Forum:SH Archive/"Gallery must die" revisited

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)

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)
 * 3) *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)
 * 4) **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)
 * 5) ***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)
 * 6) ****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 [[Image:Redstarbird.svg|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 23:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) 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 [[Image:Redstarbird.svg|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) Sparingly, of course. Greyman  http://images.wikia.com/central/images/9/9c/Jan.png ( Talk ) 01:12, 22 April 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. &mdash;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)

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.
 * 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.
 * 1) 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)