Talk:List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 4

Image Galleries

Image gallery

I've inserted a gallery of images of various Latter Day Saint churches that I've found on the Wikipedia. I've been told that Wikipedia is trying to get away from separate image galleries like this one, but I thought it was better to do it this way than to insert them throughout the article and mess up the continuity and ascetics of the boxes. This seems to be the best way I can think of to present these images, given what we're working with, here; if anyone else has a better way to do so, please feel free to implement it! - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with what you have done.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've also added a gallery of factional leaders; I'm trying to focus both galleries on founders of factions (first gallery), and one photo of each faction's HQ's or most notable structure (second gallery). Glad you like them! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking good so far. I have already used one of the images you found that I never knew existed. I put the short creak school house image into Short Creek Community.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 01:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a great addition. Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to see if I can't get out this coming weekend (God-willing) and get some photos of Zion's Branch, a Restoration Branch church, the Fettingite (Bronsonite) and Fettingite (DeWolf) churches, The Restoration Church of Latter Day Saints, the Remnant Church of Latter Day Saints, and maybe a few others (including larger, better photos of the Temple Lot and Cutlerite churches) here in Independence. I'll upload them to this article when I'm done, plus to each individual church's article, as applicable. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Image Gallery II

I got some photos taken of Latter Day Saint churches in the Independence area, and have added them to the photo gallery. I apologize for having to change the gallery's format, but I couldn't get them to "work" the other way (probably entirely my stupidity, rather than any problems with the other format--you've got to be smarter than the computer program you're working with, and with ME, that's never a "given"!), so I got it this way. I hope no offense was taken; if there was, I sincerely apologize. Hope you all like the new photos! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I love the new photos. No offense was taken. I went ahead and put it in the other format so that it would meet the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement/archive1 requirements of haveing "Alt Text".--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all your work, here. I'm reasonably good at composing and finding references, but the exact "nuts and bolts" of formatting, etc. escapes me. It's awesome that there's others out there who are good at that end of it. You've definitely made it look ten times better than it was! - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As you called it, the image gallery got tagged in the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement/archive1. Although the person said that it wouldn't in itself stop him from supporting a "Featured List" designation, I have come up with a solution that I'm wavering on. I both like and dislike my idea, so I did a basic mockup at User:ARTEST4ECHO/Sandbox. Again, I see good and bad in this idea, so please give me your input. I am out of time today, but I think you can get the basic idea of what I was doing.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 21:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I took a look, and with all due respect to what you're trying to do, I think it looked better the other way. I do understand the reviewer's concern, but I don't think this is the way to go. The only way I can think of other than the way we've had it (with everything in two galleries at the bottom) would be to incorporate the images into the table itself; i.e., have a column for images of founders, and one for images of churches. But then, you've got a bunch of blank spaces or "none"'s in there, because we don't have nearly as many images as we would have spaces (as each entry would have a new space for a photo of its founder, and one for a representative religious structure). That wouldn't bother me much, but I know it would bother a lot of other folks out there. I really don't know what to do; it seems (to me, at least, since you've asked my opinion, here) that the way we've had it is the best way to go. Not ideal, perhaps, but better than any other way I can think of at the moment. That, at least, is my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The more I thought about it last night, the more I agree and the more I disliked what I did. I was just trying something. Like I said, I wasn't convinced myself. I'm glad to have a secound opionin, and I'm not going to continue with this.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of images

Just wondering: why were some of the images removed from the image gallery of LDS factional founders? No problems here, per se, just curious.... - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I just understood why. So there's no way we can use those images? - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that no matter what we do to address one issue, another is going to be used to remove the images, and not just by Hammersoft, but all the editors who work alot with Fair use images. I think that no matter what we do, someone is going to find some reason to take them off. I see Hammersoft side to all three issues he listed here. However, my POV is that these apply only using his POV. The problem I see is that all Fair use policies are kind of POVish. They use terms like “Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?” Hammersoft thinks it could, I don’t. Whose right? I don’t know. A lot of editors, not just Hammersoft are going to come along and agree with Hammersoft and remove them. Therefore and unfortunately, I'm going to say, I don't think so. All this is going to do is start an edit war.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 20:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be one of those editors who works with fair use images from time to time, and as far as "whose right?" If there's a disagreement then it's pretty much a matter of getting policy-based consensus here and/or at WP:Non-free content review. In this particular case you have a gallery of faction leaders, and Wikipedia:Non-free content states "The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8)." Since they're not being talked about here, there's really no context. I hope that helps to explain a little bit. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see what you guys are saying, and I certainly don't want to start an edit war, having just emerged from a huge deletion debate over an article I started on the Church of Christ (Assured Way)! However, I might observe that this is a list, not an article, and these persons (the ones whose images have been deleted) are mentioned on this list, so to me it would seem they are being "talked about here" in the context of this being a list and not a full article. But I have no knowledge whatsoever on this "fair use" thing, so I'll defer to those who know better than I (which in this particular case, is just about everyone!!). - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Image Gallery III

