Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β


We already agreed to use latin names for animal and plant galleries. But besides that, there is no consensus yet to how we should handle such galleries. To start some discussion and to collect some ideas about this I created this page. Feel free to add your ideas here, discussion goes to the talk page.

MarkSweep's ideaEdit

From the village pump: Second, the less radical category solution (requiring no software changes) would be to place an image of, say, a Vulpes vulpes schrencki into Category:Vulpes vulpes schrencki, Category:Vulpes vulpes, Category:Vulpes, Category:Canidae, Category:Carnivora, Category:Mammalia, Category:Chordata, Category:Animalia, Category:Animals, and also Category:Snow, Category:Hokkaido, Category:Japan etc. That way, the picture would show up in all of those categories, as opposed to the most specific one, as is currently the case. The software support for navigating large categories isn't quite there yet, but that's a relatively minor problem that doesn't require radical changes. In other words, there would be both a species gallery and a genus gallery, as well as a family gallery, etc. up to a kingdom/regnum gallery. --MarkSweep 18:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Easy to maintain.
  • Using categories, we get a nice tree of life.
  • Using categories, it is impossible to sort or caption any images.
  • Redirects to categories don't work.

Conti's ideaEdit

From the village pump: I created Vulpes by simply using the already existing species articles as a template (like {{:Vulpes vulpes}}), therefore creating a gallery for the whole Vulpes genus. There are some problems with that, like the wrong interwikilinks, but I like the idea. That way we could create galleries not only for genera, but also for families, orders, etc. without too much work. The individual species galleries have to be refactored a bit, so they look good on the other pages too. Another problem I see is that things get more complicated and might be pretty unfriendly for newbies. What do you think? --Conti| 18:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Using articles, we can refactor the galleries any way we want, so there's no problem with big galleries.
  • Compared to the current system, we get some consistency using articles for species and these articles as template for the rest.
  • Creating galleries with articles as templates is really easy.
  • Redirects do work.
  • We have to maintain all the species articles.
  • Using articles as templates produces wrong interwikilinks and categories.
  • Is not so newbiefriendly. (Though not many things here on commons are, anyways.)