Commons talk:Galleries

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Galleries.
Archives: 1

Related discussion: Commons talk:First steps/Sorting

Proposal to add always a Gallery category to a gallery page

Proposal: change 4. Categories

Current text: "Every gallery should be categorized. Add the gallery to the category with the same name, or if there is none, to relevant categories (see Commons:Categories)."
Change to: "Every gallery should be categorized. Add the gallery to at least two categories:
1. with the same name, or if there is none, to relevant categories (see Commons:Categories)
2. at least one subcategory of Category:Gallery pages."

Reason/problem: There are a lot of gallery pages without such a gallery category, it would not surprise me when there are more than a thousand. That makes it hard to find them if you do not know the exact name or when you just want to browse gallery pages. JopkeB (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support — I also face problems finding gallery pages related to India due to the lack of dedicated gallery categories. I always try to categorize existing gallery pages to dedicated categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support as a general guideline of a desirable target,  Oppose if that means that all gallery pages must be reviewed by someone, or that some galleries could be deleted because of lacking a subcategory of "Gallery pages". MGeog2022 (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the remedy for lacking an appropriate parent category is not deletion, it is adding the parent category. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this makes sense. As it is only a guideline (should),  Support. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support This is a guideline. There usually aren't consequences for not following guidelines. Except that someone will hopefully fix the issue based on the guidance in it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Many gallery pages are low-quality. They should not be added to the corresponding category. It is good that many galleries do not have the corresponding category set. They often have just a handful of images, are outdated by decades, are unmaintained, usually created and edited by just one editor, and feature often arbitrary images while hiding the media that is in the category page. However,  Support for the requirement of all galleries to be in a Gallery pages category. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"gallery pages [of] low-quality ... should not be added to the corresponding category." But that is a rule that have been established many years ago, ever since the version of 28 jul 2009 21:04 (under Other things to include). So that is not the question here. If you want that to be changed, then please start a separate discussion. JopkeB (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make sense anyway. How are people suppose to improve galleries if they can't find them to begin with because they aren't categorized? A better solution would be to come up with some kind of way to evaluate galleries based on their quality and ability to be improved and then create maintenance categories or something based on that. Excluding them from main categories for galleries doesn't make sense though. It's not like we do that with anything else. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to anything else, those things are usually put into subcategories, not very prominently as the only page in a category as large as Animals or Health care etc. Moreover, people can find them in the search where they always show up but I wouldn't have a problem with them being in a subcategory of a large cat...however if that subcat only contains one page some category for galleries shouldn't be sorted to be at the top of the cat. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People can find them in the search It really depends since you have to know what to look for and galleries don't always have the same name as the category. So it's not that sure of a thing that someone will be able to find one that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant they can find them enough for the gallery to get improved up to state where it becomes relevant for the page. I could make a hundred gallery pages each with one random image about the subject for all of the largest categories. If they are about the same subject or contain text about it they show up way too far up and near/at the top of "Categories and Pages" so if you search for animals and then click on that, a gallery named like it would should show up even if it contains just one image added by one editor one decade ago. The main point however was that those things are usually put into subcategories, not very prominently. Instead of doing things about galleries, I think category page need to be improved so that e.g. people can use them to browse most relevant most high-quality files about the subject rather than going to a gallery page and the file-titles should describe the contents at least as well as any captions on a gallery page. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of doing things about galleries, I think category page need to be improved. I have complaints about how categories work myself but they aren't mutually exclusive and I assume fixing them would be on the dev team anyway. Whereas improving the quality and findability of galleries is something we can do ourselves. Plus like this a talk page for discussing galleries. Its a little wierd to come up in here and be like "I know this has to do with galleries, but lets talk about the issues with categories instead." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
those things are usually put into subcategories, not very prominently Prototyperspective (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is according to the Commons category policies. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is according to the Commons category policies and which part of that policy? Does it address my main point which Adamant1 ignored and which I requoted above? The policy says gallery pages according to topic which would be accomplished with a cat like "Gallery pages about history". Prototyperspective (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to repeat what JopkeB said above: the issue at hand here is whether to add a requirement that all galleries be categorized directly or indirectly under Category:Gallery pages. If you want to discuss something else, start a new section. - Jmabel ! talk 21:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add "criteria for creation of galleries" section to guideline

Per the Village Pump discussion it's pretty clear that a lot of galleries either shouldn't have been created in the first place or are otherwise lacking in quality. Although it's not really clear what makes a good quality gallery, but there are some things that I think clearly make bad ones. So there should be some kind of guidance in the guideline about when it's worth creating a gallery or not and what makes a gallery "good." These are just a few of the things I can think of off the top of my head. People are free to modify, add to, and or change the criteria as the discussion about it evolves.

