Talk:Fish market

Proposal to omit the galleries from the article

I propose that we omit the image galleries from the article or substantially reduce them. The policy WP:Gallery says that "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", and that "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made". This is not observed here. The gallery sections are simply aggregations of photos of current fish markets or paintings of historic fish markets. Most look about the same, as one might expect. We might retain some images, but they would need more informative captions, explaining what we see here and what we learn from it.  Sandstein  10:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You say, the "gallery sections are simply aggregations of photos of current fish markets or paintings of historic fish markets. Most look about the same...". Well that is purely in the eye of the beholder, and is certainly not how I experience those, sometimes hard won images. There is a depth of history embedded in those paintings and photos that cannot be simply captured in text. I see a lot of contrasting stories as one moves across the images, and I am surprised that you apparently do not, and are pushing to dispose of them in such a cavalier manner. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That may be so, but images (like text) must serve an instructional or informative purpose rather than being merely decorative or evoking impressions, and if these images can serve such purposes then they must be captioned and presented better and be embedded in the context of the article's prose, such as to illustrate what the text describes. It's unprofessional just to throw them together in a gallery and rely on the "ooh" factor on the part of the reader. I'll request a third opinion.  Sandstein  10:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The images are not "merely decorative" nor is it "unprofessional" to present them as a group. That is an emotive and unprofessional way to present your position. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's discuss one example. What information does the image Joachim Beuckelaer - The Four Elements- Water - Google Art Project.jpg (captioned "Dutch fish market (Joachim Beuckelaer ca. 1533–1575)") convey, and what additional information is conveyed by the image Jan Brueghel the Elder - Fischmarkt am Ufer eines Flusses.JPG (captioned "Dutch fish market (Jan Brueghel the Elder 1568–1625") and the three other paintings of fish markets from this period?  Sandstein  11:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There are always going to be shades of difference or detail which are going to appear in different images. Even a gallery of different pictures of the same species of daisy are going to show different information (stages of maturity, elements that cannot be seen due to angle or different lighting, variations in color, etc., or to quote Bilbo Baggins, "in every wood in every spring there is a different green"). Ultimately, however, this issue is an aspect of the undue weight policy: is the additional information added by a gallery of images of sufficient importance to justify the relative amount of space that the gallery takes up in the article? The additional information raised by Epipelagic, "a depth of history embedded in those paintings and photos ... a lot of contrasting stories as one moves across the images," does not seem to me to meet that test. (And let me note that without further explanation, "a lot of contrasting stories" cannot really be taken to mean anything other than "the pictures show a lot of different stuff.") It's to be bourne in mind that the policy cited by Sandstein makes it quite clear that conveyance of information in Wikipedia is to be primarily by text and that images are to be used only, individually, to illustrate the text or, in galleries, to "illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text". If historical differences between fish markets are of sufficient importance to this article that they need to be addressed, then they need to be first addressed as much as possible in the text and only then the question can be raised of whether there are elements of those differences which cannot be adequately addressed in the text and must be addressed by a gallery. (1750–75 in Western fashion, mentioned in the policy, is an excellent example of that: the historical differences in fashion are first described in the text and then illustrated with galleries.) But putting in the gallery and then justifying it by saying that the gallery shows the history puts the cart before the horse. And the argument that I just made begs the question of whether the historical differences in fish markets are of sufficient importance under UNDUE to even be included in the text. If deleted, the galleries will be preserved in the article history and can be restored if the text is added and if it can be shown the galleries add anything of sufficient weight that the text doesn't add. All this stands true for the "contrasting stories," too, if it can be explained what they are. At the present time, however, they don't add enough and my !vote is that they need to go. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC) PS: Just let me note that though I'm here because I saw this listed at Third Opinion where I'm a regular volunteer, I'm joining in as "just another editor" rather than giving a 3O under the auspices of that project, even though doing so may raise the Third Opinion Paradox. — TM 16:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! If no additional objections are raised, I'll remove the images again. It's not that I don't like them, they are quite interesting, but as discussed above they should only be used to complement the text.  Sandstein  16:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)