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

I am adding gallery categories to galleries without them. Along the way I see too many galleries that are technically galleries, but in fact are/should be project pages, Wikipedia pages or other pages that should have another namespace. For now I have created Category:Gallery pages with a wrong format, to collect them. But how should we properly handle them? JopkeB (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume they would qualify for speedy deletion as G2, "Page intended to be an encyclopedic article." I nominated a few for deletion. So I guess we'll see. BTW, it looks like most, or all, of them we're created in the early 2010s or before. So they probably aren't useful at this point anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you cannot just delete them. At least the pages in Category:Gallery pages of Wiki Loves (project pages) should be kept one way or another, they are part of history. And we should warn the creators of Wiki Loves pages not to use gallery pages for communication and rules and give them a proper alternative. JopkeB (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you wanting to give the creators of the galleries a chance to copy their contents or whatever, but I really don't see the point in keeping them. Especially the ones that are just code from 2006 that probably doesn't work anymore anyway. Regardless, how is it not an attempt to use galleries like Wikipedia articles? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offhand, Category:Gallery pages of Wiki Loves (project pages) looks like it is all stuff that should be moved to "Commons" space. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with those types of galleries being moved to "Commons" space, but realistically who's going to do that and how long should we wait for them to do it? In the meantime there's a bunch "galleries" that are just lists for things in Paris without anything that would make them actual galleries. Apparently for some bizarre reason JopkeB thinks they should stay though. So it would be good if we could what exactly do with them. Personally, I think they clearly qualify for either G1 or G2 and I haven't seen her propose an alternative to deletion. Nor do I think there even is one since as far as I'm aware there aren't list articles on Commons. Maybe we could just wait for the no longer active user who created them to turn them into legitimate galleries or something. Although I'd argue the whole "list" thing is totally pointless and serves zero purpose what-so-ever regardless. But again, JopkeB thinks they should be saved. So I'd like figure out what to do with them if she's so against their deletion. You have any ideas about how to deal with it? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think they should per se stay as they are, as gallery pages. But I think the content might be valuable and therefor the content should stay one way or another, and cannot be deleted recklessly. Therefor I have created Category:Gallery pages with a wrong format, to collect them. And after someone comes up with a good idea, then we can handle them in a proper way.
Whether the creator is still active or not, is not relevant. Archives and libraries keep many documents written by people who have long ago passed away, and still we preserve them, because we might need them in the future.
I think "lists" can be valuable, to get a quick overview or to search more easily through a lot of information, in another way than is possible via a category. Even when you do not value them, lists can be valuable to others, otherwise there were not so many lists in Wikipedia and even in Commons (see for instance galleries in Category:Gallery pages of paintings: though they are not always called "List", there are many lists in this category).
Please have a little more patience: these gallery pages have existed for many years, in the past the format 'gallery page' might have been the best solution for them, or the content was put accidently into a gallery page, and now they should be deleted within a day? JopkeB (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Therefor the content should stay one way or another, and cannot be deleted recklessly. For me it depends on the content, situation, and I reject the idea that there was anything reckless involved here. Regardless, I don't think we should keep "content" simply for it's own sake. We aren't Wikipedia or Wikidata. I understand that you think it's rude or whatever to just delete content that people have created, but at the end of the day it's their responsibility to think about if what they are creating is in scope or belongs somewhere else.
Whether the creator is still active or not, is not relevant. It's relevant to me purely as a pragmatic issue when it comes to how many hoops someone should have to go through before deleting something. I don't think it's realistic or a good use of time and resources to ask someone who clearly isn't contributing to the project if they want to improve a gallery page that was created 10 years ago and hasn't been improved in the meantime. That's all. Bureaucracy for it's own sake and regardless of the particular circumstance isn't a good thing.
I think "lists" can be valuable, to get a quick overview or to search more easily through a lot of information I agree with that. But two things here 1. At least IMO most galleries are lists anyway. Like if someone a gallery for "libraries in Paris" then it will essentially be a list of libraries in Paris regardless of they call it a list or specifically created it as one 2. Isn't that what metacats and catcats are for? Saying it is, then it's just redundant to also have "list" galleries as well. Especially when they aren't being used as galleries to begin with.
