Forum:SH Archive/"Gallery must die" revisited

Forums > Consensus track archive > SH Archive/"Gallery must die" revisited

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result was that in those few instances where in-article galleries are proved to be useful, as with book articles and cover galleries, etc., they are allowed to be used. This CT was not an attempt to overturn or revert the deletion of gallery pages which was decided through previous consensus votes. Greyman@wikia(Talk) 01:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to bring something up for rediscussion/voting to clarify something on the "galleries must die" policy. It was agreed community-wide (and I agreed with it) that stand alone gallery pages are no longer going to be allowed. The way I understood it, that meant gallery pages were going to die. Stand alone pages that were nothing more than galleries. Small demonstrative galleries in existing articles were not included in this. And there are differing views about it. Some admins have been deleting small galleries in articles and other admins didn't think that small in-article galleries were included in the purge.

The example of a small demonstrative gallery is the Gallofree Yards, Inc. article. I placed a small gallery in that article to show/demonstrate some of the Gallefree products.

To clarify: This is NOT an attempt to overturn the or revert the deletion of gallery pages.' This is merely to clarify on an aspect of it that wasn't clearly covered previously. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 22:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Small galleries in articles

Allow (sparingly on case-by-case basis)

  1. JMAS Hey, it's me! 22:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Funnily enough, Toprawa's link below to our featured article on Padmé Amidala's wardrobe has convinced me that we SHOULD allow in-article galleries in at least some instances. That article demonstrates how these galleries should be used - to illustrate the text of the article in cases where directly inserting the images into the text would be problematic. Note that they should still be used very sparingly, typically only in cases where a large number of images are critical to understanding the topic properly. jSarek 22:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I will say that I've had this very conversation with another user just recently. Just because it serves as an example of how it should be done doesn't mean it looks good. It's messy and disjointed, and interrupts with the flow and readability of the article. If someone were to put an article up for FAN looking like that, I suspect they would be advised to use our customary method of alternating images. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
      • It WAS put up for FAN looking like that, and after a long dispute over the galleries, was ultimately approved by the Inquisitorius. Quite simply, the traditional method of putting images in the text wouldn't - and didn't - work for that article. The galleries may not look *good*, but they do look *better* than the alternative. jSarek 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm well aware, and quite disgusted, to be honest, this this is one of our current FAs. The fact that the article went up for vote over a year ago and was voted for by 2 Inqs that currently /do/ things doesn't say a lot for its legitimacy were it on the nomination page presently. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
          • That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it, questioning the legitimacy of an FA vote because of its age? If you feel that the Wardrobe article is so hindered by the fact that it has galleries within it, put it up for probation at the next Inquisitorius meeting.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 23:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Just to show, it wasn't just two Inq who voted for it. This was under the old voting system, so you have to look at the Inq archives to find the actual Inq vote. Wookieepedia:Inq/Padmé Amidala's wardrobe. Likewise, it's neither here nor there which Inqs voted for it. Goodwood raises a good point in that if anyone feels that it is not currently FA material, then please bring it up on the next Inq meeting pate and allow the current Inq roster to determine the article's FA-fate. Thank you, Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 01:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Small galleries in OOU articles for books and other media (showing alternate/foreign cover art, etc), IU articles for major corporations (e.g., Kuat Drive Yards and the aforementioned Gallofree Yards, Inc. that show products) are logical enough. I'd go for a policy that allows a case-by-case analysis, particularly given the citing of Padmé's wardrobe.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. I'm going to have to say "allow," because I think banning them outright isn't the way to go. Just use them sparingly. -- Ozzel 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Sparingly, of course. Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 01:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Sparingly, yes. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Within reason. Oh, and by the way, before you go around deleting pics in a gallery, let the community know so that maybe, just maybe, we can find some of the images a home before they get deleted. Enochf 03:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Use, with the possible addendum that the pics should be used elsewhere. Now, I know, this is why we had to kill the gallery pages, but when you're making lists of products (which we do on just about every page that it warrants it), a list of images (which is what a gallery is at the very basics) is really no different. And, doesn't the fact that there are captions under the images mean that they are illustrating text? JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 03:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Din's Fire 997 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Kuralyov 15:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Only when necessary. Unit 8311 17:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. KEJ 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. Graestan(Talk) 02:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Per Ozzel. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 07:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. In ship articles, which I frequent a lot, it helps to have a gallery that showcases different parts/sides of the vessel instead of lumping it into the main article. VT-16 11:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. --Eyrezer 11:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Very sparingly. As in, the saber form ones should die a horrible death. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. Per Ozzel. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 00:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  20. The wardrobe article is enough to convince me for case-by-case. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  21. Allow per everyone and their brother Wildyoda 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  22. The idea that all of our images are copyrighted is false. -LtNOWIS 17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not allow

