Talk:Pinnipedia
(Deletion debate originally in main article)
Untitled[edit]
Contains only images that are correctly put into categories and other properly named articles. Duplicates the information in the category-tree and makes navigation confusing. Petwoe 19:07, 27 November 2004 (UTC)
Disagree: en:Pinnipedia, for instance, links to this page. It gives a nice overview of the different families. What's wrong with showing images on two page? Ranveig 00:07, 28 November 2004 (UTC)
- There shouldn't be any links from Wikipedias to gallery-pages on commons. Commons is a repository for media-files. Once the category piping/imaging system works there shouldn't be ANY gallery pages. Duplicate pages do not facilitate the search for particular media-files, they just clutter the category tree. There is no need for an overview either - this kind of information is much better suited for the different language wikipedias. Besides: A clean tree provides all the information anyway. It is just not helpfull. Petwoe 07:43, 28 November 2004 (UTC)
Well, that's more of a philosophical debate about what Commons is and what it isn't. I'm pretty certain it can be used in a number of ways. Links here from various wikipedias are good because they spread the word about commons, which will lead to more usage and more resources (files, users) coming in.
You're saying the pinnipedia article isn't helpful, but that's your view. Others may be looking for excactly that. Because there are many viewpoints on these things, I don't think calling for a speedy deletion is appropriate cases like these - do a regular deletion instead, if you want to get rid of the page.
In this particular case, how do you feel about moving some content and redirecting Pinnipedia to the pinnipedia category? That way anyone who might be searching won't find nothing, but there will be one less offending page for you to see. You can almost forget about it. *grin*