Please have a little more patience The pages have exited on here for more then 10 years even they clearly go against the guidelines. I think the community in general has shown plenty of patience. Maybe I didn't, but the pages have been around more then along for them to be improved or fixed if the original creator had any intent to do either one. IMO there's a realistic, fair, amount of we should wait to deal with or clean up things that clearly go against the guidelines and I think enough time has passed at this point to delete the pages. There are a few that I plan to move and improve on though. Your free to do the same with any that you think are worth saving. Also if you want to say "content" that was created less then six months ago and/or where the user is still active shouldn't be speedy deleted unless they have been given a reasonable amount of time to deal with it, then fine. I'm totally cool with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solutions

  1. Solution one: Project pages: As Jmabel pointed out earlier in this discussion: A page that is in fact a Project page (like some Wiki Loves gallery pages were) can be moved to "Commons" space; then in the upper left tab "Project page" is mentioned. Any editor with renaming rights can do it: click on "rename" and just change in the first box "Main" to "Commons". Jmabel has already done it for the 'Wiki Loves' gallery pages, I did for some others.
  2. Solution two: Help pages: same recipe: move gallery pages with instructions that are not about a specific project to "Help" space. And add (a subcategory of) Category:Commons help.

For the pages that are now still in Category:Gallery pages with a wrong format we still need to come up with solutions. --JopkeB (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. About tables
Categories are the basics. No doubt about it. But sometimes they are not enough to find what you are looking for. The language may be a problem (frequently used words like houses, animals and rivers may be learnt at school, but rarely used words like buttresses, crustacea‎ and river forelands not), or the category structure is too complex for visitors. Then some guidance may help. That can be in the form of:
  • a gallery page with links to the subcategories (as captures under well-chosen images), well usable for concrete concepts, where pictures are worth a thousand words; example: Headgear;
  • a Category by topic, especially for theoretically subjects;
  • perhaps a table, only tolerated by Commons, not fully allowed yet. I think on Commons there are two possibilites for tables:
    • Each row also has at least one image; they can for example be used for overviews of artworks of an artist or art movement; this is OK on Commons yet, see for example Paintings by Rudolf von Alt. OR
    • [New, my proposal] Each row has at least one link to another page on Commons, for example: to a category, gallery page or a Help page, useful for overviews of those pages, for example: Tombs in the Panthéon de Paris. Perhaps you can call them index pages.
And of coarse each row can have both. The advantage above Categories by topic is that you can choose your own layout and columns and add extra information (including links to Wikipedias and other websites) and/or images. Red links may show which pages still are needed. Note: If a gallery page has a table and does not have at least an overview of images or does not meet either of these criteria, it can still be nominated for deletion.
@Adamant1 and Jmabel: Would this be a good role for gallery pages with tables on Commons? --JopkeB (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: What should be done to have such a solution being accepted on Commons? Can the three of us decide this or should it be brought further, does a procedure exists? --JopkeB (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with that. I'm sure it can be refined later if it turns out to be less then perfect. My main issue is with tables that don't have images or where it's one image that is just being used superficially. It looks you've addressed that with the last point though. Thanks for coming up with a solution. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think creating one good example would help me answer that. Probably yes, but I'd want to see it. Jmabel ! talk 11:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should be improved in Tombs in the Panthéon de Paris? JopkeB (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Could you please indicate what changes should be made in Tombs in the Panthéon de Paris to help you answer the question? JopkeB (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it needs a new namespace for tables? Prototyperspective (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main thing would be to add at least one picture of the person and one of the tomb as additional columns, wherever possible. Probably format them 250px wide (or 250px high and centered if vertical).
Also: do we know if this is a complete or an incomplete list? It should say so. - Jmabel ! talk 12:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there are two new  Question:
  1. Do we need a new namespace: Table?
  2. Should a gallery page that only contains a table be deleted if it has no images, though it might be useful because it gives columns with links to subcategories and other information that is not visible in a category?
My answers:
  1. Perhaps, if there are a lot of tables. Does anyone know how to search for such tables (in gallery pages)? I didn't succeed.
  2. No, I would not vote for deletion of such tables.
And we need a new rule for the guideline: such a page should mention whether the list is complete.
JopkeB (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective, Jmabel, and Adamant1: Could you please give your answers to these two questions? JopkeB (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. I think tables are probably (currently at least) too rare for a new namespace. It may be best if they were included in the Data namespace. 2. I don't know – I think they shouldn't be deleted if they don't cause notable problems. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Isn't there already a "data namespace" that's essentially for tabular data? I don't really see why galleries should be used as tables anyway, but more so given there's a specific namespace for them already anyway. I guess there could be a special namespace outside specifically for tables, but I think it's necessary.
