What exactly is the basis (i.e the policy) underlying the use of this tag?

For example its use on Solar Energy Generating Systems is really strange. There are a few extra figures there that each tell an additional part of the story and without which the story would be lessened in quality. One could even argue that the pictures in the gallery belong more on the page than all the rather large diagrams. The latter are hardly specific to the Solar Energy Generating Systems sites but of a more generic nature. It would seem to this unprepared reader that it is the ugly and inappropriate tag that needs clean-up not the appropriate pictures.

Jcwf (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found one that I linked in the Template at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_galleries per my post at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Contradictory_Templates_Template:Cleanup-gallery_and_Template:Gallery Since this tempalte is being used on most pages with Template:Gallery violates the policy, I am considering adding the Template:Gallery on WP:TFD to be deleted and would clean up this mess already. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 02:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The location of that policy has changed slightly (to Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries) so I've edited it accordingly. The policy does say that there are instances where you would legitimately use a gallery, so the gallery template is still useful; it's the indiscriminate galleries that are the problem. Anaxial (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the template didn't accurately capture the policy at WP:IG. I tweaked it a bit - let me know if I got it right. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I tweaked further to "looks like an inappropriate image gallery". Having reviewed a number of the articles, especially those on art, I found it inappropriately placed on over 50% (all removed). Many people still don't realize how WP:IG has shifted, & that all art FAs for a long time have had galleries. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the changes User:Johnbod made as I do not think a global template should be biased to favour one small corner of Wikipedia. And as for "all art FAs for a long time have had galleries" - complete nonsense. memphisto 15:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted CFCF's wording: "contains an unnecessarily large gallery of images. Galleries containing indiscriminate images of the article subject are discouraged".

The policy-based (WP:IG) problem with galleries is that they are indiscriminate, regardless of how large or small they are. The original wording reflects this concern better: "contains a possibly unencyclopedic gallery of images. Galleries containing indiscriminate images of the article subject are discouraged;"

However, I'm inclined to agree with CFCF in dropping the guidance concerning Wikimedia Commons in: "please improve or remove the section accordingly, moving freely licensed images to Wikimedia Commons if not already hosted there." I've never in my life seen a gallery that's worth transferring to Commons. Almost without exception, the images are already hosted on Commons and in an appropriate category anyway. What I have encountered is having a removal of an indiscriminate image gallery been reverted on the pretense that I did not make any edits in Commons. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: — What I originally took issue with is that a gallery of images does not by definition have to be unencyclopaedic. For example on articles about anatomy, having up to 10 images is fully acceptable as long as each image conveys something unique and helps explain the subject. The current wording makes it seem as if any gallery is per definition unencyclopaedic. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I am putting together a proposal to improve the wording of WP:IG, which has remained effectively unchanged for nearly 10 years and has a number of issues. This would have knock-on effects for this template. I don't especially agree that the old wording is better, or reflects policy better. It rather encourages complete removal, when in fact trimming is more often the ideal course. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]