Commons talk:Featured galleries

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

THIS PAGE IS FOR COMMENTS RELATED TO THE CONCEPT OF A "FEATURED GALLERY". ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT GALLERIES SHOULD BE PLACED ELSEWHERE, FOR INSTANCE AT Commons:Galleries

Multilinguality[edit]

What should the criteron be in relation to multilinguality?

By multilinguality, this means:

  • Name of page (should be: Latin binominal for species, local names for locational entities, none others specified)
  • All captions on the page should be tagged for language ({{en|like this}})
  • RDRs created in all available languages (according to SumItUp)
  • Interwiki links provided (again via SumItUp)
  • Page intro (SumItUp). There are 3 levels I can think of. I am not decided as to which should be preferred:
    • page name only (a la the interwiki link)
    • single sentence
    • introductory paragraph
  • Individual section or even image captions
  1. Not a criterion (presumably this means only one language is required, since having 0 is not a very good gallery IMO ::)
  2. Only when relevant to the subject (mainly locational stuff: the gallery on a place should have all of the local languages spoken). Then 'universal' subjects like fruit, stars and sunset have no requirement.
  3. Fully vital criterion. Require RDRs, lang tags, page intros and interwiki links for all topics, image captions as provided but for locational topics, required.

OK so multilinguality is important, but we quickly run into a problem... there's only so much room on a page, and especially an image caption!

Therefore I suggest we start promoting the use of some kind of m:Meta:Language select (LS) tool for page intros, and image captions too if we can make it compact enough.

I still have some doubts about introducing LS everywhere -- I am not convinced we should use it to replace the current template translation system, for example -- but it does seem perfect for galleries.


There is a whole other idea here, that individual galleries could be created for each language, to avoid the clutter. One of our Polish editors brought this idea up a while ago. In general I tend to think it's a bad idea, because it makes updating a gallery suddenly 10x as much work, if there are 10 different language versions. It might work, though... I could see it working for, say, art galleries which have detailed analytical captions. But then if we have a compact version of LS, it shouldn't be necessary.

--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think at first we should demand that the gallery has good text provided in one language throughout, Fairly fsimilar to the Polish idea above. Multilinguality should be a bonus, but I'd much rather have a gallery that had english throughout, and no other languages, than one which had an english intro, half the images tagged in french and the rest in german. In other words consistency :)--Nilfanion 13:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, my preference is for a full text para intro for potential main page reasons. However, this causes a mess with multilinguality :( We need a technical solution really (or the pl workaround)--Nilfanion 13:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think LS is a better solution than the pl workaround...?? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other criteria[edit]

Some possible model galleries[edit]

Concerns[edit]

Whoa, all those criteria scare me. Some of the example galleries almost read like articles, they're presenting a lot more information to the user than just pictures. It is cool, but is that duplicating what should be in the various wikipedias? Of course if what is wanted is the cream of the crop, I guess... Maybe instead of jumping right into FG and having to work on really complex criteria and get them sorted, a Good Gallery is the place to start, with simpler criteria? ++Lar: t/c 12:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't want FGs reading as FAs, particularly the current harsh en.wp FA. Having a fair amount of text is important but a gallery should be about the images--Nilfanion 13:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that we should go GG first. We should dive right in... there is nothing wrong with promoting a bunch of stuff in the first year that we later go 'ok, it's not so great after all'. That seems to be a typical process on most Featured things. Some of the example galleries almost read like articles, they're presenting a lot more information to the user than just pictures. Well ya... the whole point of a gallery is to add extra information by organisation and annotation. Otherwise you may as well just look at the category, right? Although they don't read like articles to me... can you imagine any surviving in en.wp without a call to be transwiki'ed?
I don't think it's necessarily the case that just by having standards, we will have poisonous debates (BTW do these happen on featured lists?? because I think that's a more proper comparison), but then I don't follow FA on Wikipedia so I don't really know what goes on. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should probably get less hostile debates on FG than FP. FL noms tend to be genteel compared to FACs on en and most of the current hostility on FAC is due to complaints about the quality of the prose and referencing, neither of which is a problem for galleries. I don't think the debates will be particularly nasty here :)--Nilfanion 02:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Having looked at the en.wp FA and FL criteria, I've looked for possible appropriate stuff for us. I'm not proposing that these criteria be the ones we use (and these are overly strict imo) but that they are a fair starting point for discussion.

