Talk:Mendizorrotza Stadium

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Estadio Mendizorrotza → Mendizorrotza Stadium — Title should be in English. --Txuriurdin (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gallery
Myself and an IP user have different opinions on the "Gallery" section, I believe WP:GALLERY forbids it and he or she believes it supports it.

In my opinion, the selection of photos is random and has no theme. It is a way to fit as many photos into the article. That is what Wikimedia Commons is for. The guideline that I linked, says:

"However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the,, or templates. One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons."

I need as many views as possible here, instead of a back-and-forth between two people. I am tagging recent editors to the page:

Harambe Walks (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't see anything wrong with the gallery as each image is a different aspect of the stadium so it is not random or indiscriminate. Wikipedia needs brightening up with more free images so I think it should stay but not be increased as that would be too much, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)<
 * Thank you for sharing your opinion and please show this discussion to as many other potentially interested users who you know of Harambe Walks (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't really know, the gallery wasn't particularly impressive but nor was it excessive. Happy to abide by the consensus of course. I have been adding the best of the gallery images back in when it was removed as a second image is definitely justified. Might be worthwhile adding a message to WP:FOOTY since it's a football stadium and presumably some of of the contributors there deal with stadium articles of various sizes/quality on a regular basis? Crowsus (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My first port of call was to the architecture WikiProject because they would know this subject more specifically (what is and is not indiscriminate photos of a building) but that project's talk page looks almost dormant. Harambe Walks (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with that. It gives the reader different views from the stadium as a whole, no problem with that in my opinion. The problem exists when some spot is excessively repeated. MYS  77  ✉ 00:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me, the images are informative. Nothing "indiscriminate" about them. Darius robin (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)