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

[John Vandenberg]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk at eunet.yu> 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