2. Yes. Gallery pages that are just tables with no actual images should be deleted. I'd argue ones containing images should be deleted, or at least heavily edited to not be a table, should be deleted as well depending on the situation. It doesn't really help anyone to have a gallery that's a table with 50 rows and only a few images at the bottom of it.
3. I'd be interested to know what basis is in the guidelines for using galleries for tables regardless of this conversation. I don't think the purpose of galleries, "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media", should be disregarded just because someone put the time into making a tabular gallery. More then likely they just copied and pasted the data into the edit field anyway. But regardless, the guidelines are clear that galleries are for "collections of media." --Adamant1 (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If "Table" were to be a new namespace, how would it differ from "Data" namespace?
  2. If a "Gallery" is just a table that has no images, but if it's obvious what images would belong there, add images rather than deleting. If there are no relevant images, then the only reason I can imagine to keep it is if it is internally useful on Commons, and then it belongs in Commons space, not gallery space. E.g., for the latter, a list of works that are annually going to come out of U.S. copyright might be very useful to have, but would not belong as a gallery.
  3. These should not be speedied, because there is a fair chance of salvaging them.
  4. Definitely we should distinguish complete and incomplete lists. - Jmabel ! talk 05:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmabel: Yes, I agree: "add images rather than deleting". But who is going to do that? It is a lot of work, for one thing: the coding for adding a new column is not as simple as in Word or Excel.
    And about the differences between a "Table" and the "Data" namespace: could you please answer my questions below, perhaps they might give the answer. JopkeB (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Answer to Adamant1:] Yes, it turns out there is indeed a Data namespace, it is in Help:Namespaces. I did not know it. But:
  • I could not find a page of its own, Commons:Data is a disambiguation page and Help:Data redirects to Commons:Data. So I think Help:Data should be changed to a proper instruction page about this namespace.
  • when you look at an Edit tab of such a Data page, I only see complicated program coding, not the kind of tables we are discussing here.  Question:
    • Is it allowed to have a table like Tombs in the Panthéon de Paris in the Data namespace as well?
    • What is the extension "tab" (or "map") doing: is it just an extension or does it actually do something?
    • When someone later on puts images to such a table, is it technically possible to rename it to a gallery?
And by the way: it is not just "someone put the time into making a tabular gallery", but such a table might also be useful to other users, there has been put effort and time into it with a reason, not just for fun, but to make Commons better. JopkeB (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree about the data namespace. It's way to hard to find information about it. Let alone to create something in the data namespace to begin with. I'm not really sure why it involves complicated coding either. It's hard to argue for transferring tabular galleries over to the data namespace when it doesn't seem to be doable by just copying and pasting the code from one editing window to the other. Although I don't think that justifies the status quo. And just to be clear, I'm not advocating for speedy deleting the galleries. But there is a basic expectation that galleries should contain images and ones that don't should be dealt with somehow.
I don't buy the idea that they are useful or worth keeping simply because someone created them either. A lot of the galleries, tables, Etc. Etc. on here were created using bots or other semi-automated methods. I highly doubt Paris 16 manually entered the code for Tombs in the Panthéon de Paris since they created hundreds of similar galleries around the same time. So I don't really see any reason why we can't or shouldn't be able to just delete it and other galleries that were clearly created through automated or semi-automated methods. Otherwise your just allowing the site to be taken over by low quality bot edits for it's own sake. Interestingly that particular gallery apparently has 362 views a month. So I think it's worth keeping, but I doubt most, or all, views are from people looking for a navigational page. But I would say galleries that purely serve as navigational aids should be deleted or at least turned into actual galleries. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess we have photos of every one of those tombs in the Panthéon. - Jmabel ! talk 10:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want to turn it into an actual gallery then? I still wonder where the line is (or should be) regardless. Using a gallery as a navigational page just seems weird and totally pointless anyway even if said gallery ends up having a couple of images added to it. That's clearly not their purpose. My opinion is clearly in the minority though. So however you guys want to do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Jmabel and Adamant1: for your answers. I did not really get answers to my three questions. I presume you do not know either. Again  Question:
  • Where can I pose questions about the Data namespace? On the Village pump or is there a better place?
  • And who can turn Help:Data into a proper construction page? Who knows enough of this namespace to write instructions? Or where should I asked it?
