Talk:Googie architecture

message: Thanks for your edit to Googie architecture.  I agree the article was packed with images, but it's a very visual topic.  While I added back the photo you removed, I also resized many of the photos, and restored the gallery to a standard smaller size (someone had made the photos huge).  A few years ago I started a talk page discussion about the photos on the article.  I think it's still there.  Cheers!  Magnolia677 (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks wery ugly on my screen (I have wide 1680x1050 resolution). The column of images on the right is longer than the whole article. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Can some be moved to the gallery?  Magnolia677 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Technically yes, but I don't think we should be doing that. See WP:IG: .  WP:IG also says that . This means that we should not add any image of googie architecture to the gallery. The images in the gallery should be representative examples of the subject, and every image should have an explanation in the caption that explains the importance of that image for understanding the text (the captions should connect the images with the text so that a reader know which part of the text is illustrated with which image). Currently, the gallery is filled with indiscrimante collection of images without any explanation to as which image illustrates which part of the text. Adding more images to the gallery would only make things worse. Instead of adding more images, we should work on connecting existing images with the text. It is not the number of images that helps the reader to understand the article, it is the quality of images and their correlation with the text. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "correct" way of implementing a large, curated collection of images would probably be to create a page on commons. In my opinion, when doing this, it's still better for the commons link in the External links section to point to the commons category, since it's easier for users (who aren't necessarily editors) to discover the page from the category than the other way 'round. An additional link to the page could always be placed in the See also section... --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

text: A small gallery is appropriate to the page, per WP:IG, and indeed common on other design and architecture pages (compare , which gives several examples of an otherwise hard-to-define style, and , which shows the gradual development of that style). But it needs to be a small collection, with the overflow handled in the commons category. Ibadibam (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

text: * I have no objection if you want to make such an article. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *I just might do it and transfer the images in the gallery of this article to the "Spin-off". Tony the Marine (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise not to create such a list because defining what photos go on it will be very difficult. Just look above at Kona Lanes and you'll see that a while back I created a checklist of criteria for what is and isn't a googie photo.  It's so subjective.  What if the place looks googie, but isn't a motel, coffee house or gas station (like the LA airport)?  I think that such a list and what goes on it may end up being one of those rare times when Wikipedia editors disagree completely. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The NRHP lists are easy to define, because a structure is either on the Register or it's not. A closer analogue is List of Baroque architecture, but that's defined by a particular period, whereas Googie is less concrete. To be included in a Googie list, there would need to be a source that explicitly describes each structure as "Googie", which has tended to be very difficult to establish for an unofficial style such as this. Given that we already have :Category:Googie architecture and commons:Category:Googie architecture, both of which are inherently more maintainable, the proposed list would probably be a collection of examples, not a comprehensive catalog of structures, much in the way the Baroque list is. Ibadibam (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with  here. There is nothing "subjective" here. We don't need to agree what is googie and what is not googie (that would be WP:original research). We need reliable sources that say a certain ibject is googie. Wikipedia is all about sources and WP:verifiablity. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  wrote that it would be difficult to find sources to confirm the googieness of all the photos included on the proposed list, then you wrote that you agree with that editor, and that all additions to the list would need reliable sources.  Huh?  Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with him that we need reliable sources in order to include something on the list. I do not agree with you that we need to discuss and agree what is googie and what is not googie. I have no opinion regarding the difficulty of finding sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of images

message: *I have documented many historical structures and artifacts and happen to see this article and its' talk page. I noticed that many of the images in the gallery are in disproportion in size and (in my opinion) could be an eye sore of some sort. Therefore, I have an idea or better still, a suggestion. Why not create a spin-off article, which links to this one, that would be dedicated exclusively to the mid-century Googie style buildings still in existence? The "new" article could be titled "List of Googie architecture buildings" and have a "table" with the images and description of the same. A good example of what I am suggesting is the article National Register of Historic Places listings in Phoenix, Arizona. This is only an idea. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have no objection if you want to make such an article. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *I just might do it and transfer the images in the gallery of this article to the "Spin-off". Tony the Marine (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise not to create such a list because defining what photos go on it will be very difficult. Just look above at Kona Lanes and you'll see that a while back I created a checklist of criteria for what is and isn't a googie photo.  It's so subjective.  What if the place looks googie, but isn't a motel, coffee house or gas station (like the LA airport)?  I think that such a list and what goes on it may end up being one of those rare times when Wikipedia editors disagree completely. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The NRHP lists are easy to define, because a structure is either on the Register or it's not. A closer analogue is List of Baroque architecture, but that's defined by a particular period, whereas Googie is less concrete. To be included in a Googie list, there would need to be a source that explicitly describes each structure as "Googie", which has tended to be very difficult to establish for an unofficial style such as this. Given that we already have :Category:Googie architecture and commons:Category:Googie architecture, both of which are inherently more maintainable, the proposed list would probably be a collection of examples, not a comprehensive catalog of structures, much in the way the Baroque list is. Ibadibam (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with  here. There is nothing "subjective" here. We don't need to agree what is googie and what is not googie (that would be WP:original research). We need reliable sources that say a certain ibject is googie. Wikipedia is all about sources and WP:verifiablity. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  wrote that it would be difficult to find sources to confirm the googieness of all the photos included on the proposed list, then you wrote that you agree with that editor, and that all additions to the list would need reliable sources.  Huh?  Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with him that we need reliable sources in order to include something on the list. I do not agree with you that we need to discuss and agree what is googie and what is not googie. I have no opinion regarding the difficulty of finding sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Spin-off