  1. While a less obvious violation of fair use, they're still a violation. The law always comes before personal preference. Not the mention the fact that they look absolutely stupid. In the example used, we have a list of the products which link to pages that already have images, and in other examples (eg. Lightsaber) they're just plain stupid and have already been removed. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. I respectfully disagree with JMAS. Small galleries make an article look terrible, and it borders on an illegality. Where does it end? Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sloppy. Unprofessional. Easily manipulated. Waste of space. Waste of time. Waste of my time. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbol(Talk) 03:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. They look like arse, for one. For two, this encyclopedia revolves around text, and while I don't think this is an attempt to swing that or anything of the sort, that's enough to make me think that standard image use will suffice. Always. So what if we don't use an image of something. Not the end of the world. Thefourdotelipsis 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. I would tend to agree. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 11:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per Redemption. --Imperialles 19:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. I've yet to see a single page where I think they're genuinely necessary. Havac 01:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • This is a matter of elementary visual design. When you're putting together an article of text, the prose is to visually flow naturally for readability. That means you don't have giant gaps of space, whether they're occupied by picture or not, between paragraphs that interrupts the reader's transitioning. This is why we always have our images alternating down the sides the page, for appearance's sake and, again, for smooth presentation. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Forgive the numbers; they're for formatting's sake:
  1. Not sure where to begin here. I'm still somewhat on the fence, but I'm thinking this should remain a case-by-case deal. As per jSarek, I think that article is a perfect example of when a gallery can be good. No disrespect to Mr. and Ralltiir, but he hath violated one of my pet peeves: applying subjective terms (good, bad, pretty, ugly, tidy, messy, etc.) to describe something visual and using them as the foundation of an argument. One man's "organized" is another man's "messy," and that seems to be the case here. If that article was to use the alternating thumbnail method, many of the images would be stacking, which I think most editors disapprove of and consider to be "too many images" (and, well, "messy"). However, given the subject matter, those images are very important. I think the gallery method is acceptable in this case.
  2. Now, on the other hand, there have been times when galleries are forced into articles merely as an excuse to keep certain images on the wiki. This is generally not good. Images should support the text (as they do in the wardrobe article). If they're just there for the sake of being there, get rid of them.
  3. Lastly, about this "fair use" thing... That's one can of worms that I don't think is worth opening here. We don't do fair use, and it's "unfair" to pretend that we do just to support a certain argument. When we start cracking down on "higher res" images just for the sake of "higher res," then we can talk about fair use. -- Ozzel 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am going to probably vote to "Allow" this but before that... could anyone explain me why is having a little gallery on an article considered "illegal", I apologize but I just don't understand all this "Fair use" and "Copyright" laws. Carlitos Moff 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Basically, for an image to even attempt to be used under Fair Use, it has to support text...galleries do not support text in any way. While yes, we do interpret Fair Use sparingly (we're not meant to use high resolution pictures at all, for example), I don't think we should break it entirely. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Does the fact that we do not in any way, make a profit out of this website matter in this type of cases? Carlitos Moff 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
        • No. We tread on thin ice to begin with, regardless of our non-profit status. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 03:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Wikia is a for-profit site. --Imperialles 23:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out to everyone's attention that the direction this vote has been steered takes it completely away from the original intention of this CT in the first place, and I blame myself. This vote has turned into whether or not we like the galleries for use in articles such as Padme Amidala's wardrobe, which seems to be a very rare case, and which seems to be garnering support given that article has (although I disagree) little alternative but to gallery the images. The original intention of this CT was to discuss the possibility of using small galleries in articles such as Gallofree Yards, Inc., which doesn't necessarily fall under the grounds of the "spare use" that people are supporting here. There's really no reason to use a gallery on a page like that, IMO. Thoughts? Comments? Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I like them at the company articles, and I have reasoning, too. Sometimes, you're looking for a particular product by some company (let's use the Gallofree Yards, Inc. example, again), but you don't know the name. So you click through random links, to see if they are what you're looking for, and then you don't find it, and you get frustrated, and go do something else, and then forget. Now, the gallery fixes this (assuming the product has an image - that should be understood by now), and, in the long run, saves time, energy, and resources. Overall, it's easier for the user to navigate. That being said, I'm completely wary of using gallery images for the sake of using gallery images for the sake of using gallery images - I think that, in order to qualify, the picture needs to be used elsewhere - which shouldn't be an issue. Just my feelings. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 03:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • And that is the case with the Gallofree Yards article. They are used elsewhere. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I figured as such. I'm just talking about for future notice. That way they're used elsewhere - which was one of the biggest problems with the Galleries to begin with. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 04:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pardon my ignorance here, but if galleries are so bad, why does Wikipedia use them? Are they on a different license (GFDL?)? Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 23:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, yes. They're nazi-like about enforcing free-use imagery. You can throw a GFDLed image anywhere you want without anyone yelling about "fair use." -- Darth Culator (Talk) 00:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Or free use, public domain, etc. -LtNOWIS 23:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm no expert, but wasn't one the major reasons to kill the standalone galleries because of fairuse and whatnot? So why are these any different? It's basically saying, "yeah...we don't really care, but we like to look like we do." Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, though. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If the galleries are successfully supplementing the text, if the information in the article can't be properly presented without galleries, then using the images can be argued to be fair use. Very few in-article galleries will fit this criterion (the Padme wardrobe article being the only example I can think of offhand), but since some do, they shouldn't be banned outright. jSarek 01:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I'd argue that if the images in that article were arranged normally, it would have far too many images than the usual 1 image per 2/3 paragraphs; it would have roughly one image per every three lines or so. I do know what you mean and I understand better about the fairuse aspect of it, but JMAS's Gallofree Yards Inc. example would not meet the criteria at all. Basically, I think that "sparingly" is way too vague and subjective for me to even consider supporting, when others clearly have different ideas when they should be used to my own. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)