![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added a gallery of the paintings commissioned for the Hall, but was reverted with the rather cryptic comment "IWM image credits required; more apt format."
Here is the gallery that was removed. Perhaps there is a better format, but I thought this did the job reasonably well, given the different shapes and sizes of the paintings.
I don't understand why the current bullet list of paintings is considered a "more apt format", rather than taking the opportunity to show the actual paintings themselves. We have the images, and some readers might like to see them. Secondly, what "IWM image credits" are required? I thought that was the function of the File page. If the captions are inadequate, surely they can be improved, rather than reverting the whole thing. Can we use the images on the same basis as other images, or not? If not, shouldn't they be deleted? -- Theramin ( talk) 00:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
.. and there is no need to show the set of images on this page either. 14GTR ( talk) 08:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to die in a ditch about it either, but I have to agree with Theramin. Unaware of this discussion, I also added gallery which has been reverted a few times now. I just don't see any merit in 14GTR's argument -- this is one article that really benefits from a gallery. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 08:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added a gallery of the paintings commissioned for the Hall, but was reverted with the rather cryptic comment "IWM image credits required; more apt format."
Here is the gallery that was removed. Perhaps there is a better format, but I thought this did the job reasonably well, given the different shapes and sizes of the paintings.
I don't understand why the current bullet list of paintings is considered a "more apt format", rather than taking the opportunity to show the actual paintings themselves. We have the images, and some readers might like to see them. Secondly, what "IWM image credits" are required? I thought that was the function of the File page. If the captions are inadequate, surely they can be improved, rather than reverting the whole thing. Can we use the images on the same basis as other images, or not? If not, shouldn't they be deleted? -- Theramin ( talk) 00:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
.. and there is no need to show the set of images on this page either. 14GTR ( talk) 08:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to die in a ditch about it either, but I have to agree with Theramin. Unaware of this discussion, I also added gallery which has been reverted a few times now. I just don't see any merit in 14GTR's argument -- this is one article that really benefits from a gallery. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 08:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)