Talk:Deception Pass Bridge

Gallery
appears to the gallery of 3 photos that I recently  to the article. The infobox is too long to add any additional photos to the article, and there are clearly relevant ones. WP:GALLERY says "[they] should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." There is not space, and I think a gallery is an improvement to the article. –– FormalDude   talk   11:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is already a link to the Commons gallery that provides greater benefit to the article than the gallery, which has been chosen for purely aesthetic reasons. The second paragraph of WP:GALLERY is pretty clear on the need for a selection criteria, clear and concise reasoning, and only including galleries when there's a subject that cannot be described in text. A bridge with a conventional design is not going to be difficult to describe in text.  Sounder Bruce  21:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We can link to the Commons gallery and have a gallery of our own, there's no rule against that. The only reason we can't include the Commons gallery here is because it would be excessive at seven photos. Three photos though is fine, and I used those three specifically because of their relevance, not their aesthetics–though I am open to other suggestions. WP:GALLERY also says some subjects easily lend themselves to image-heavy articles for which image galleries are suitable. A historic landmark bridge is most certainly one of those subjects. –– FormalDude   talk   05:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks very much for the suggestions. My only reservation on adding an image without a gallery is MOS:SANDWICH. For this reason, I do think your second recommendation is best, and I'd propose the following images for a new gallery:

Relevance: Also pinging to see what they think. –– FormalDude   talk   22:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Adds a perspective not currently in the article.
 * 2) Shows the relation between the two bridges and where they meet.
 * 3) Illustrates the strait and the westward view from the bridge.


 * Fourth opinion: Would it be possible to shrink the infobox(es), making room for more pictures along the text? There seems to be a bit of redundancy between the main infobox and the NRHP infobox.  The coordinates are given twice, the highway is given twice, construction period is given twice, stating "U.S." is redundant, etc. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I just removed much of the redundancy but it doesn't look like that'll resolve the issue of making room for another image. –– FormalDude   talk   23:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Another option might be to use a collage of images in the infobox, as with Seattle. I'd limit it to 3 images. You'd have to pick the images carefully so they'd display at small size. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @FormalDude thanks, I think this looks great! I'd maybe use "towards" instead of ", you can see" in the second one to avoid using "you" but I think it's overall informative and relevant. I know the third opinion wasn't about redundancy but I'd personally prefer the facts in the infobox for consistency and clarity (e.g. right now the "total length" is in both the infobox and in the article list). @Reidgreg the collage could be a good option too! Although from my perspective it would add more angles too but less value - this gallery would tell more of a story. And a collage makes sense to save space on a 120,000 characters article like Seattle but I feel like article space is not the issue for this little bridge. Would it be an acceptable consensus to move forward with this gallery for now? I'm sure this article will expand over time and it might then be possible to review the layout. Just thinking that the time invested debating the layout of 3 pictures could be used to work on expanding the article itself or other articles :) AlanTheScientist (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good points, I went ahead and boldy added the gallery and changed the caption per your suggestion. Anyone can feel free to edit or revert though. –– FormalDude   talk   19:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)