Wikipedia talk:Gallery pages

New
While closing out the log for cent, I tried to make sense of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries. It seems clear to me that current consensus does permit some image galleries; this does appear to be contradicted by WP:NOT. It's going to take a little more work to amend this longstanding policy.

As usual when I write policy, I have striven for a neutral statement of the current consensus plus some commonsense technical restrictions. As always, I release the proposal to the community in hopes it will be edited heavily and discussed (civilly!) at length.

I suggest that the sooner this proposal is elevated to guideline status, the sooner it will become feasible to amend WP:NOT. With this in mind, have fun, play nice, and edit this page. John Reid 05:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reactions

 * I basically concur with the proposal as stated. Good work here. Badbilltucker 19:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Two recent userspace gallery debates
For reference in discussing this guideline as it applies to userspace galleries, here are two recent debates on the subject involving large userspace galleries (20 to 200+ images) of material, much of it deemed pornographic:
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery -- gallery deleted
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPorn -- undecided as of the date of this post. This MfD actually encompasses 4 different user's galleries lumped together into one MfD:
 * User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPorn
 * User talk:Seingalt
 * User:Markaci/Nudity
 * User:Cyde/Weird pictures

These discussions included discussions of various Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
 * WP:NOT
 * WP:USER
 * WP:POINT
 * Profanity
 * Tendentious editing (essay, not a guideline)
 * WP:C
 * WP:COPYVIO
 * WP:IUP

Ultimately, what is an acceptable limit for a userspace gallery? 20 images? 200 images? And what about content? Leaving aside questions about pornography (Wikipedia is not censored), there's relevance. Finally, should user galleries encourage others to make their own additions of images? --A. B. 18:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * MfD/WikiPorn closed keep.


 * Here's the specific closure language:
 * "The result of the debate was keep, as no consensus. Closing comments: This really should have been taken to the policy level for wider community input, since this effort may be used to set standards by setting a precedent, as well as drawing one from the Work Gallery AfD which I somewhat controversially closed as delete. This goes outside the scope of discussion of miscellany entries for deletion in this case, since the userspace and webspace usage prohibition guideline/policy are too vague on this issue. I note that John Reid had created Galleries five hours before this AfD was listed, so five days later (well, actually less than four, but who isn't counting?), I am directing your attention to its pertinent Gallery section."


 * Common sense is the touchstone. While NOT censored, WP is not primarily a porno site. Neither is it Flickr. But it's very hard to draw a line excluding free images from a user gallery. At some point, yes, you have to ask: Is this user just jacking off? If that kind of strong language is supported, well, common sense tells you the gallery is questionable. But you really have to go a long way to get there. After all, the images are already in articlespace. Nobody made me look.


 * Users are always permitted to invite other users to edit their own subpages. I don't think there's any point discussing that. If I'm missing some issue, feel free to fill me in. John Reid 13:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, lots of users invite others to edit their own subpages. I don't have any problem with that when it's adding text within the bounds of policies and guidelines. But what about when there are 100 images and growing. As I see it, there's a problem with that. I don't know at what size big galleries become a problem, but I believe such a gallery seems to cross multiple aspects of the WP:NOT line sooner.


 * As for common sense being the capstone, I still think a guideline is needed. The 2 MfDs included some similar issues, yet closed with different outcomes. I never thought about the exact definition of "common sense" before, but I think it probably implies at least some general consensus (as in "common"). So I respectfully disagree, John -- I think more guidance is needed. A lot of time was wasted on these MfDs.


