Talk:Paterson, New South Wales

Deletion of images in gallery by AussieLegend
AussieLegend, Concerning your edit of Revision as of 11:31, 18 March 2012, I wish to bring the following to your attention:

1) 'Consider contacting the user who uploaded the image, telling them of your concerns. You may be able to resolve the issue at this point.' This would have been a polite and courteous thing to do in the first instant. 2) I recognise you believe that 'galleries are discouraged'. However, you appear to be misinformed as the full text of the sentence in WP:IG states 'Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged'. In no way does my addition of images to the existing gallery constitute an article 'consisting entirely or primarily' of images. Your deletion of the images is therefore unjustified, IMHO.

3) WP:IG 'the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.' That is my purpose, to illustrate aspects of Paterson and its immediate environs and its experience and impact of flooding. Your deletion of the images is therefore unjustified, IMHO.

4) WP:IG 'The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.' This the images indeed do on several bases, including: landscape, topography, village in relation to valley structure, formation of river in relation to village. These should be self evident to any person examining the pictures and who are genuinely interested in the topic of Paterson. Your deletion of the images is therefore unjustified, IMHO.

5) WP:IG 'Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled'. I concede some improvement can be made here, but such need for improvement does not justify deletion of the pictures. I refer you to point one.

5) WP:IG 'Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.' As I have done, with the pictures of the bridge, river and landscape, for example, show a range of conditions that the people of Paterson experience on a semi-regular basis. These pictures allow thoughtful WP reader to compare and contrast features and events at Paterson. Your deletion of the images is therefore unjustified, IMHO.

6) Furthermore, if you do believe that the gallery should not be included then please advise why you have left any pictures at all in a gallery. You modus operandi in this regard may help me understand your logic in chosing some and not others. IMHO, your deletion of my images and retention of the previous images fails the test for non-contradiction; and so your deletion of the images is therefore unjustified, IMHO.

I could say much more but will refrain. I invite you, nonetheless, after re-familiarising yourself with WP:IG, to respond to the above. If you are convinced of your case then you need to state your case and not take half-sentences from WP:IG out of context to justify what appears to be reversions without regard to the thoughts, concerns and good faith efforts of this editor.

It is my intention in due course to revert your thus-far unjustified edit. Benyoch (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Consider contacting the user who uploaded the image, telling them of your concerns" (etc) applies to deletion of the images themselves, not of the galleries. The images that you added don't "illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images", they're just a collection of images that don't add anything encyclopaedic to the article. None of the images tell you anything about Paterson itself. They're just landscapes and a couple of bridge pictures which, as you should know, could have been taken anywhere in the region. As per WP:IG I've removed the gallery completely and added Commons category to the article, which is the preferred way to handle multiple items of media. As per WP:IG, "Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the Commons, Commons-inline, or Commons category templates." WP:IG also says " One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons." This is clearly applicable to the image gallery. Regarding me being "misinformed", the text you've quoted is in the third paragraph of WP:IG; it is not the main point by any means. WP:IG applies to all image galleries, not just articles that only consist of image galleries.
 * To your final statement, ie "It is my intention in due course to revert your thus-far unjustified edit", I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)