On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Nikola Smolenski <[email protected]> wrote: > Michael Peel wrote: >> On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote: >>> Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to >>> cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered. >>> >>> Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image >>> galleries. Commons galleries feature images based on their aesthetic >>> value, but do not offer encyclopedic information about the topic that >>> should be presented by the images. >> >> In cases where there is encyclopaedic benefit and/or aspects to >> having definitions and/or image galleries, then I'd expect WP:IAR to >> be applied. In the vast number of cases, though, I'd be very > > And aterwards, I'd expect WP:AFD to be applied. > >> surprised if this was the case - e.g. nearly every single image >> gallery I've seen on Wikipedia has been for the benefit of showing >> off the authors' photography skills. ;-) >> >> (BTW, I've seen image galleries used at least semi-encyclopaedically, >> e.g. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >> Solar_eclipse_of_August_1,_2008 , although perhaps someone will >> decide to remove them after this email...) > > I have once made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_gallery_of_toucans > that was deleted. Let's say it was similar to > http://www.emeraldforestbirds.com/EmeraldGallery.htm and I believe you > will find such a gallery is encyclopedic.
I have checked, and the deleted visual gallery is identical to the one at the bottom of this page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ramphastidae I think we benefit from using Commons as an auxiliary reference work specialising in galleries. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