For a Third time, the inclusion of an image Gallery got noticed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement/archive1. So I made another attempt to eliminate the gallery. I realized that no one really attempted to put the images into the boxes. So I did at User:ARTEST4ECHO/Sandbox. There are a few that I don't like (see TLC and Whitmerite) and I know alot of information had to be dumped, but I think with a little work this may work. However, I would like all your input before I actually adjust the article.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an innovative approach. I'm not so sure about the portraits in the "organized by" column, but I do like the pictures of the churches in the "notes" section. Let's see what other reviewers say. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you dislike about the portraits in the "organized by" column. Maybe I can come up with a better way. I did just try an alternative way of showing the images. Tell me what you think--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the images as they are right now are the best we can make them. I would very much oppose the removal (if this is what was being advocated by Dabomb87) of the "organized by" images, as they directly relate to the contents of this list as much as do the photos of the churches. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Dabomb87 thinks they need to be removed. It's the use of a Gallery that has been an issue, as you know, and how I actually went about putting the images into the boxes. I tried to come up with another way and you can see it at User:ARTEST4ECHO/Sandbox. FYI, I don't plan on changing this page until we have a strong consensus, especially including you (Ecjmartin), since you put alot of work into the Galleries, and I trust your input. I'm just trying something different.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, there. I checked out your sandbox version, and I must say that I like it the way we've had it for the past several weeks (as I think you do, as well). It would be different if we had photos for all, or even a vast majority, of the churches/leaders, but since we don't, I still think it looks much better the way we've had it. I've never really understood this whole "we hate galleries" thing on Wikipedia, anyway. No offense whatsoever intended to those in that camp, but I've never understood the problem, as long as the gallery is tastefully constructed, which is definitely the case here. But that's just my opinion, and I respect the right of others to think differently about it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that it would be much easier and better looking to include the image in the tables if we had more of them. I think the reason that people want them in the article instead of Galleries is then the images will be seen as you go threw the page, not just at the bottom. I agree with this idea and I think it would look nicer to have the images in the tables. If you look only at the "Josephite: Notes” section at my sandbox, I think it's actually nice. Most of the Group have a photo of there meeting hall. However, the fact of the matter is, we don't have images for most the building or founders and we probably won’t for a while. I spent a lot of time looking for images to use for the founders. All those images that I have found were "Fair Use" images, meaning they can't be on this page. The only reason we have so many images of the building is that Ecjmartin took them himself, and put them in the PD. I have to admit that I’m not convinced that there is anyway of putting the images in the tables. However, I am trying so that we can put this to rest one way or another. I have noticed that at Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Gallery, User:Killervogel5 (an administrator) and User:WFCforLife both agree that this page may be an exception to the “We don’t like Galleries” rule, in this case. Given all this, I just don't see a good way to incorperate the images into the boxes. I might agree that there may be enough building photos to put them in the note, elimiating one Gallary, but to be honest, I just don't know. If I had to make the call all by myself, I would leave it as is, only becuse I don't want to make such a huge change without some kind of agreement with others. If it an't broke, don't fix it.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 21:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of galleries, but given your well-reasoned arguments and the consensus among other editors who have opined on the issue, I will not let this issue prevent this list from receiving its well-deserved FL star (cross-posting this on FLC). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I to am not a fan of Galleries ether, but as I said before, I just don't see a better way to do it at the presnt time.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks very much for understanding. I understand the anti-gallery argument, but I agree with ARTIST here that there's just not another viable way to do it in this particular article. I appreciate your understanding and "willingness to bend." - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible

One of the issues that keeps coming up regarding the Featured list status is the use of a "gallery". While it really is the only viable option at this point, I was thinking that it would be nice to put a link next to the names of the "Founder" that jumps you to there image. For Example Joseph Smith Jr. would appear as:

Joseph Smith Jr.^image

However, the "Image" link would jump to his photo in the Gallery.
I did some experimenting in my sandbox with the "anchor" template, but I haven't been able to figure it out. Can anyone suggest how to go this?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Alpheus Cutler photo

Anyone who knows how to insert photos into the leaders gallery (I obviously don't, LOL!), please feel free to go to the Alpheus Cutler page and get the photo I posted there for insertion into the gallery. Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I will be more than happy to help, but I think some discussion is needed on the accuracy of the image. When I found this image a long time ago, I was not sure it is him. The image was named as other people in a number of places inculding, but not limited to, "John Alpheus Cutler" which I haven't been able to establish is him.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. Let's leave it out, since we can't know for sure. Another possibile approach, at least for the Alpheus Cutler and Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) articles (where I also posted this image) would be to captionize it with something like: "Image believed to be that of Alpheus Cutler," "Image sometimes identified as Alpheus Cutler," or something similar, since it's been id'ed as him in other places. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)