Talk:Gallery of named graphs

Invalid Image in Gallery

"x"

A bug in MediaWiki Gallery is discussed at the Gallery talk page. This has not yet been fixed. I have replaced the incorrect graphs with the red X to avoid confusion. The current Gallery will display an SVG icon if the file is not found, which may confuse some readers because it looks roughly like a "graph". Nimur 16:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about Clebsch graph

Is the Clebsch graph the graph on 16 vertices obtained by connecting two members of GF(16) iff their difference is a nonzero cube? If so, I'd like to see this description somewhere. DavidLHarden (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I just added it to Clebsch graph. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine" -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons

Just so you know this gallery is on Commons: commons:Graphs in graph theory. I just updated it to sync it with the current version. I don't edit that much here anymore, but I thought en.wiki had a policy against galleries. Has this changed or are there exceptions? Why not just link to Commons, which is made for galleries? Rocket000 (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to violate the principles in WP:IG. I prodded it for that reason; if there's disagreement over moving it to commons (as the prod would have the effect of doing) we can discuss it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the prod; this is not really an image gallery in the usual sense of the word. It is not "an indiscriminate collection of images." Rather, this is actually an unusual form of LIST page where the objects, being inherently visual, all have an image. I believe this is a case where "the use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images" per WP:IG. The images are "carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images" in that exactly ONE image is provided for each graph. Personally, I've found the page useful, and would hate to see it go.

Commons is not really the right place for this, because this page is NOT a collection of images, as it might seem at first glance, but a list of GRAPHS (linked to the relevant articles). -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It sure looks like a "collection of images" to me. This is exactly what should be on Commons (in the mainspace). It's unfortunate so many people think Commons' galleries should just be a bunch of related images on a page without any reason or purpose. We need more galleries like this over there. I don't care if it stays here or not, but it would be nice to have one version. Rocket000 (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of this page is to list the graphs and point to articles about them. This page thus resembles other visual mathematical lists, such as the ones in List of uniform polyhedra and List of regular polytopes. That's not what Commons is for – Commons exists to logically order IMAGES. An example of the difference is that this gallery only has one image per graph, as a visual "key" to the article, whereas the Commons gallery might well include several images of the same graph drawn in different ways. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)