I Think I Solved the Problem

If there's an issue with gallery pages that contain no content, why don't we just not make gallery pages for articles when we don't have any content to fill them with? Those are unnecessary pages, and misleading links.

Billy 14:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I pretty much just make the empty gallery pages because I despise those durn red-links. Just a pet peeve of mine. Same with quotes, appearances, yadda yadda (though I plan on beefing up a lot of those in the near future). However, I only post links on the Gallery pages for pages that actually have content. I don't do it for the empty ones. There's also the benefit of having the templated gallery page ready to go, so people can just drop images into it at their leisure without worrying about formatting issues. --Brian Kurtz 17:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough.
Billy 18:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the point?

There's no need to categorize the galleries by letter, and let's be honest, noone will look for them that way. "Ooh, I am at Batman's gallery, let me just navigate to Robin's." Maybe web design worked like that in 2008, but not today. I think we should get rid of most at least one alphabet bar on the gallery template, if not both, as well as the categorization. --Tupka217 18:26, June 4, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.