[Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Nikola Smolenski]

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.