Category talk:Categories with a gallery for a better choice of sub-categories

I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind this cat, which should be DEFINED. The structure inside a (good) gallery is free, independent of the categories. Sub-categories appear with the downwards arrows next to the cat. I have removed this cat when the (real) gallery was completed with its broad Topics. See Root: Cat Gallery pages. I have also noted that a cat description contained a Gallery!! See Van Gogh in Museum ...Clearly there is confusion between Categories & Galleries (the Wikimedia software should be more helpful during their creation, I still have difficulties after 3 years!).

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Why did I create this category

Following the questions above.
The present category is under discussion since several months. In Commons talk:WikiProject Gallery pages.
There, I answered to a wikipedian who wanted galleries in a page and not at the top of a category. I copy here what I wrote there to him :

Comments (in january 2015)

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 too 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

numbers of images in january 2015

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)

Is it clear for you ? --Tangopaso (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback

Having just completed the work of defining appropriate sub-categories for nearly 1000 Gallery pages, it was a real surprize to find this method, not used by the vast number of Wikipedians. The choice of the best sub-cat in categories is a matter of logic and common-sense, based on some key areas: by country, by century, by posture, by style .... (see my work on the categories for Nudes in art). One image may best illustrate, when words are complicated (see the image to illustrate what is the position crouching.

It is very easy to see if a cat has a related gallery (the word page is used) (or look at the figure before the P).

I do not believe that sub-categories are to be linked to a choice of plane models for example. More fundamental topics should be invented (this is a case by case exercise).

Anyhow, your idea would be more acceptable with a better name, more neutral and objective, like Categories with embedded small gallery. It would remain purely factual, without referring to the choice of better sub-categories. In my experience, a cat with > 100 images should indeed be split with a choice of independent sub-cats, so that the navigation is natural. Listing all Boeing by names does not correspond to this view. And I repeat: a definition is needed for such a mysterious title (with a clear distinction between categories and galleries). I really thought that you referred to a categorization of topics within galleries.

Perhaps there should be an opinion at the Wikimedia policy level; I know that Galleries are discouraged within Wikipedia ARTICLES. I know also that (separate) Galleries are the best way to provide ORDER and SELECTION within all the pictures! What is clearly not acceptable is a full gallery within a cat (cfr the paintings of Van Gogh in the famous Dutch museum which I moved to its gallery, which is now to be reworked to avoid pure duplicates).

Thus here are some thoughts, perhaps a convergence is possible. Regards.

By the way: is this hidden cat to remain for ever? or does someone decide that good sub-categories are developed?

What does gallery in a page mean? A Gallery IS a page.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about this category:categories with a gallery... is going on since one year (january 2015). There were even other discussions here : Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/01/Category:Categories with a gallery for a better choice of sub-categories. The conclusion seems to have been keep. I already said that I agree to rename the category as you or other people want, but wish to keep it.

For example, when you are in Category:Eiffel Tower, I dont understand how can you know that the main page Tour Eiffel (please note that the name is not the same) has a gallery or not (it has). And this gallery is not convenient to choose a sub category, because :

• There are many images in this gallery (circa 120). Unconvenient to choose a sub category.
• There is not link to the names of sub-category. And their names vary with either Eiffel Tower, the Eiffel Tower, Tour Eiffel...
• A new example to day. In Category:Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress (with gallery in the category), you have only 51 photos. In Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator (without gallery), you have 243 photos (too much).
  

I agree that the gallery in category must not have too much images. After thinking, I agree that there are too much in the portraits of Van Gogh.

Do you want that I create a request to rename (move) the category as you wish ? --Tangopaso (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)