Wikipedia talk:Images of Galle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from VfD:

Nothing more than a photo collection. While the photos are nice to have, is an article of just photos a good idea? Would it be better located at something like Galle/Images, if anywhere? There's also Images of Mumbai. - KeithTyler 21:06, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Images of Mumbai lost VfD, as I recall. It was my second VfD nomination ever, I think, after Drexel Shaft. Pages of pictures are pages of pictures, but they're not encyclopedia articles. They're better stored in a user's subpages until they are needed or placed on the new Commons. Geogre 00:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Nope, Geogre, it did not. I would like to think it was because I reworked the collection extensively in Photoshop, leaving the best of a pretty mediocre photo essay in place. Pages of pictures are, to be sure, pages of pictures, but that does not render them unencyclopedic. I have just completed a photo essay of wildflowers of the Canadian Rockies, but have ensured that a healthy stub describes each of the images. Denni☯ 02:37, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
    • My recollection of the Mumbai thing was that the author had been contacted and said that he put them up without really knowing what he was going to say about them. Pshopping them to reduce size and load times was a good thing, but a stub on each image is, in fact, all I would ever ask. It's just when a page loads, the text says, "Images of Mumbai," and then 8-10 photos simply load there, possibly with captions only, I don't think it's encyclopedic. Instead, I think those pictures would be fantastic if merged with Mumbai for example. In this case, I'm not sure what the proper target would be. Geogre 12:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:List of images/Places/Asia Pacific or a subpage thereof. —No-One Jones (m) 00:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be nice if a local would put some commentary on the photos, but even if they don't this page is still worth keeping. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - no content by definition - Tεxτurε 15:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. No content. RickK 20:09, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. You can't just have some pictures, you have to actually do something encyclopedic with them. If the author intends to extend the article, I'll change my vote to keep or delete, as appropriate. Kim Bruning 21:21, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion