Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries

message: Occasionally Image Galleries come up for on AfD.  They are usually deleted on the grounds that WP:NOT, an image gallery.  I think that this is a wrong-headed position, and should be changed, at least in some cases, especially topics related to art and artists. 
I hold it self evident that images are crucial for understanding works of art, and the for complex art-related topics, many images are necessary. One cannot fully understand the work of an artist, or a school of artists, or an artistic movement without seeing many images of the relevant art.  I therefore believe that in order for Wikipedia to provide the best possible coverage of art topics, image galleries must be incorporated in some way into the project.  Other types of topics may also need a large number of images.
There seem to be three choices available to a Wikipedia editor for presenting an image gallery, none of which seem to me to be viable.
*Incorporate them into the article on the subject, which at first glance would seem to be the best option, but with which there are severe problems discussed below.
*Have the images collected into a single article page or category on Commons,  a method which I see as unworkable for the reasons discussed below.
*Collect the images into a separate article as gallery which can then be annotated and arranged in a logical manner.  This option, however, will, sooner or later, result in the article being subjected to AfD.
Before I discuss the problems I see with the first two options above, let me discuss another argument often brought against image galleries.  It has been argued before that galleries are not encyclopedic because other encyclopedias don't have them.  This is not actually true, as many encyclopedias will have galleries of some topics like flags or historical costumes.  However I will admit that most encyclopedias don't have image galleries as a major feature.  I think that this falls under the rubric of "Wikipedia is not paper".  The number of images in other encyclopedias has been limited because historically producing images was expensive.  We don't have that problem.
Incorporating the images into an article may seem to be the best solution, however it has problems.  If an article is long, like the Book of Kells, then a significant number of images can be incorporated.  It is important to note however that even in that article there were several images that could not be incorporated into the article and had to be linked to like this: (folio 8r).  If an article is short or the number of images far outstrips the amount of text, then the article ends up with a large image gallery tacked onto the end, as in the article, Codex Aureus of Lorsch.  I find this to be not aesthetically pleasing.  It should also be mentioned that having a large number of images in an article significantly increases the download for an article.  If a reader knows that they are clicking on an image gallery, then they will expect this, something they won't expect when clicking most article links.
It is often argued that Commons is the place for image galleries.  I disagree.  In the first place, it is my understanding that Commons was created primarily so that all Wikimedia projects could have access to images without the redundancy of uploading them to each separate project.  Nowhere on Commons have I been able to find a statement to the effect that part of their mission is to host image galleries for the various Wikipedias.  In addition I think that putting image galleries on Commons provides poor service for readers.  We cannot assume that readers will be familiar with all of the Wikimedia projects.  The most common means of informing a reader of the existence of Commons material, use of the  template, is not particularly useful for a casual reader, they won't know what that little box in the corner means. It is true that a link to a gallery on Commons can be constructed which looks like a regular wiki link, but as this would take a hypothetical casual reader out of Wikipedia without warning, which, at the least, would cause confusion.
In addition to hiding information from readers or confusing them, another serious drawback of Commons as the host for image galleries is that it is a multi-lingual project.  Any Commons editor can add a description in any language to any article on Commons.  The result is articles like Commons:Louvre.  This works well for the mission of Commons, but is not so good for an English language encyclopedia.  This problem will increase as Commons matures.  It is also relevant that descriptions on Commons are expected to be kept short, so heavily annotated image galleries might not be welcome there.
In short I believe that putting image galleries on Commons is the worst possible solution and that forcing image galleries into articles is a poor solution.  I therefore propose that the relevant section of WP:NOT be amended so as to allow image galleries on topics that require a large number of images in order to be understand. Please understand that I am not proposing that every image gallery be allowed, only galleries for topics which need a large number of images in order to be understood. A gallery of images of single famous person, for example, does not lead to an increased understanding of that person, and should not be allowed. Dsmdgold 05:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my whole-hearted support. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and most encyclopedias have entire folds with nothing but images+captions. You make an excellent point that the guideline should be updated to exclude subject areas where images are necessary to understand the topic. Commons is not an alternative, and it would make it would make republishing of the encyclopedia more complicated, as well as fragment the identity of the English Wikipedia. — David Remahl 15:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most encyclopedias have entire folds with nothing but images+captions for the simple reason that printing a color page costs about ten times as much as printing a black-and-white page.  The images are separated out to minimize the number of color pages needed. --Carnildo 19:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And Wikipedia is not paper.  Print encyclopedias have limited the number of image galleries because of the cost you mention.  We don't have that problem. Dsmdgold 21:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Commons has undeniable problems, but I don't think the solution is to create a fork of Commons on :en. The proper procedure is to work to improve Commons, to address its shortcomings so that it is more useful. Commons is still quite a young project, and it is understandable that not everything is working perfectly from the get go. - SimonP 16:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But Commons isn't an encyclopedia and never should be. It's a repository of media geared towards facilitating locating a particular item in the library. The Commons gallery covering a particular artist would contain every item relating to that artist. A Wikipedia gallery would include the ones considered most representative, a wide range of periods, no duplicates, etc. — David Remahl 17:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confusing commons categories and gallery pages (which are actually just regular article pages, the same as here - except all that is put on them is a gallery of pictures). Categories contain everything, but a gallery page could easily be created containing all the artwork, sorted and annotated. Other problems such as multilinguality remain though. pfctdayelise 15:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I think Commons is working fairly well for what it is intended to be - a common repository of images.  It does not work well as source of image galleries for an encyclopedia.  The needs of the primary purpose of Commons, work at cross purposes with the needs of single language encyclopedia. Dsmdgold 17:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery 

message: *I must, with no small amount of regret, still oppose.  As it stands, I'd prefer a passionate defence on AfD for granting an excellent gallery exemption, as opposed to lots and lots of squabbles over whether or not Gallery of Pokèmon cosplay winners was "encyclopedic".  For example, Gallery of sovereign state flags would not be deleted if we nominated it 350 times.  All that being said, I think that this is making excellent progress. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll, part 2 (7/4/1)

message: Rossami has said something to the effect that he thinks that the proposal, despite the strong show of support it has received, needs more thinking through before it becomes policy, and that while the makeup of the vote is strongly in favour of my proposal, the total number of votes is not high given that it is a policy change.
I think that is right, and there is a risk here: I think the case made that there are galleries worthy of inclusion is solid, but one can legitimately fear what other galleries might start appearing if they are allowed and the mess on AfD if the rule for inclusion is not well formulated.
I think, though, that the best way to combat this risk is to have a change to WP:NOT that merely expresses that certain galleries can complement Wikipedia, and leave it to another guideline to try to spell out which galleries those are.  I think the wording of the proposal that is being voted on suffices for this.  I welcome suggestions as to what should go into the proposed guideline.  So far, I think it should outline:
*A list of reasons that might justify enclyclopediac merit for a gallery;
*Examples of galleries that are and are not encyclopediac
*Relevant AfDs.
Happy New Year! --- Charles Stewart 19:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this proposal Charles, there is enough support in my view to justify the limited change you are proposing. Galleries, in the right circumstances, definitely augment articles. Thinking cap regarding guidelines being donned as we speak. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two things

message: As ike9898 has commented above, and as has been mentioned in several AfD's involving galleries, aggregating many images together that individually may be justifiable according to fair use may collectively violate the law, since, in American law, in assessing whether fair use is applicable, assessment is made of the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
I don't think that this is an issue for WP:NOT, but if, as I expect, we allow some galleries onto WP, then we should make some comment about this risk on WP:COPY.  I'll make a comment on the talk page there. --- Charles Stewart 16:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many galleries will have very few fair use images, or none at all. As stated, this is a concern for WP:COPY. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should emphasize that all of the AfDs on galleries linked to from here have involved only galleries without any fair use images.  It's really a risk for the future. --- Charles Stewart 13:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galleries with many fair-use images 

message: There's one type of gallery that I haven't seen directly mentioned yet (but I may have missed it in the straw poll above), and that's the gallery of images created by a specific Wikipedian.  Many such galleries are linked on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers (my own is at User:Slambo/Gallery), and Wikipedians who wish to declare their availability as photographers are encouraged to create such galleries of their own works on that page (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography). Slambo (Speak) 14:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With your gallery, there's no resource issue since the images are used in articles as well: I'd call this showcasing your contributions to WP.  But in general, isn't the Wikipedia Commons user space better for this kind of thing? --- Charles Stewart 15:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought this proposal was only in relation to articles in the main namespace, not user. pfctdayelise 15:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have to agree with pfctdayelise here. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to create galleries to your image contributions in your own WP Userspace, whether they are hosted on Commons or not. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:NOT is mostly about what kind of things can be articles, but it also talks about what is appropriate in user spaces.  The section Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider might be invoked if someone found user space galleries inappropriate. While this proposal might give a defence against that charge, it does not constitute a free pass. --- Charles Stewart 15:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the pictures in question are already being used in articles anyway I don't think you can claim the user is using Wikipedia only as a free webhost.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 05:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree with Cyde Weys, this is no different to providing links on userpages that many users do to the articles they have created or helped along the way. These just happen to be images. If they are unused and orphaned, chances are they will go the way of IfD anyway. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Under the proposals above, I don't think that a gallery of artwork that happened to all be in a single town would be considered encyclopedic, unless the town was widely known for being a major repository of artwork of a single style or artist.  If Guilford is like most towns, there probably is sculpture from a wide variety of periods, styles and artists, so I would guess that, even if the above proposal is made official such a gallery would probably not survive AfD.  Dsmdgold 00:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another subtype of gallery 

message: Dsmdgold earlier cited Gallery of Pompeii and Herculaneum as a gallery of obvious encyclopedic merit: in fact I think this page doesn't work well as a gallery, and would probably be markedly better in Durova's list format. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 15:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Galleries that would be better as lists

message: I've went ahead and moved this to 'old discussion' on the centralized discussion template (seeing as there has been no activity in almost a month). The result of the straw polls (combined) is 38 support, 14 oppose, and one neutral, which seems to indicate fairly strong support for the proposal. --InShaneee 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusions 

message: I haven't had time to read through the whole page yet, or the policy, but I do have one quick question: is is OK to have galleries in the Wikipedia:WikiProject namespace for administrative purposes? I have recently been gathering together all the pictures realted to a certain area in order to organise them and to help decide the best way forward regarding organisation of the articles. The gallery can currently be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Images, along with an alphabetical list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Images/List. It is not fully organised yet. Other, similar administrative galleries I have seen are Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Images, and an images subpage seems to be a common subpage of many WikiProjects. What I want to know is whether this is OK and what the best way is to organise such material and keep track of it? Carcharoth 10:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: your galleries are not in article namespace, and are thus no problem. The point of this policy is against having pure "gallery" articles such as Image gallery of Gandalf, Harry Potter images, and against the uploading of large collections of unencyclopedic images. dab (ᛏ) 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. Carcharoth 15:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are galleries OK for administrative purposes? 

message: Suggest comment on Wikipedia talk:Galleries. Good luck. John Reid 05:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Galleries]]