Category talk:Galleries

[edit] Sources?

Since this seems to be a general problem, I'll post it here instead of the individual pictures: I checked a number of random pics from the Gallery, and not a single one of them was sourced. This is very bad. A wiki lives (and dies) by citing its sources. A lot of people, including me, care a great deal about whether or not a given information or picture is fan art or comes from an official/canonical source, and in the latter case, from which particular source.

Please edit the pictures and add their respective source to the comments section. Frabby 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the sourec is [1], i have it forgotten sometimes, i'll fix it.Doneve 17:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Uh-oh. Checking the site (WarhawkPPC), they claim to have taken their pictures from all over the internet, plus from some computer games. So the site is probably just a fan-site full of unsourced pictures. Those from the games can (and should) be tagged to be taken from the respective game, but they are not canon because the games are not canon either. The other pictures must be considered non-canonical fan art until proven otherwise. Which sort of turns this entire gallery into a non-canonical fan-art show. It probably needs a Fanon tag. Frabby 18:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with that when we add a Fanon tag, my impression was, to find some colour quality pictures and added in a Gallery on the wiki.--Doneve 18:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand that. It only becomes a problem when people are led to believe the pictures are canonical (as in coming from a canonical publication) when in fact they aren't. BTW is trying hard to segregate Canon from Fanon, and at first I thought the pictures all came from canonical sources. Hence my surprise when this did turn out not to be the case. If the gallery gets a Fanon tag (technically inappropriate, as the pictures and not the gallery ought to be tagged) then that would probably mean the pictures cannot be added to regular article pages, since Fanon should not be mixed in with Canon. That is the one point why I am so careful around this issue. Frabby 18:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] BTW is not an image repository

Based on Nic Jansma's word that BTW is not an image repository (see also: Policy:Images) I think this entire category and all gallery-type "articles" have to go. We don't upload pictures for the sake of uploading pictures; we (only) upload pictures when they are relevant to an article. This means we may even have to delete a number of pictures (especially generic artwork from books).

I'm a bit sorry for Neuling's work but galleries without informative content are against our rules. Frabby 21:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hy Frabby, i revamp the page in next time, search for pics there added in articles, and pics there not used and tagt the not used pics with the deletion tag.--Doneve 09:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A little add-on to explain why I am so opposed to image uploads from sourcebooks: These are copyrighted images. They are somebody else's property. Legally, it constitutes "Fair Use" of these copyrighted images to upload them here for a (pseudo-)scientific discussion, to augment articles, etc. - but uploading copyrighted pictures for no good reason is stretching the "Fair Use" rationale to the breaking point. It may be flat out illegal theft of intellectual property to create these galleries, or at least it's a gray area. We don't want to go there.

Therefore the rationale, as laid down in the Policy:Images: Only upload copyrighted images that substantially add to an informative article. Don't upload them just for completeness' sake. Frabby 13:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I started to revamp the page.--Doneve 13:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)