1. Gallery pages should not be created for a topic where there are either to little images to justify it due to copyright or similar issues.
2. Gallery pages should not be created in cases where they merely serve to duplicate the main category for the topic, unless some additional information, such as translations or showing a large number of images in a structured way, is provided.
3. Any galleries that contain only a few images without realistically being expendable and/or ones that merely serve to recreate the main category for the topic can be nominated speedy deletion.

Obviously that's not much, but it's just a start and I expect other people to contribute their ideas to the list. Adamant1 (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That last one is actually trickier than you might think. The fact that (unlike a category) a gallery allows for description of each image, a rather small gallery could, at least in principle, be pretty useful. I don't have a great example, but I'm thinking of things just a little more complicated than the matter we handle with a description at the top of Category:International Fountain, Seattle Center, where we show two subtly different fountains that have existed at the same location. - Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhh, maybe? It's tangential, but I've never been totally sure where the line is between an informational gallery and something that's starting to slow creep into being a glorified Wikipedia article with images. Not to say the later is a bad thing or shouldn't exist. But I do think it's something worth considering and maybe noting down purely for documentational purposes if nothing else. I'd be interested to check out an example of what your talking about if you can find one though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add to point 2: Gallery pages should not be created in cases where they merely serve to duplicate the main category for the topic, unless some additional information, such as translations or showing a large number of images in a structured way, is provided. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already added by Adamant1 now. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Sorry, I should have mentioned I added it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My criteria for good galleries:
  • They have a good, clear name, that covers the content, as short as possible.
  • They have a Wikidata infobox or a short description about the subject. A gallery about a location preferably shows a map indicating the location, for example via the Wikidata infobox.
  • They have a clear purpose, direction and theme, for example:
    • a guide to the subcategories of a large main category, with links to the subcategories (and grandchildren), showing with images what the subcategory names mean, for laymen and non native English speakers;
    • an overview of a complex subject, a help by categorizing files, like the works of an artist by theme or year (with links to subcategories); another example: Overview of the Ajanta Caves
    • an impression of for example a populated place, the collection of a museum or an art movement; extra criterium: showing different aspects of the subject
    • showing beautiful things, sharing with the world what a location possesses/has to offer/is about, like art, culture, landscapes, vistas
    • the best pictures about a subject (rewarded photographs)
    • presentations (with slides; example: Register Varend Erfgoed Nederland was initially created for a presentation at a congress/symposium, see discussion (in Dutch))
    • otherwise educational, for example: showing processes or developments, or explaning technical stuff
    • offer translations, showing the names/descriptions of files in a category in more than 1 language (via Wikidata items or otherwise).
And of coarse a gallery page can have a mixe of purposes.
  • They have a clear structure, with subheadings and a logical order of the media, like alphabetically or chronological.
  • They show a decent amount of media, also depending on the theme and availability, but at least two, preferably a lot more.
  • They are in at least two categories: one for the topic and a subcategory of Category:Gallery pages.
  • They have {{Gallery page}}, not only for the useful message, but also to be able to search more easily for certain galleries in Petscan (and probably other search tools).
If a gallery page does not meet all of the criteria: it does not mean that it should be deleted. A gallery may be adjusted or the creator can be encouraged to improve it. Reasons to delete: see above.
For excellent galleries there might be more criteria, but that is out of scope of this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this gallery uses some way of showing translated versions of the headers depending on which ?uselang= is set: Deutschland

The headers display fine in the gallery itself but are bugged in the TOC. Why is that / how can this be fixed – is there some issue about this? (I don't think galleries are very useful, e.g. even large ones are barely viewed or well-populated, but as long as they are used and displayed in search results, they should work properly.)
(Archived before solution & 0 replies) Prototyperspective (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Galleries&oldid=918779281"