned into a small space. When the article is expanded, the images could be added back. See WP:IG, specifically the second paragraph. As for the lead image on the left, that should be removed, too. MOS:IMAGES says not to shove text between two images. I'm inclined to agree that doing so wrecks the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the logic behind the policies but think that they are not applicable in this case. The images are encyclopaedic and placed in a gallery as per acceptable wikipedia practices. Commons is a repository and contains all the free images available. However Commons does not purport to be encyclopaedic which WP does and a person looking for packaged information does not quite find it there. The encyclopaedic images in Commons are accompanied by many others and some expertise is required to distinguish images of value from the others. That apart, cutting away some images in a stub which collectively give a better idea of how the tree looks is reducing the article's usability. Sort of throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

Since your and my points of view are nuanced versions of the same argument that information should be selected for value and selectively placed to enhance that value, I request you to let this issue lie and let me thicken up the article so that the images don't seem so out of place. AshLin (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree that placing sometimes random images in a gallery improves an article in any way. While WP:IG does note that images can be encyclopedic, what everyone overlooks is that it specifically states that such galleries "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 here can adequately be described by text. And by the time we have enough text, the images will be able to fit neatly in to complement the text, not stand in place for it. That being said, since you're improving the article anyway, I'll leave it be. I've had a similar dispute at Teak at spent the better part of the evening buffing up that article, but that gallery was much larger and images more redundant than this one. I was actually following the trail of an IP editor who has apparently uploaded hundreds of photos to Commons and then slips on over here to place all of those new images into galleries on the corresponding Wikipedia article. Seems like self-promotion and given the nature of WP:IG, I was getting rid of just a handful of them.

Good luck on building up this article. Maybe if you expand it 5X you could put it up for DYK. Rkitko ^(talk) 04:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes. I have a handful of mid-20th Century resources so lets see how well I fare. AshLin (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)