Talk:Burnsall

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Burnsall is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Excess of images edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Even apart from the fact that the gallery is overlapping with the infobox, the gallery of images seems excessive for such a short article. WP is an encyclopedia, not a guidebook or picturebook. Shouldn't the bulk of the photos be put a WP:Commons with a link? WP:MOSIMAGES says "Use {{Commons}} to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible. If there are too many images in a given article, a link to the Commons is a good solution. Use of galleries should be in keeping with Wikipedia's image use policy." although this last is somewhat inconclusive. I've looked at London for comparison, where each image sits alongside a paragraph of relevant text - the balance between text and images seems much more appropriate. PamD (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I "adopted" the Hebden village site which also has a large gallery Alethe's photos, and apart from making the captions more accurate I didn't like to touch them. Whilst I take your point 100%, I did feel that the rather good photos conveyed a few thousand forbidden peacock words. The Hebden article has now been given a B-class status, without the gallery being commented on. I can see much of the Burnsall Gallery fulfilling the same function once the article is filled out. --Langcliffe (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

On second thoughts, both the Burnsall and Hebden pages now seem to becoming a public photobucket page. It's definitely going beyond what one would expect of a good encylopedia... --Langcliffe (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Add topic