JopkeB (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For knowledge of Data space, I'd look for someone who has edited in Data space. It looks like most of what is there is map data. - Jmabel ! talk 15:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JopkeB (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from User:Ebrahim:

  1. It is not allowed to have a table with regular wiki code for a table in the Data namespace, it should be in json.
  2. The extensions "tab" and "map" do matter. You cannot use these extensions without a content that contains json.
  3. No, it is technically not possible to change a Data namespace to a gallery page, the gallery page should be created as such.
  4. There is no known documentation in Commons about the Data namespace, but there is in MediaWiki: mw:Extension:JsonConfig and some of Q/A's in mw:Extension_talk:JsonConfig might be useful.
  5. He has created Data:Tombs in the Panthéon de Paris.tab.

My conclusions are:

  • We cannot use the Data namespace for gallery pages with a table without images. We should come up with something else. There are at least three alternatives:
    • 1) Convert these galleries to the Data namespace, with json. Data:Tombs in the Panthéon de Paris.tab can serve as example. But that is not an easy conversion, especially not for people who are not familiar with json. And if ever someone wants to add images, the conversion should be reversed.
    • 2) Add images to the gallery pages. But that is a lot of work, and moreover the coding for adding a new column is not simple.
    • 3) Create a new namespace Table.
  • Help:Data should become a proper Help page. We can start with adding the answers by Ebrahim.

@Jmabel, Adamant1, and Prototyperspective: What are your thoughts? Do you know other alternatives? Do you prefer one above the other? Do you agree that Help:Data should become a proper Help page? --JopkeB (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this and at least IMO a good solution would be to create separate namespace specifically for galleries like currently exists for categories. Then random things like tables can just stay where they are in a separate section. Although it would obviously take some time and effort to implement, but way less so then moving the tables over to the data namespace or adding images to them. I'm not sure adding images to them is a good option anyway since most or all of them weren't created for that purpose to begin with anyway. But having a specific namespace for galleries would be super beneficial outside of this. So I think it's worth doing regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coding to add a column is actually pretty simple, unless these tables were done very poorly. Let me play with that Pantheon one. I'll probably get to it within 24 hours, maybe much sooner. - Jmabel ! talk 06:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done (Tombs in the Panthéon de Paris). Took 10 minutes, including planning. I recommend that if someone uses this, rather than have the categories be explicitly visible, they are just inserted as [[:Category:WHATEVER|category]], which will take up less space. Jmabel ! talk 06:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could also add another column for images of the people rather than their tombs. - Jmabel ! talk 06:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of these options and if things are not to be left as they are currently, option 3 would be best. One shouldn't images for the sake of it and that wouldn't really make it a genuine gallery. Maybe some other namespace already exists for these since Commons: and Help: pages also seem to be in a separate namespace. There's also the issue that some tables are metapages about Commons, e.g. currently in Commons: or Help: so maybe it should be a different name/scope (like e.g. 'Content tables' or 'Tables of contents') or something. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "not a real gallery", is there anywhere on this page a prohibition against using tables as a way to format? Otherwise, it is no less "real" than any other gallery. - Jmabel ! talk 14:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what this was referring to but the meaning of gallery which is about an exhibition of media. Or are you suggesting one can create a gallery of words? I don't think so.
However, I just noticed there is the issue of gallery often being defined as an exhibition of artworks in specific but a more widespread and colloquial use of the word is about exhibitions of any kind of media (also see <gallery></gallery> which accepts any image media) which is also the meaning of the word used here. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: You have to admit tables aren't super intuitive or useful. There's much better ways to makes lists in galleries without the tables being involved anyway. Like check out Logos of postcard publishers. Everything done in a table can be done perfectly fine without it though. @Prototyperspective: I don't think "gallery" in this instance is that inclusive. Otherwise most things on here would be galleries. It's pretty clear they were meant to be places to mainly, if not exclusively, display images. The idea of a gallery just made up of text is totally ridiculous. There's already Wikidata and Wikipedia for tabular data anyway. So I don't really see the point in using galleries for that purpose regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"aren't super intuitive or useful": if you have a goodly amount of parallel data, they are a lot more intuitive than the "gallery" element. Not an example drawn from Commons, but the tables in the lower portion of National Register of Historic Places listings in Nebraska present their information about as well as I think it could be presented. I certainly don't think that page would be improved by converting to the "gallery" element.
