Talk:Puerto Rican women in the military/Archive 1

RE: WP:3O
Puerto Rican Women in the Military: is the addition of a portrait gallery of "Puerto Rican Women who have perished in war" acceptable?[1] 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is. The images don't add anything to the article. If the women were notable to have their own articles -- which I don't believe they are -- then images would be warranted in their individual articles. But an image dump does not improve the article in any way. - Che Nuevara  18:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The images are revelant to the subjects mentioned in the article. The images are Public-Domain and there is no violation of Wikipedia policy.  The above was an opinion, howover unless there is prove that there has been a policy violation and that the subjects are not mentioned in the article then I believe there is no harm what-so-ever in permitting them to stay.  Tony the Marine 21:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any good policy-based reason for rejecting the image, and it is relevant to the article. Sandy 21:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Che, I disagree with your perspective on the noteworthy idea behind the images. Although these women may not have accomplished anything significant in their lives (or, more accurately, had the chance to), what is noteable about them is that they gave up their lives for a cause larger than themselves.  Granted, this could quickly get out of hand, but I dislike the mentality that in order to avoid slippery slopes we should ax what are perfectly good/appropriate additions.  Slippery slope arguments are best summed up by the phrase,  "we ought not make a sound decision today, for fear of having to draw a sound distinction tomorrow."  I say keep them, and honor those fallen comrades, and if such gallery becomes unruly, we can make figure out a better distinction tomorrow.  Until then...that page is the perfect place for highlighting how Puerto Rican women have contributed to the military.  And our country.  Brava.  --DavidShankBone 22:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the addition of images: Unless there is a licensing issue with the images (Tony  indicates that they are public domain, in which case there is no issue), then the pictures serve to illustrate the article and are appropriate.  There is not policy that an individual's picture can only be posted if they have their own article. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep images, but change the backround: I don't see why the images should be removed, but the pink color substract encyclopedic value to the article.Nnfolz 03:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Pink is now history. Tony the Marine 04:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * agree per ERcheck. Murcielago 05:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with keeping the images. The number is unlikely to become unwieldy for a long time to come, the images are relevant and they add value to the article.  Pictures always have a stronger impact, making the subject matter more "real" than words alone.  SWAdair 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * agree per ERcheck. Demf 17:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you all. I don't completely agree (obviously, or I wouldn't have started the 3o), but I see the rationale better now. And I'm glad it's no longer such a flashy colour :-) Fram 18:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)