Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides
'''Very important points have been made at Votes for deletion/Gallery of illuminated manuscript images in favor of keeping. I suggest all of you to read it and synchronize your votes there and here.''' Mikkalai 00:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

''The creator of this VfD page (me) is a moron' - I meant the gallery of course since it is all images. Precedent was set on this issue by the Yucca Mountain article and the deletion of Yucca Mountain/images. I apologize for posting the wrong link at the top of my VfD even though this page is Votes for deletion/Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides. Sorry for my mistake and I cannot be sure how many of those votes are because of my stupidity.... Unless this gallery page has some encyclopedic value then the place for image galleries is in the commons. gren 22:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The vote from this precedent is found at Votes for deletion/Yucca Mountain/Images. This vote received no votes other than the nominator, gren.  I do not believe that this is adequate to establish a consensus for deletion, or is adequate to establish a precedent that could wipe out an entire category of articles.  There are 144 articles in Category:Wikipedia image galleries, and not all image galleries have been categorized.  It also doesn't seem to me that the folk at Commons have come to a consensus as to whether or not images will be grouped into articles or categories there.  If they decide against having galleries, we will be left without the content, having deleted ours.  Now as to if there is some encyclopedic value to image galleries, I would say yes. One of the great advantages of Wikipedia is that it is not paper. One of the great drawbacks of traditional encyclopedias is that the number of images limited because they are expensive.  When discussing an art object (which is what I consider the Vienna Dioscurides to be) the best way to understand it is to see it.  With a complex object like a codex, you need many pictures to understand it.  I felt when I created this article that separating the pictures into a gallery made the main article less ugly, but I consider them absolutely essential to understanding the piece. I am uncomfortable having the main gallery being on another project and which will include text in multiple languages as Wikicommons evolves.  Perhaps I erred and should have just included the gallery in the main article, as has been done for Codex Aureus of Lorsch, but I find this very ugly. Dsmdgold 00:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, by encyclopedic value I meant words a number of words (other than captions) to explain the images. Yes pictures have encyclopedic value, however, I don't believe they have a need to be duplicated on commons and Wikipedia if there is not going to be a big article with them.  There will be arbitration on this issue in the near future no doubt  gren 02:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Insisting that words are the key to having encyclodedic value is, in my mind, simply wrong when dealing with art objects. Commons is not an encyclopedia and certainly not an English language encyclopedia. Using Commons to provide galleries for the English Wikipedia will result in the linking to articles like this, which is simply unacceptable for an English language encyclopedia.

Vienna Dioscurides replaces the need for this page as media pages should be migrated to commons (especially when all of the files are already commons).


 * Delete Commons > wikipedia gallery. gren 03:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm afraid I don't understand.  Why do we want an English language article on the commons?  I thought the commons was to be used for images to be used by all language Wikipedias.  Are we now planning on making every article part of the Commons?  Keep.  RickK 06:48, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems absolutely noteable. Martg76 07:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If the VfD is on the Gallery page, I change my vote to Delete/Transwiki. Martg76 15:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and "Huh?" as above. Kappa 13:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The link from to this page was removed from the article Vienna Dioscurides was removed by Grenavitar. In the Edit Summary he wrote "commons make that page useless". I would argue that that is not so. A newcomer to Wikipedia would not understand the purpose of the Commons link, but would understand the link to this article. Dsmdgold 14:25, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - if you really believe that is an issue (which I don't) you can make a link like Gallery of page from Vienna Dioscurides linking to the commons but showing that it is the gallery. gren 22:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, One can do that. But consider this scenario: some one has a list of specific manuscripts they want to read about. They read the Vienna Dioscurides article, follow the link to commons, are not aware that they have left Wikipedia, look at the pretty pictures, decide to go to the next manuscript, and type in "Book of Kells" in the search box and hit go. They get this rather than this.  At this point, the poor user is confused and we have failed them. Dsmdgold 10:47, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: It seems that this VfD actually was supposed to target Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides, not Vienna Dioscurides. Martg76 17:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * delete and do as gren says. Mikkalai 01:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)...er... done as grey says. Mikkalai 02:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable pictures. Klonimus 07:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to commons. - SimonP 12:57, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

'''Very important points have been made at Votes for deletion/Gallery of illuminated manuscript images in favor of keeping. I suggest all of you to read it and synchronize your votes there and here.''' Mikkalai 00:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.