 * Having said that, I very much appreciate your taking the initiative on this guideline. --A. B. 15:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you guys try to inact a policy that limits non-informative image use. Images just for the sake if images. "Using media for purposes other than informing the reader, our main goal as a encyclopedia, should be avoided. Blatent and excessive use of media in this way may be subject to removal and/or deletion." Hmm? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think an argument with respect to pornographic content is doomed to failure. If someone had MFD'ed a gallery of 193 kitties, I'd have said delete as well. Basing it on encyclopedic potential/justification, page usage (if that counter used in the second MFD is going to be of any use, finding galleries with unusual viewing load will be it), and galleries that have resisted efforts to trim them/remove fair use images will probably work best. -- nae'blis 19:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think most of the folks that voted to delete did so for some other reason than pornography. --A. B. 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know/believe that, but several of the people who opposed the MfD didn't seem to think so. -- nae'blis 14:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that none of those galleries help in making the encyclopedia, and that if people want a bunch of pretty pictures of kittens or flowers or full frontal nudity there are plenty of other websites for that purpose. That said, I'd say that a lengthy debate on the matter is also not really useful for making an encyclopedia.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why anybody opposes any userspace gallery. Let's just say -- at a ridiculous extreme -- that I created a userspace gallery that included every single free-license image on the project. The darn thing would stall out before loading fully, of course; but a random selection of, oh, 1000 images might load, given time. Tell me what harm this would do. Please don't speak of the microcosts of storing the page itself or the bandwidth required to deliver it to me; speak of some social harm done -- unless you can show the technical costs rise above insignificance. John Reid 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, the Costs section explains that thumbnails have to be generated each time a particular size of an existing image is requested. This means that galleries can be generating additional thumbnails and taking up server space. The social harm is probably the "social networking" aspect alluded to in the Userbox fiasco; scope creep is always a risk with such a large, unstructured project. -- nae'blis 16:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Commons
The standing rule has been that commons is for galleries, and wikipedia is to use images to support the text, rather than for their own sake, it seems like. What reason is there for ever not putting a gallery onto commons instead of wikipedia? If it's fair use images, they shouldn't be in a gallery anyway. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

List vs. Gallery
The key distinction between a list and a gallery is that the element of the list is not the image itself, but the subject of the image, and the image is being used to illustrate it, rather than as something to look at in itself. List of United States Presidents or List of nuclear tests does this well. Lists are acceptable on wikipedia because they are indexes of things, but galleries are just indexes of images (which is the purpose of commons). I don't think we should be encouraging people on wikipedia to create galleries and then hope to turn them into lists later; they should just make a list to begin with. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree. A list is a gallery with more text; a gallery is a list with less text. See WP:HORSE. The quibble over what a given image and any accompanying text points to is metaphysical, a question that rages through all philosophy. The map is not the terrain, c'est pas un pipe, &c. &c. The only real distinction between a gallery and a list is layout; a gallery generally has more that one image per row. The use of the word "list" to distinguish "galleries with a lot of text" is driven in this project by the ad hoc efforts of editors to somehow salvage their galleries from the meat grinder. This is not mere superficial labeling; more text was added, a substantive improvement. But there was and is no real need to dignify the improved gallery by moving it from "Gallery of" to "List of"; it's purely a political move. This proposal hopes to eliminate this by providing a safe harbor for galleries.


 * BTW, List of nuclear tests isn't a gallery or list of images; it's an article that contains a couple of very long lists. John Reid 02:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel like List of United States Presidents is the way pages that are now galleries should be done. If you don't have that sort of logical pattern to put them together, why are the images on the same page? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the distinction between an illustrated list and a gallery is more than a metaphysical quibble. Some images are important in their own right and have a separate identity from their subject, some do not. The List of United States Presidents provides a nice illustration of this.  The image of George Washington is the Lansdowne portrait, which an important painting in its own right.  In an article on federalist period art, this painting would be one of the main works discussed. The image of George W. Bush has no merit beyond illustrating what he looks like. I cannot under any circumstances imagine there ever being on article about this image. Dsmdgold 01:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit this page
I see much discussion on talk but no edits to the proposal. I don't like this at all. I wrote a starting point for work, not a finished product to be talked over, accepted or rejected. Ladies and gentlemen, you are rushing to dessert before touching your meat, let alone your vegetables. Edit this page. John Reid 02:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha! Okay. How? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You asked for it -- I just edited the user page section. (By the way, is it "user page" or "userpage"? User page spells it both ways at various points in the guideline.) --A. B. 04:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * PS I hope you like the picture ... --A. B. 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph
Last sentence of first paragraph This page defines how, when, and where galleries are permitted. Who are those doing the permitting?

