Talk:Albizia odoratissima

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, 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." This is not "a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images" as you so blithely put it - all of these images are pertinent to the subject, necessary to illustrate the species' various aspects, and in accordance with the MoS. I have not found anything in

I have not mentioned

MOS:IMAGES. Rkitko ^(talk) 19:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Again you are cherry-picking - The MoS is quite happy with placing images away from the relevant text viz. "If an article has many images—so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself—you can use a gallery." [1]. There is no consensus against placing images below the References in the form of a gallery. Paul venter (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permitting the use of a gallery is not the same as allowing galleries to be shoved beneath the references. Look around at the best practices in all

WP:IG even doesn't do this. You'd have to wonder why that is. Perhaps a better question is why you'd want to display the images this way. What motivates your obstinance in the face of consensus and the prevailing common use? The intent of the phrase I quoted from the MOS was to keep images with the relevant text. Your choice to ignore that pushes the images away from that text and separates it in a strange format that only you seem to prefer. It is odd that you've chosen this to battle over, but acquiesced on other items, such as infoboxes and headings. Perhaps, again, it will take time and more editors to tell you the exact same thing I've said above to convince you of consensus. Again, if you're willing to fight to change it, the appropriate place is at the guideline talk pages, not on individual articles. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 19:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The galleries have not been "shoved" just anywhere - the position has been chosen after much deliberation. If the gallery is placed higher in the article it is deformed by your infobox. If you can point out a plant article with infobox where a gallery has attained a happy and informative position, it would be a good starting point for a layout discussion. "Obstinance"? - I presume you mean obstinacy? Do try to be polite. Stop wondering about why I think it's a good way of displaying images - the reason is simply one of presenting images in a way that the average reader can easily access and understand. As for being a format that only I prefer presumes that you or someone else has done a survey to establish editorial opinion on this issue - I think not. Finally, there is no guideline against what I am doing, so that I am not crusading for a change. If you feel otherwise then it is up to you to rally your supporters once more. Paul venter (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]