Talk:Burnsall

Excess of images

Even apart from the fact that the gallery is overlapping with the infobox, the gallery of images seems excessive for such a short article. WP is an encyclopedia, not a guidebook or picturebook. Shouldn't the bulk of the photos be put a WP:Commons with a link? WP:MOSIMAGES says "Use {{Commons}} to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible. If there are too many images in a given article, a link to the Commons is a good solution. Use of galleries should be in keeping with Wikipedia's image use policy." although this last is somewhat inconclusive. I've looked at London for comparison, where each image sits alongside a paragraph of relevant text - the balance between text and images seems much more appropriate. PamD (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I "adopted" the Hebden village site which also has a large gallery Alethe's photos, and apart from making the captions more accurate I didn't like to touch them. Whilst I take your point 100%, I did feel that the rather good photos conveyed a few thousand forbidden peacock words. The Hebden article has now been given a B-class status, without the gallery being commented on. I can see much of the Burnsall Gallery fulfilling the same function once the article is filled out. --Langcliffe (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, both the Burnsall and Hebden pages now seem to becoming a public photobucket page. It's definitely going beyond what one would expect of a good encylopedia... --Langcliffe (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)