Wikipedia talk:Gallery namespace

What's wrong with categorizing them in the Category: namespace prefix p, as is currently done? &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * First, it's not really done, the images are most of the times are categorised by license of use and by using templates. But the main reason is:
 * We take example of pictures of French people. We could put articles and images about french people in the category  . But the use of images in categories would load the image and make it hard for users to search for an article. Though we could create the   , but with a new namespace, it would become  Gallery:French people , neater and better. So what do you think? CG 12:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Title
I think people will get this confused with record albums, a category with a huge number of articles in WP (that's what I thought was meant when I clicked on this page from "Current Surveys"). Instead, how about "Image category"?&mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Re: record albums - > That is exactly what I thought this was about. :) However, this could be solved by just tagging images with cats like 'Images of French people' and searching within the image namespace. Or am I missing something? --mav 18:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How about calling it 'Gallery'? I think this might be a good idea, but on the other hand the same can just as well be achieved with categories. Hmm. - ulayiti (talk)   (my RfA)  11:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

As for the name, I thought about "Image category", but it was just too long.


 * If the Album name is confusing, than I'm 100% for the Gallery. I'll move it right now. CG 12:09, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Continue discussions
Mav, you missed the whole point (please read the project page), the goal of this namespace is not to type   but  Gallery:French people . CG 18:43, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know that there's a protocol about this, but it seems to me you need a more compelling reason to create an entire new namespace than "it's neater." In fact, Namespace gives the impression that the namespaces are built into the wiki software, so it wouldn't be very easy to create a new one. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Portal namespace was recently created for the same reason: instead of writing Portal Cricket, it becomes Portal:Cricket . That's why I think that a new namespace is supposed to be not too difficult to create(I've put a note in the end of the project page). This namespace also aims at encouraging users to categorise images. Anyway, there haven't been enough discussion to decide if it's useful or not. CG 20:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

No, no, no. Next we'll have namespaces for biology, London, cricket and Swiss cheese. Articles go in the main namespace. Free images go to Wikimedia Commons. Fair use images stay here and are linked from articles. That's all we need. Ambi 07:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Man, what's this final judgement? Why do you oppose every project I start. At least this time I've made a proposal to discuss before implementing this namespace. CG 08:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * You've only proposed two. This one is a really, really bad idea, and the other was just making a good thing worse. It's not personal (although it might seem as such due to the adminship thing) - it's just these are two particularly bad ideas. Ambi 10:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll respond to Ambi about the his fear that many namespaces might be created: the MediaWiki software allows wikipedia to have 256 new namespaces (read m:Help:Namespace and the section "Custom namespaces"). And every namespace will go through the process of discussion and voting like this one. So don't worry we won't have a "Suiss cheese" unless it is useful. CG 12:23, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I like it! Its a PITA to find images for articles. Ravedave 15:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty good idea, but would probably be best suited for the Commons. Wikipedia's primary purpose is to host articles, and images are merely used to complement that. If you want free images of French people, you should go to the Commons, which is ideally suited to have all manner of programs and systems to make searching easier. Tuf-Kat 21:53, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please, consider reading the whole proposal because I've stated it: Unfortunatly (or not), Wikipedia is also using Fair use images, which Commons doesn't accept, and which they are a big part of the Image namespace. I'll say one more time, the aim of this new namespace is to put images somewhere for them to be found. Some images are temporarly removed or uploaded but not used, ans they become lost. This namespace is a way to organise them and put them in categories. CG 22:10, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Commons doesn't accept fair use images for a reason: the claim of fair use depends entirely on the circumstances that it is used in, so having them in a gallery isn't particularly useful. There is already a place for images to be put somewhere to be found, organised and put into categories, and that place is called Wikimedia Commons. Ambi 11:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * the claim of fair use depends entirely on the circumstances that it is used in, so having them in a gallery isn't particularly useful. Please clarify your idea. CG 12:34, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please read fair use, which might give you some idea. It is only legal for us to claim fair use on images in certain contexts (i.e. a publicity shot of a person may be acceptable in an article about that person, if some other criteria are also fulfilled). This does not apply to image galleries, meaning that it would be a breach of copyright for us to do what you are asking. This is also why Wikimedia Commons only has verifiably free images. Ambi 00:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read about fair use, and I know what's about. But "Gallery" is just a name, it actually refers to categories, but for images, and sorted by topics rather than by licence. I don't understand why it's a breach of copyright to organise images, or put them in categories? And don't forget that there are lists of flags, or lists of coat of arms, which are both fair use images. Are these pages illegal? CG 19:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, and wish Galleries existed now; as it is, illustrations are usually cribbed from one article to another. Septentrionalis 02:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It already does - go to Wikimedia Commons. Ambi 11:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Tuf-Kat. Categorization is probably best done at Wikipedia Commons. Yes, I know. . . what about the fair use images on Wikipedia? They are linked to articles. I think that's enough. Keeping things simple (the minimalist approach). Keep in mind a particular photo image could be used on say, Ridge Route, and also be used in Automobile Club of Southern California, Angeles National Forest, and History of California. The word text hyperlinks provide the ability to search for the allied topic, and thus the photo image. Not everything is always cut and dried the way we would like it. Categorizing photo images can be difficult per my example just given. . .they could belong to several categories, and that makes more work, not less. My two cents given with utmost respect for the proposal initiator, and all who have spoken, and will speak. --avnative 23:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you comment avnative, but I'm still defending my position :-)

First, the wikipedia policies states that images could be found by looking into the articles. But I remember (and I found it) an image that were added in the Cedar revolution article when it was a current event and much informations were added. Then after a cleanup an image was removed judging that there were a lot of photos in the article (see the older version of Cedar revolution). It's a good picture that could be considered lost. And there should be also a lot of files lost this way (see Special:Unused files), a big part of them are fair use, and thus the can't go to Commons, and they may don't have a clear title or description making it searchable. And categorising these images is going to be progressive not done by 10 users. I've thought about it, and I think if this proposal got approved a categorisation scheme should be discussed first, stating the big categories. And belonging to several categories isn't a problem, it makes the images more likely to be found, like articles. Finally, all other arguments are in the main proposal page. CG 19:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Before you go any further, I strongly suggest contracting the Wikimedia legal mailing list. Ambi 08:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair use images aren't the only images that are supposed to remain in enwiki. Maps for example, which have English text are supposed to firmly remain here. (Blank maps in commons). I don't mind a gallery tag as long as 1. It can added to a watchlist. 2) Images are automatically added to the gallery by a "category" like addition... ie by tagging it as gallery:Himalaya when uploading. I dont know the legal status of fair use images to comment on such kinds of images. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)