Commons talk:WikiProject Gallery pages

Page names

Linked from project page

Deletion policy

Linked from project page

Comments

Hi,
First, I apologize for my weak english.
OK. I think I understood.
You think that the right way for managing galleries in Commons, is to create a page with a gallery (for example : Tour Eiffel) inside the correspondent category (in the example Category:Eiffel Tower). There are already 110,000 galleries.
But the subject is : how can we help users to upload photos into right sub-categories and not into crowded main categories.

I say that a better solution is to create a small gallery at the top of the main category.

I think that your solution is not convenient. I take the example of Category:Eiffel Tower, because some months ago there were hundreds (thousands ?) of photos in this mother-category Category:Eiffel Tower. Before the creation of the gallery at the top of the main category :

• The name of the gallery-page is different of the name of the category (Tour Eiffel vs Category:Eiffel Tower). Personnaly, I did not ever see that the page Tour Eiffel included a gallery. From the category, it is not obvious to know if there is a gallery-page. I checked, there are often (for example in Category:White House), but not always (for example in Category:Manhattan, New York City)
• There are to much images in the gallery-page : 124. It doesnt help to choose a sub-category. It is not useful to have several images of the construction of the tower. In the gallery inside the category, there are only 21 images for the main sub-categories to use.
• From the gallery-page, you cannot find the name of the sub-category to use. From the gallery inside the category, you see a short caption with the name of the sub-category. And you have a blue link to reach it (convenient for non-english speaker).
• There are to much images in the gallery-page, but some are yet needed : for example, you dont have the difference between replica of tower and model of tower.

I agree with the interest of gallery-pages (even if I did not see them before). But I think that gallery at the top of the category is a better solution to find easily the right sub-category. Here are some examples. The categories with gallery inside include less photos. The photos have been uploaded into sub-categories :

Category	gallery- page?	gallery inside cat?	nb images	Category	gallery- page?	gallery inside cat?	nb images
Category:White House	yes	no	909	Category:Eiffel tower	yes	yes	zero
Category:Kew Gardens	yes	no	672	Category:Jardin des Plantes de Paris	no	yes	113
Category:Golden Gate Bridge	yes	no	576	Category:Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes	no	yes	11
Category:Manhattan, New York City	no	no	402	Category:La Défense	yes	yes	68
Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator	yes	no	206	Category:Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress	no	yes	29

Then I gathered these categories in Category:Categories with a gallery for a better choice of sub-categories. To see galleries created by other wikipedians (we are at least 7 to do that) and take good ideas. And to find other categories where a gallery may be added.

I will accept your judgment (I am not admin). But I think that it should be a pity to cancel this system.

Best regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Galleries about technology. Multiple choices

I have started a work to provide better categories for the nearly 1000 Gallery pages (in root): asteroids about nature etc. There was a need for a technology related topic, as confirmed by Wikipedia portals taxonomy. The need to have several topics exits however: for ex Storms in vv year in nn country may require topics Year, Country and Nature links. Is this acceptable? All 3 viewpoints are equally valid! Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC) I found later that there was already a small Gallery of technology, which I voided.

Job completed

There just a few pages (8) so a-typical that I have left them in root. A minimum number a sub-cats were created (churches, literature...). Often 2 allocations were made, to highlight the most relevant topics. Countries were added when needed (Sri Lanka the last). The TOC link to letters should be removed.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Content pages" no longer consists of only gallery pages

A recent MediaWiki settings change has resulted in both main-namespace gallery pages and "File:" pages being counted as "content pages" (reported at Special:Statistics). Please see Commons:Village pump#Should content pages consist of galleries only or also include File pages? and reply there if desired. - dcljr (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the archived discussion (which just kind of petered out instead of coming to a firm conclusion) can be found at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2017/07#Should content pages consist of galleries only or also include File pages?. - dcljr (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Status

Is this still active? Evrik (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't look like it… - dcljr (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)