Talk:Dilim

Cast gallery
Any particular reason you don't like the cast gallery? --GRuban (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * per WP:NOTGALLERY. BOVINEBOY 2008 00:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah. Then I think you misinterpreted that policy. Despite the misleading abbreviation link, it doesn't actually say "no galleries". You won't find the word "gallery" in it. It says no images without accompanying text, which these certainly have, they are named images of specific film cast members immediately after filming. So they are quite useful in the article about the film. Pictures of the cast are quite common in articles about films, for example, here they are in some Featured Articles:Air_Mata_Iboe, American_Beauty_(1999_film), Asmara_Moerni, Anbe_Sivam. --GRuban (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They are, in fact, not common. What addition are the images providing? Also, each example you gave is significantly different than what is here. This is unnecessarily jutting into the article and giving no extra context. Having a single image with the cast, or putting them together in a collage would be much less obtrusive. Not to mention that these are poor quality images. BOVINEBOY 2008 14:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They are showing what each cast member looked like at the time they filmed the film. That's exactly what the cast pictures in the featured articles above are showing. By poor quality you mean what, exactly? --GRuban (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ?--GRuban (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They are poorly lit images, and they only show the face of the actors. I would be much less opposed if they were condensed like they are in the American Beauty article. But the way it is now, it interrupts the flow of the article, and adds nothing encyclopedic. I don't understand what the look of the actors adds to the quality of the article. BOVINEBOY 2008 11:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Poorly lit, I'll buy. I am fairly sure it's intentional, though. Since Dilim is a horror movie, so the interviews - these images are from a series of interviews, with all of the actors, specifically about Dilim, by the way - I gather that poor lighting is the point, and suspect that the whole film is like that. If you insist, I can brighten them, though, I can imagine that we want to show information more than mimic the look of the film.
 * That you don't understand the point, though - well, no offence intended, but that's not a reason for deletion. If I went around deleting everything I didn't understand, we wouldn't have many articles about High energy physics left! As I wrote above, they are here to show what the actors looked like in the film, just as in the other examples. They show the actors as close as possible to how they appeared in the film. You may not understand why that's important, but clearly I do, and clearly those who made those featured articles did.
 * I also don't see "make them into a collage" as a requirement in any policy or guideline. The article is neither so long nor so well written that the difference between having the images all stuck together and placed in one row is going to be the main issue with it.
 * So if you will accept it as a compromise I can try to brighten the images before restoring. Will you? --GRuban (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ? --GRuban (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what benefit this gallery has to this article? Other than those other articles had some images. Plus, please look at the actual articles you have linked: The images used are one or two of the cast members, or a condensed single image containing multiple images. Yours is spreading across the entire article, interrupting the flow of the article, and not content to the article. I think you would be hard pressed to find a FA, or even a good article that uses images in the way it is used here. BOVINEBOY 2008 19:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel like a broken record. It shows what the cast of the film looks like. Films are a visual medium. What the film looks like is a big deal. What the cast looks like is a big part of what the film looks like. Therefore, showing what the cast looks like adds a lot of useful information about the film. I'm perfectly willing to have you arrange the pictures in a different way, or in a different place in the article, (perhaps throughout the plot where each character is described or introduced? perhaps throughout the cast list? whatever you think; I thought putting them all together would be best, but I'm not set on that), I'm just against you deleting them wholesale. --GRuban (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But what do these specific images add to the article? That the actors have faces? That does not seem like encyclopedic information. And if a reader wants to see what a specific actor looks like, they can go to their individual article. At this point, I think it would be beneficial to hear from other voices. BOVINEBOY 2008 19:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. --GRuban (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Cast images
Should the Dilim article include these photos of the cast members?

--GRuban (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And what format should they be included, if at all? BOVINEBOY 2008 00:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Include - There is nothing wrong with the images and they add to the page. The positioning though may need some work. Generally they are on the right side vertically placed, but i'm not sure that will work with this specific pages layout of two columns. It may need to have the cast laid out with main and rest categorization so that the main can have images vertically and then with rest continue with two columns. ToeFungii (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no encyclopedic value in including this many images. I have no objections to a gallery of principle cast members but it needs to fit with the overall decor of the article. A good example of the use of cast images can be seen at Fight_Club. Betty Logan (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't include - I don't see cast photos like this on other film articles, and it doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. I think it would be something like WP:UNDUE to include cast photos on this article for no reason, and I don't see a reason. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't include - Never, in my 15+ years on Wikipedia, have I seen so many cast member pictures on 1 film's page. It's unnecessary. HOWEVER, this would be a different story if you were posting this gallery on an article that was a franchise, or an article covering multiple films, or an article about a film that has a huge following and was released worldwide with millions upon millions in gross revenue. Posting a gallery won't provide a reader more information. What you should instead focus your efforts on is adding sources to this article and adding relevant information (box office, film development, reception), as this article has none of that. Xanarki (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't include The pictures are way too many. Idealigic (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm mostly fine with the images being added, so long as they're small and well-formatted so that they don't take up undue space. Regarding the number, how much of an ensemble cast does this film have vs. just one or two main stars? If the latter, only those should be included (and still made smaller than the standard 220px). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Compromise proposal
OK, we have ranges from include to not, but seems on average people believe seven is too many. Shall we do two, per Betty Logan's suggestion, like this? --GRuban (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Could I propose something like

Puts them together, like all of the other articles using cast images. BOVINEBOY 2008 11:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment If you were to finish the article by adding more information, such as the box office section, reception/reviews, maybe the film's development, then yeah I can see that working. Otherwise, it seriously looks out of place on a bare bones article like that. Xanarki (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment-i'm good with betty's proposal. i've seen articles, but fewer than i recalled after having looked, that had around 5 pics. So fewer isn't a big deal. i also agree with the article development as stated above. ToeFungii (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still trying to understand the reasoning; is there something encyclopedic specifically about adding these cast photos to this page? Even large film pages like Avengers: Endgame don't have cast photos if there is no reason to add them. If there is a good reason for including them, I think it would look best as two photos, one over the other vertically, both in the cast section, and make them the same horizontal width if possible. Best, Ikjbagl (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, that there isn't anything encyclopedic about adding in the images; however, as I said before, if more content was added to the article to make it more informative, then maybe, the 2 pictures would be reasonable. But until then, I would suggest to not add them. Xanarki (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll use User:Bovineboy2008's proposal. --GRuban (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)