User talk:ZergTwo
 | Contentious topics I will edit in the future | ||
| |||
Welcome!
[edit]{{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.|
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
|
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
|
Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Re: Image galleries
[edit]Information should be mostly expressed in prose than image galleries.
Why? I find the images and prose together far more engaging. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- The reason why information should not be primarily expressed through image galleries is because
Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. 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.
— WP:GALLERY - There should be no problem expanding the prose of Technical geography#Sub-branches and Technical geography#Techniques and tools beyond the information expressed in the captions. ZergTwo (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- That's not my reading of either the help page or the MOS. The issues with galleries are numerous, with the MOS specifying the problem in regards to depicting people in particular. I see by your talk page that you have a very either/or, black or white approach to Wikipedia in general, so I don't think further discussion on this will be helpful for either of us. I do want to say that I find your tagging, particularly one that is made in the middle of a DYK nomination to be most unhelpful as it will basically torpedo the nom. In the future, I suggest that instead of doing a drive-by tag campaign and taking off, you fix the problem to your liking, giving readers and editors the appearance that you fixed a problem that you yourself perceived. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Short descriptions
[edit]Re your recent edits to pi: I think maybe you are misunderstanding WP:SDNOTDEF. Short descriptions, to be useful in disambiguating searches on mobile devices (their main purpose), should be concise and non-technical rather than being a precise definition of their topic. But it is still helpful to make them as specific as possible within those constraints, rather than as vague as possible. Imagine how useless short descriptions would be if every short description was the same, "Wikipedia article". Now imagine how almost equally useless short descriptions of mathematics articles would be if every short description was the same, "Concept in mathematics". Try to avoid that. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)