I believe most main-space pages on Commons that are presented as tables would be appropriate to keep if pictures were added. And I suspect few of them would be made better for end users by using the "gallery" element instead. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad example. I was mostly thinking about Tombs in the Panthéon de Paris though. There's no reason why most, if not all, of the tabular data in that case couldn't be turned into section headings and/or image titles. I can't think of an example on here that's much more complicated then that either. But the end of the day there's what, descriptions, sections and sub-sections, image titles, Etc. Etc. So there's plenty of ways to store and organize information about without the table. People really should spend more time thinking about if what their doing is actually the best way to do it or adds meaningful information to Commons though. Otherwise it's just an exercise in needless redundancy. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Let's make things clear:
  1. I like Logos of postcard publishers, gallery pages like this one can be very useful, they show images and links to categories, I created a couple of them my self and I often consult them. But a table has more possibilities, like extra columns with more information. So I do not agree that tables are not useful in Commons, like you suggest, on the contrary.
  2. Yes, I agree, Wikipedia can have tabular data. But end users are not going to a Wikipedia page if they need links to categories in Commons, like in Tombs in the Panthéon de Paris.
So I think the possibility to create tables in Commons should be kept.
Thanks Jmabel, for adding the extra column to Tombs in the Panthéon de Paris. I now tend to agree that your solution to add a column with images is the best one, the more because until now not many gallery pages are involved. In Category:Gallery pages with a wrong format I see just four pages that in my opinion do not meet the criteria and should have such an extra column:
Would you like to share the method you used to add the column?
Creating a special namespace, like 'Table', 'Content table' or 'Table of contents' (without the plural "s" because it is about a namespace) would be a good option if we had hundreds of them. Perhaps we can create a (hidden) category for those kind of gallery tables: if ever we still would like to create such a namespace, then we have them all together in one category. JopkeB (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they show images and links to categories From what I've seen none of these tabular galleries have images. and I don't really see anyone changing that. You could probably argue it's worth having "navigational pages" in the meantime but that's a separate issue and it's not like there aren't ways to do that with links in normal galleries. At the least there should be a special category purely for sorting tabular galleries out from the normal ones. Although I'd really like to see a better solution. Whatever that ends up being. obviously some solutions will be better or worse then others and I'm not saying people have to do it my way. Most of the time there's multiple solutions based on the particular situation anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't really see anyone changing that": are you telling me I didn't do what I just did? - Jmabel ! talk 13:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Do you intend to convert lots of pages with tabular data into galleries by adding images to them? 2. Even if you intend to or it's plausible that this will be done, if the wasn't media in them so far it seems like their use and purpose was not being a 'gallery' of media files but something else so one shouldn't add images just for the sake of it then being able to get passed under the term gallery even when the actual purpose and use and intent of the page isn't being a gallery. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: if you think what I am proposing to do here is somehow counter to the interests of Commons, and that these should be deleted, please nominate them promptly for deletion, not after I have put work into them. - Jmabel ! talk 16:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I think they should be deleted. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are arguing that they are not galleries and seem to be saying that you don't believe they have the potential to be turned into useful galleries, and the broader context of this discussion has been about getting rid of things that are inappropriately in gallery space, and because one of the options above was deletion, and the other was the sort of fix I've started. If you meant something else, please be clearer. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See above: We cannot use the Data namespace for gallery pages with a table without images. We should come up with something else. There are at least three alternatives:[…] Prototyperspective (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I think when I made the comment originally you had just added the "no images yet" thumbnails to the gallery and I assumed it would stay that way until someone else added actual images. I see you've been doing it in the meantime though. So I'll change my opinion with that particular gallery. But still, I doubt your going to do the same thing for every tabular gallery in existence on here and I did say I "don't really" anyone doing it. Not that there isn't anyone. Not that a single user adding some images to one gallery isn't helpful, but we're here to find solutions to the issue in general right? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: given that it is about a week since the issue was raised at all, it's not surprising that the work is just getting started. And there is nothing urgent about any of this. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Yeah obviously. I never said anything needs to or should be done about it immediately. I could ultimately care less either way though. The only reason I'm participating in the discussion or having anything to do with it what-so-ever is because JopkeB pinged me and ask my opinion. No one is saying this needs immediate action though. I'm certainly not. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: No offense, but I do find it a little sanctimonious and bad faithed to act like I'm the one rushing things here when i've had essentially nothing to do with this or anything else related to galleries for a couple of weeks now while you and JopkeB have been implementing your way of doing things in the meantime when the conversation hasn't even concluded yet. Is there nothing urgent about any of this or does that talking point only apply when I'm commenting about it because someone pinged me, not when you and @JopkeB: are actually editing galleries? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: were you not the one who CfD'd these? That's what creates a sense of urgency. - Jmabel ! talk 23:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I nominated a couple of list galleries having to do with monuments in France for deletion like a month ago because that only had a single image since that's the standard JopkeB seemed to want people to follow at the time. I don't see how that creates a sense of urgency about this though. Let alone why it's my issue when I'm not the one who decided single image galleries should be deleted to begin with.