  1. It is comprehensive, stable, neutral and well-constructed.
    • (a) "Comprehensive" means that the gallery does not neglect major facts and details.
    • (b) "Stable" means that the gallery is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day.
    • (c) "Neutral" means that the gallery presents the subject fairly and without bias.
    • (d) "Well-constructed" means that the gallery is easy to navigate, and is annotated with additional information, as appropriate.
  2. It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including:
    • (a) a concise introduction that summarizes the topic.
    • (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
    • (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
  3. The images have succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.
  4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  5. It uses one language throughout, with translations provided where appropriate.


This is probably overkill for us, but by writing this down in concrete terms we can discuss what we actually need. One thing I think it is important for an FG to have is a good introduction that would be sufficient for a Main Page description. I'm thinking more like a WP lead like in w:Great white shark rather than what is in Carcharodon carcharias. I think this should be backed up with one image that illustrates the subject - the FP in other words :)--Nilfanion 13:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not too bad, but I think comprehensive should mean something more like, coverage of all relevant aspects of the topic [as laid out by relevant WP articles] plus representative coverage of the corresponding category/ies. So when we have a FG, you shouldn't be able to go into the category and find some amazingly beautiful image and go 'why isn't this on the gallery??'. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get what you mean now about main page requirements. So does this mean any FG would be required to have at least one FP? Or we would somehow co-ordinate the POTD with the GATD? (Gallery of the day :)) I think it will be a very long time before we have enough FGs to put anything on the main page. :) But certainly once you get started, it encourages others. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to demand an FP from every gallery but the top image in the gallery should be kind of exemplary, which suggests FP to me. As for the wording, hack away - I was just quickly converting the FAC/FLC criteria (which I have editing familiarity with) :)--Nilfanion 02:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of images in a featured gallery[edit]

A featured gallery doesn't need to contain a lot of featured pictures, but the overall quality of the pictures should be indeed a criterium, not only their copyright status and the quality of the description. Like this, featured galleries could be a good medium to highlight good pictures and present a selection of the best a category has to offer. So that if I want good cat pictures, I don't have to dig through hundreds of crappy pics in the category but could look at the gallery page to get the best. --Elian Talk 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1. it is...[edit]

Stable, Neutral, Well constructed. - all of these are fairly self definitive.

Comprehensive on the other hand is very subjective, and should be a seperate defined criteria.

  • what does it mean
  1. a selection of all available media, with a see also/main article link to the rest of the media?
  2. all available media presented?
  3. or complete media coverage, with diagrams, all features photographed, all sounds recorded, and animated representation for dynamic objects?
  • what about the written portion
  1. does it need referenceing,
  2. should it be linked to other projects Wikipedia, Wikispecies, Wikinews etc.

There are basics that need to have been addressed before commencing, that they'll change as the process evolves isnt an issue. 04:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

COM:FP and COM:QI[edit]

for images that are FP or QI are they to be presented seperately or identified within the gallery/article. Gnangarra 04:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although we could divide them up and put them in a section by themselves, I would guess that for most galleries this is not a natural organisaton. So this would be a good way:
  • Stained glass window
    Stained glass window
  • Don't sleep and swim
    Don't sleep and swim
  • An articulated bus
    An articulated bus
  • My ABBA collection
    My ABBA collection

--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I also think that marking FP, QI and now also VI pictures is a good idea and there are templates for that use:

