Talk:Achiam

Rationale
I removed at all the "Presentation of the work" section, which clearly violates the WP:Original research guidelines. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to think this material is OR -- more likely ideas from one of the works listed in the bibliography. I'm restoring that material and adding  .  Also, I don't know of any policy or guideline that says galleries must be at Commons -- only that an article should not be primarily a gallery, and that the images should be varied and add to the reader's understanding.  Since this article is about an artist, a gallery of a variety of his works is entirely appropriate.  See WP:IG and  which it references (a good example of an article with not just one but multiple galleries).  If you think I'm mistaken in this, please explain. EEng (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

''Galleries should add somrthing to the knowledge and this one looks mostly a "discriminate collection" of his works (see WP:IG). The task is well performed by the many images alred in'' (edit summary by user Attilios removing the "gallery" images a second time)
 * Exactly how many (and which) images strike the appropriate balance between showing the reader the range of the artist's works, on the one hand, and overloading the article, on the other, is a matter of judgment, though I agree that the full set there originally is probably too much, without better organization at any rate. (If, say, they were arranged to trace the development of the artist's style over time, all of them might be justified.)  Or maybe not: my interpretation of WP:IG's injunction to avoid "similar or repetitive" images is that there shouldn't be 7 elevations of Notre Dame for no particular reason; the Achiam photos are of quite different works.  But again, this is all a matter of judgment, and I don't think either of us is the best person to make a judicious pruning, since I at least know little about modern sculpture and nothing about Achiam. The question then, is how to leave the article until some Achiam expert volunteers for that task.  WP:IG offers two possibilities: nonconforming galleries "should generally either be improved in accordance with [guidelines in WP:IG] or moved to Wikimedia Commons"; a bit later this is restated: "the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons."  Not among actions suggested is wholesale deletion of the entire gallery from the article without moving them to another home, thereby likely orphaning the photos and making it probable that the postulated expert, when he finally appears, won't even know they exist. There is a template for cases such as this  which flags the (potential) problem for the attention of someone who has the time to fix it, without immediately and needlessly consigning the images (essentially) to the dustbin.  Someone went to some trouble to upload them and I don't think it's appropriate to negate that work given that the "harm" of leaving the images in for now is just that the article looks a little image-heavy. Radical deletion hurts far more than it helps. Finally, your addition of the  tag is also inappropriate.  Aside from the fact that it's in the wrong location, it's false: a bibliography is a set of references -- the section heading "References" is magic and needn't appear. The tag I had already added, asking for inline cites, is what was needed. If you still think I'm wrong, please explain here.  Out of courtesy I'll wait a bit to hear from you before proceeding as outlined above. After that, please don't delete the images again without addressing the points I've made above. The summary for your original deletion was "Galleries must be at Commons," which I assume you now realize to be an oversimplification.  EEng (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No response being offered, I'm restoring the material.  EEng (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)