That's too authoritarian for wikipedia. Suggest This page defines how, when, and where galleries should be used. Arcturus 20:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If community consensus endorses this proposed policy, the royal we is appropriate. I don't really understand your objection; all rules are, by their nature, authoritarian. This page is not intended to be a mere cautionary suggestion but to set project policy to which all must conform. Otherwise, what's the point of it? John Reid 10:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I can explain my objection in simpler terms. It's about language and tone of phrase. "Permitting" smacks of a superior body granting a privilege. For decisions arrived at by community consensus it is not an appropriate word - in my opinion. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Few editors will be aware of this "policy". It's just one of a deluge of such policies that are now bogging down this project and detracting from its original intention. Arcturus 11:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, a superior body -- our community, superior to all. There is a dialog between the individual member and the community as a whole but the community rules.


 * Sounds as if you think it had been better left unwritten entirely. But then, who gets to decide if any given gallery should stand? You? Me? Jimbo? Should each individual gallery -- after somebody has put considerable time into building it -- be run through the mangle at AfD? If you want to continue this conversation with me, I need to have your answer to this.


 * Note that our policy cannot exclude all galleries; the most traditional encyclopedist recognizes the value of a color page of flags. Perhaps you're thinking, "Yes but only encyclopedic galleries." That's fine but what's encyclopedic? By default, Wikipedia is the definition of an encyclopedia, so whatever we include is encyclopedic. What you mean, perhaps, is "Only good galleries." That is a much better limitation but only if we generally agree upon what is good. And this page is a place for us to come together and figure out what that is. John Reid 17:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Gallery size
As I said in my first response above, I think the page basically reflects existing community consensus, and I don't have any really reasonable objections to make to it. I do however have a question. I have recently begun galleries for three projects with which I am involved: WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Cats, and WikiProject Dogs. I am already having personal qualms about how big these galleries should be, given the almost infinite number of images which are available to each of them. I would love to see some indication on the attached page as to what should be the maximum size of such a gallery, or some guidelines as to how many arguably "redundant" images should be included (here talking about number of images of a specific breed, location, etc.), because I'm still too new here to really trust my own judgement on this issue. Thanks for any responses. Badbilltucker 14:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Commons
Surely Wikimedia Commons should be used for galleries over the Wikipedia? It doesn't seem within this project's coverage. Computerjoe 's talk 20:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Why are we having this discussion? If someone wants to illustrate someone with a bunch of pictures, there that template that says __ has a page at commons. Galleries are for Commons. Wikipedia is for the encyclopedia. Surely we haven't forgotten that? -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But what about encyclopedic galleries? Commons is not an encyclopedia. Nikola 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a good example of a gallery that provides something Commons could not? The two given examples of 'good' galleries are a page that is tagged to be moved to Commons and another which is little more than a clone of the Commons gallery. There is no end to the duplication having pages like this could create. Richard001 09:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen three problems with galleries moved to the Commons:
 * When galleries are simply deleted from Wikipedia, we lose valuable captions that are usually not duplicated on the Commons. Could the captions please be copied to the Commons gallery before deleting them?
 * Even when captions are copied, they lose their wikilinks to other articles. I know that can be fixed with w:, but that's not convenient and even discouraged by some. And how do you deal with multilingualism?
 * The current Commons template is not clear to a general audience. Most people don't know what the commons are, won't know that "media" means picture gallery, and may not recognize the equivalent page title on Wikipedia. Animal species, for example, are titled in Latin on the Commons and in common English on Wikipedia. To correct this, I created a new Template:commonsimages per discussions at Template talk:Commons. I propose adding this template to the See Also section when deleting a gallery section from an article.
 * Overall, I don't really understand the problem with cloning galleries, since the image files themselves are not duplicated. But regardless of this, could we at least make sure that content is not lost or made inaccessible?--Yannick 23:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Others may disagree, but I think the gallery in Pulaski Skyway is a good use of one, showing the characteristics of the different parts of the bridge in the section of the article that talks about them. --NE2 12:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question
Is it possible to create a gallery with external files? For example, to make a gallery with internal files, you go:

So is it possible to do something similar to that except with image URLs from an external site like Photobucket? Kulaguy 09:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Afraid not. It would be unacceptable anyway - any images could be posted, regardless of copyright. Richard001 07:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)