Honestly I don't think the conversation had even been started at that point and again, it's not like I've had anything to do with this in almost a month anyway. So I still think your overacting and pointing the finger at me when it's not my issue and essentially has nothing to do with me at this point. My bad for creating a sense of urgency because I followed the guideline and someone else's standards like a month and a half ago though I guess? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: sure, I'm acting in bad faith, have it in for you, never come to your defense, and am just looking for ways to attack you. Please file about that at COM:AN/U. I promise not to comment on the AN/U thread unless directly asked a question. - Jmabel ! talk 23:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: That's not what I was saying. It just feels a little like I'm getting blamed for something after the fact because JopkeB changed her standards a month later and after she edited the guidelines. aybe I could have phrased it better, but I don't see what's wrong with saying that there's no urgency here on my end because I haven't had anything to do with this for a month and only made the edits to begin with because of JopkeB changing the guidelines.
In retrospect I probably could have waited a little longer to make sure she wasn't going to waffle on it or anything, but still. People seem to treat me like I have no patience about things and edit against the consensus when I've just been sitting here waiting for both of you to figure it out. I just don't want you to think I'm trying to push the issue when I'm not. That's all. I'd appreciate it if you assumed good faith and didn't read more into it then that. Feel free to ping me once you guys have ironed things out and I'll probably help add images to the galleries once you've decide how to handle things. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facts:

  1. At least two us think the possibility to create tables in Commons should be kept because they can be useful.
  2. In Category:Gallery pages with a wrong format four pages are left with tables without images, that are worthwile keeping and should have an extra column with images:
    1. List of public baths in Paris (column with images has been added by Jmabel)
    2. List of hospitals in Paris (column with images has been added by Jmabel)
    3. List of kindergartens and elementary schools in Paris (this is a very long one, with I guess about 90% red links)
    4. List of libraries in Paris (also a long one with many red links).
  3. Ebrahim has given some good answers, that deserve to be included in a Help page about the Data namespace.
  4. In Category:Gallery pages with a wrong format 19 other pages are left.

Proposal:

  1. To solve the problem of a gallery table without images by us, a table without images should at least have (1) a column with links to Commons categories or other Commons pages and (2) one other column with useful information that cannot be shown directly in a Category by topic.
  2. Contact the creator(s) of those four gallery pages and ask them to add a column with images, or to help us doing so, referring to this discussion.
  3. Create a (hidden) category for gallery pages with tables: if ever we still would like to create such a namespace, then we have them all together in one category.
    1. How should we call it? Category:Gallery pages with tables?
    2. Implement it: search for gallery pages with tables (how can we do that in a smart way?) and add them to this category.
  4. Mention on Commons:Galleries that it is allowed to have gallery pages with tables, but only if they have a column with images or a gallery with a good sample of images from the category/ies the table is about (for example: I think List of Paris Metro lines is a useful gallery page, it does have a lot of images, only not in the table). And they should be added to Category:Gallery pages with tables (or whatever the name will be).
  5. Mention this solution also on Category:Gallery pages with a wrong format.
  6. Help:Data should become a proper Help page. We can start with adding the answers by Ebrahim.
  7. Judge the other 19 pages in Category:Gallery pages with a wrong format and think about what should be done with them. Discuss it here.