{{FP star}}, {{QI seal}} and {{VI-tiny}}

Deutsch: Beispiel
 ·
English: Example
 ·

--Anna reg 20:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the whole page. Just wanted to say that current guidelines and bot implementation on the VI project lead to the tagging of promoted VIs, in the most closely related gallery (when it exists), with {{VI-tiny}}. --Eusebius (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

With the criteria on images,

  1. Is there a minimum size requirement
  2. how are panaromas to displayed compared to other images.
  3. Copyright status needs to be more defined than just "appropriate"
  4. Image caption/description succint or a detailed description.
  5. Where images are 3rd party sourced ie USGS, NASA there can be requirements for attribution, how are these to be treated.

Presume that what applies to images would be applied similarly to all other media. That then brings the question will a gallery require links to PD software that will enable the media to be appreciated. Gnangarra 05:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and Quality[edit]

  • Featured galleries must have a good structure - not radnom images.
  • Presentation of images must be very well - <gallery> for proportional images (not for panoramas).
    • Ezample - Zabrze - format of panorama is not good - better will be with "overflow", the worst with <gallery>
  • Order - problem with POV - but important images -> on first line (like state flag in gallery of country).
    • Example - España - sections Climate (not here) and Gallery - bad name.
  • Sections - good names of sections. In every section we have only a few images or more, if we want to show differences. Gallery is not a category - we must choice the best images from a category. If we have gallery Name of article - all images are in Category:Name of article, but only the best in category. So, if in category Pinus syvestris QI are only cones, we choise the best of them and the best of the best of others objects, even if these images are not QI.
    • Example - Labrador Retriever - sections are good, but too much images.
    • The best will be, when images in gallery will be QI, but we can choice better from category. Can't we? ;)

Commons:The perfect gallery - Do we need that page? Przykuta 12:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most important thing is comprehensive coverage[edit]

Funny, I had this idea too, and was directing here by doing a double-check typing "Commons:Featured galleries" to see if there was anything else before I proposed it. I recommend having a look at w:Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria for a similar process dealing with comprehensive coverage. In my opinion this should be the prime criterion: illustrating all the "basics" of a topic, being a sort of visual encyclopedia entry. Is there any reason we shouldn't formally propose this soon?--Pharos 16:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Wikipedia[edit]

We don't seem to have any guideline page for galleries (at least not if 'Commons:Galleries' is any indication). I rarely see this, but should all galleries (and categories, for that matter) provide a link to the subject's article (in each language, ideally) on Wikipedia? User:Richard001 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use interwiki links. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know how to link, I'm asking whether a guideline or policy anywhere here says that we should link. Richard001 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. There is no policy or guideline AFAIK, but my rule of thumb would be to only apply interwiki links to galleries and categories. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know what you're talking about... I only recently noticed that the interwiki links at the left are to Wikipedia (where did I think they were to - Commons? Guess I just didn't think about it). Richard001 06:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most linked galleries[edit]

Out of idle curiosity, I had an unscientific look at the most linked-to gallery pages. As of 11/11/2007 among the top galleries are the following dozen (redirects will affect exact rankings) with my one-word opinionated mini-reviews:

On the basis of this quick trawl, it seems to me that few of the most-linked galleries provide a representative and attractive overview of the content available. Comments? Man vyi 10:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I find your list quite interesting, I think that in wikicommons the number of links to a gallery has absolutely nothing to do with the gallery itself, as the links (should) come from picture and gallery descriptions (e.g. view of the Stephansdom in the Innere Stadt, district of Vienna, Austria) - but it shows which galleries really need some work, links provided in descriptions will be used... --Anna reg (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries - any guidelines?[edit]

At COM:VP#Galleries - are there any guidelines for them? I've asked why we don't seem to have any guidelines for galleries (I also eluded to this above). If we're going to have some featured gallery standards, it might be better to start with some guidelines for ordinary ones, no? Richard001 06:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case people miss it: Commons:Galleries Rocket000 06:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_galleries&oldid=864093163"