Talk:Towel animal

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 17 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Practicingtoedit, Gkc1021. Peer reviewers: Samjgreer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

expand article
A curious little subject that could be expanded in interesting ways. For instance, how do people learn how to do this? Word of mouth, personal creativity, books? Are there particular types of towels and/or towel conditions necessary? Are they seen anywhere except on cruise ships? Any connection to balloon animals? Stan 19:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Images
The two images are very similar. One image does add to the article, but does two help? I am removing the second image, as I consider it redundant. --525252a 04:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

excessive image gallery
I've re-removed the image gallery, per site policy and guidelines.

The gallery in this article is far excessive for such a small article. Per WP:NOTREPOSITORY, Wikipedia is not an image repository. This is also stated at WP:IUP, which goes on to state "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."

A link to Commons:Category:Towel animals already exists in the article, which is more than sufficient. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * One might state a reason in TALK before removing a major portion of what is clearly a work in active progress (I know that all wikipedia areticles are "works in progress") but this was getting heavy editing every day recently. Simply state your goals and then let it be done in a reasonable manner rather than dumping everything.  It is much easier for me to edit and move figures when the links remain in the document.


 * Having contacted several of the readers of this article in the last few days, (and note the spike in readers when the pictures went in) what they appreciated was the demonstration of creativity that was presented in an encyclopedic manner. While you feel that the link to Commons is enough, none of the casual readers knew what that meant.  Thus, they miss the other pictures.  You have to know your audience and for a fluff item like this, the audience is pretty non-sophisticated.  What you consider to be "far excessive for such a small article" may not be to others.  Is a remedy to make the article longer?  Can I put back one picture per paragraph that I add?
 * Littelinfo (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the function of the gallery device if not to add additional pictures that are rlelvant to an article? When you deleted the entire gallery - which I had pared down - you failed to remove the references to the gallery in the text.  Littelinfo (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave a clear reason in the initial edit summary when I reverted your recent addition. As you restored the content without discussion or explaination, I then proceeded to start a talk page discussion when I re-removed it.  We can get into a tangent discussion related to WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN, etc, but it's not productive at this point.
 * Any spike in viewership of the page can be directly attributed to you and I, as well as other editors who monitor recent changes for issues looking at the page to view each of our edits. Wikipedia has available policies and guidelines that encourage consistent presentations of material (some of which I identified in my post above).  Original research with off-wiki persons certainly does not outwheigh considerations of those policies and guidelines.  Feel free to review WP:MOS and WP:IUP, which are two important considerations.
 * There is no fixed number of images - but in general, images should illustrate the topic. Additional images should provide additional insight not already provided by existing images.  A simple gallery of variations does not do this, as there is no new insight provided by the additional variations on the same concept - instead it simply turns the article into a photo-book which is contrary to both WP:IUP and WP:NOT.  Other venues, such as the mediawiki commons, exist for that type of content.
 * If you disagree with my interpretation of site guidelines/policies, or feel there's a strong case for WP:IAR to apply, we can pursue one of the dispute resolution processes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly willing to put far more into this than I. Thank you for your thoroughly referenced opinion and the reference to WP:IUP. Under Galleries, it is stated "See 1750–1795 in fashion for an example of a good use of galleries." I did and do not understand how you can differentiate my use from the use there. I admit that I might have spent a bit more time preparng better captions to illustrate certain features that each displayed (as per the guidelines). I still believe you to be wrong in this subject which is a matter of interpretation, but I yield to your superior energy and will move on to other subjects. End conversation at least from my side. Littelinfo (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the example at 1750–1795 in fashion, the body of text is much more expanded, so the galleries do not overwhelm the text. Also, each image illustrates elements identified in specific text that follows - each being specific fashion variations stepping through different time periods.  I could argue that one or two of the galleries there could be trimmed some, but for the most part, they are quite illustrative of differing elements.
 * On the otherhand, in this article, the existing images illustrate the concept adequately - more images will not expand on the understanding of the text - and would quickly outweigh the little text that exists. If someone wants a link to more images, the existing linking provides that option. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)