@Jmabel, Adamant1, and Prototyperspective: Did I forget something? What do you think? --JopkeB (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I think either one of you care but I'd be interested to know what basis there was for undeleting the galleries since from what I can tell there's no consensus about it either way and the guidelines still seem to be against these types galleries in the meantime. Sure @JopkeB: has proposed something but so what? The guideline clearly says single image galleries qualify for speedy deletion. Plus the conversation hasn't concluded anyway. Someone can't just write a proposal and then do things however they want regardless of if there's a consensus to do it their way or not. Otherwise why even bother with it if your just going to implement it without giving people a chance to comment or otherwise ignore their opinions? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of consensus is usually not a basis for speedy deletion so, yes, I think undeletion is in order so they can at least be discussed with some ability to see what is being discussed. - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I agree, but then I didn't nominate the galleries for deletion because of the lack of consensus. The guideline says galleries with a single image qualify for speedy deletion, which the last time I checked we all agree on. So I'm not really sure what your getting at. I could really care less if the galleries were undeleted. I do have an issue with them being undeleted based on the wrong belief that their deletion had anything to do with this conversation when that's not what it was about though. In retrospect though I probably should have waited for a while after the guideline was changed to nominate single image galleries for deletion since it seems like JopkeB is waffling over the whole thing and no one else seems to actually be behind it at this point anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are here discussing the guideline you are referring to. At least two of us want to keep this kind of gallery pages in one way or another, and we are looking for ways how to do that. And then you nominated again a lot of gallery pages that were just kept and reverted (see Commons:Deletion requests/List of libraries in Paris). What about the rule that during a discussion no changes are made in disputed pages as long as the discussion has not been closed? What is the hurry? JopkeB (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overview of gallery pages in Category:Paris-related lists with tables without images: (28)

These gallery pages have a table without images, but the gallery pages themselves have a gallery with a sample of images (13):
For me these lists have enough images to keep them.
My  Question: Would it indeed be enough to keep pages with a table without images in the table if those pages have a gallery with a sample of images? Then we might just add such a gallery to the pages in the first list above to be able to keep them. JopkeB (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree that it should be needed to convert tables to tables containing some media files just for the sake of being able to call it a gallery and oppose "Gallery pages with tables" and instead support something like "Tables" or "Index pages" and/or converting them to categories. I thought "Gallery pages with a wrong format" was missing most pages that belong into it. I don't think it's a big problem to not yet have a formal, separate namespace for this type of lists or tables yet. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: You might be right that "Gallery pages with a wrong format" was missing most pages that belong into it. And I agree that for now a formal, separate namespace for this type of lists or tables is not needed, but only if we agree that we can keep those pages if they have either
  • a table with images in the table OR
  • at least one gallery with a sample of images.
@Jmabel and Adamant1: The second possibility would be a new addition to the Gallery guideline. So the question still is: Do you agree with this proposal? JopkeB (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the general direction. Adamant1 won't be replying for a while, because he is blocked for a month. What I'm not endorsing is a big deletion spree of possibly salvageable pages. If a "gallery" just consists of one or two images, it probably should be deleted, especially if it seems unlikely to be expanded, and certainly I have no problem with having Wikidata wikilink to a useful category rather than a mediocre gallery. But for things that look salvageable, I think we should be very inclined to try to salvage, whether that is a move to "Commons" space (a.k.a. "Project" space), userfying, outright fixing it as I did on a few called out above, or whatever. - Jmabel ! talk 21:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I'll wait for Adamant1's return before closing this discussion.
 Question Would adding a gallery to a page with a table without a column for images, like in List of cemeteries in Paris, be a good solution to salvage a page as a gallery page? I would be prepared to help salvage the pages in the first list (28, now 27) in this way. JopkeB (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: I personally think that is reasonable (would view that as sufficient not to delete), though I personally would still be inclined to add the column and use it where we have content. - Jmabel ! talk 20:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries with few images hiding / less useful than category pages

Could such galleries please be redirected to the category pages? There seems to be agreement in Commons talk:Galleries/Archive 1#Galleries with only one image and in the other discussion about galleries that are not useful or much less useful than their corresponding category. I couldn't find the other discussion about this, could somebody please link it? There also is Template talk:Wikidata Infobox#Inconsistent linking by category infobox. One could start via a Quarry query that shows gallery pages with just one or two images. These pages create many problems, including pointing Wikipedia users and Web search engines to an outdated page containing just few images created by one user two decades ago instead of a well-organized well-populated up-to-date category and hiding of category pages in the search results (example). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At your example, the first two things I looked at (Roses by grower and (Roses by color) looked like reasonably developed gallery pages, which I don't think would be candidates for speedy redirects. But perhaps I am missing your point. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good thing to note. This example was not to illustrate low-quality galleries but to illustrate that galleries can hide category pages. It would have been better if I had chosen an example of galleries just containing one or two files each that hide a category page.
