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. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