-
Here I found 4 relevant queries: undermaintained Species Galleries, Number of galleries on Wikimedia Commons with 0 image, Number of galleries on Wikimedia Commons with less than 5 images, Number of galleries on Wikimedia Commons with 1 or 2 images. I think these could be modified so that they list the galleries rather than their count. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item by "the other discussion about this"? This discussion is about (in short) whether these kind of gallery pages should be getting a redirect to the category or just be deleted.
 Question How can a gallery page hide a category page? JopkeB (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, it's Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2024/09#Redirect undermaintained Species Galleries to Category pages (edit: now archived) but it's not about only species galleries. Answer: it doesn't hide them literally, they move these out of sight&use via 1. pointing Wikipedia users and Web search engines to an outdated [gallery] page [instead of a cat page] and 2. burying category pages in the search results as can be seen in the example. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I get it. I think the problem for the two examples Jmabel gave, is at the Wikidata item: they do not even have Statements for categories nor for gallery pages. Somewhere (I guess in Meta.Wiki, but I cannot find it anymore) there is a proposal about the possibility to have the category as well as the gallery page be in the Multilingual sites of the Wikidata item, and so be able to choose in for instance a Wikipedia page which one you want to see.
For now I am not a fan of a redirect of a good gallery page to a category, because that means that the gallery page should be emptied. I think it is better to just add the category to the Wikidata item. JopkeB (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata has a property for Commons category and Commons gallery as well as a Commons link. I think with the exception of galleries that are well-populated Commons links to galleries are best replaced with the link to the category because that's usually (or often?) the one Commons page Wikipedia users looking for media about the article subject are linked to from Wikipedia. For now I am not a fan of a redirect of a good gallery page to a category, Fine but this thread is about galleries with just one or two images for example. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that: "with the exception of galleries that are well-populated Commons, links to galleries are best replaced with the link to the category". So then the Wikidata item has:
  • a statement for a Commons category (if it exists)
  • a statement for a Commons gallery page (if it exists)
  • a link in the Multilingual sites to:
    • the Commons category if there is only a poor gallery page, or the Wikidata item is about a category (I somewhere read that the Commons link should be to the Commons category if the Wikidata item is about a category; in that case the Category Wikidata item usually has also a link to the Wikidata item about the subject, where the Commons link should be to the gallery)
    • the Commons gallery if it is a good gallery with lots of images and the Wikidata item is not about a category; if this is not possible (because the category is already in use in another Wikidata item, like in the associated Category Wikidata item) then there should be no link at all in the Commons link (I think then automatically the one in the Category Wikidata item is used on other Wiki sites, but this is one of the subjects in Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item).
Will this be correct? JopkeB (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for summarizing this. then there should be no link at all in the Commons link (I think then automatically the one in the Category Wikidata item is used on other Wiki sites I agree with that and it's half of what the thread is about (the other half being asking about deleting gallery pages which are of overly low quality i.e. having only eg ≤2 images). I think many Wikidata items have gallery pages specified in the Multilingual links. Possibly it's often because the category can't be added there anymore since it's already set on the WD item so any tries to add it by users have failed while the user (or bot?) adding a gallery page there can add it successfully. A query that shows all relevant Wikidata items with a gallery page in their Multilingual link for Commons set would be very useful, if possible either each with stats columns like number of files in the gallery or specific to galleries with relatively few items in the gallery despite of many files in the category so that users can check these. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true: "because the category can't be added there anymore since it's already set on the WD item", see Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item. So that part of the discussion is in that discussion, I suggest we therefor do not discuss it here also.
I agree that we should have a query like you describe it, but I am not at all good with making queries. So I hope someone else will do it. And then the next question is: how will the changes be done? Because it is a lot of work to do all the replacements by hand. JopkeB (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a link in the Multilingual sites to… the Commons category if there is only a poor gallery page": not Wikidata's rule, and we can't tell them what to do. If there is a gallery page, then their rule says to link it. From their point of view, our options are (1) fix the poor gallery page, (2) eliminate the poor gallery page, (3) suck it up. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. It was not portrayed as being a Wikidata rule 2. It's not "their rule" that such is then to be linked. 3. Disagree that this would be "their point of view" and nothing substantiates that. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: after some research, you appear to be correct. I'm rather surprised: it looks like Wikidata has no policy at all on this. The discussions never led to consensus. What I described is what I've seen people consistently do. I'm rather amazed that it's not driven by a policy on that project. - Jmabel ! talk 04:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other example of galleries hiding categories: search for 3D model does not show the cat. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Galleries&oldid=960530688"