Commons:Deletion requests/Silver Peak

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Silver Peak

This images refer to different locations. The content, modified to link to categories throughout, is now held at the disambiguation Category:Silver Peak. Keith Edkins (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the gallery references different locations. On 2019-01-06 JCB removed the {{Disambig}} template that had been there. The gallery is appropriate as it analogous the the article pages and references different gallery and article pages. The category page references only categories. No need to delete either. However, I don't it's appropriate to copy from one to another. Evrik (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOVE. This might be a better way to do Category:Silver Peak, but there is no reason for it to be in gallery/main space. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this policy or personal preference?Evrik (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a DAB page in the mainspace unless there are multiple articles in the mainspace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Silver Peak (Inyo County, California), Silver Peak (Arizona), Silver Peak (Esmeralda County, Nevada) are three. There are also categories and links elsewhere. Evrik (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, Keep then. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: By now Evrik didn't get that on Commons there were no disambiguating article/gallery pages like on en:wp. Until he created Silver Peak and a few others. The reason is: On Commons the categories play the major role, not the galleries. On Wikipedias it is the other way round. On Commons there are hundreds of thousands of categories that don't have/need a matching gallery page. Therefore the disambig system had strictly been built upon categories. --Achim (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Achim, this is not a policy, but a personal preference. I just checked Commons:Category disambiguation and Commons talk:Category disambiguation. There is no policy on this. If there is, please point me to it. Otherwise, this is an appropriate use. Evrik (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edit: In addition this meets the requirements at Commons:Galleries#Galleries vs. categories. Evrik (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: In addition galleries like mentioned Silver Peak (Inyo County, California) show that Evrik didn't get the use of gallery pages as well. Silver Peak (Inyo County, California) can and should be deleted, there's no loss because it doesn't contain different information than the cat. Galleries are primarily intended to be used for big categories like Category:Florida or Category:Cologne Cathedral that contain thousands of files, so that a gallery should provide a useful subset of good files/images so that a user can get a quick overview. --Achim (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment each of the galleries you mention fall with the guidelines for gallery pages. So again, what you are stating is a personal preference. Evrik (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evrik, so we have a) your personal preference, b) mine and c) common practise. And d) I know of galleries that have been deleted for being redundant to categories. Here on the Commons we didn't have and didn't need disambiguation galleries until you started creating some. The facts: There are 12,343 disambiguation categories and 7 disambiguation galleries. Each of these 7 disambiguation galleries had been created by you. So it looks like you were trying to transfer the disambig system from en:wp to Commons. Btw, you are right arguing "allowed is what is not prohibited" but this kind of treating rules and policies as the highest level for any actions on our projects regardless whether they make sense in a certain case or not is one of the reasons I don't contribute any longer to language-based wikis except for technical fixes. It's become more and more uncomfortable there and I hope Commons won't follow this trend. --Achim (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ummm no, there were a lot more galleries until jcb unilaterally took down hundreds of them. Evrik (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We had over 700 disambiguation galleries until Jcb (thankfully desysopped) unilaterally deleted them all. The same principal applies with Wikipedia, if there are multiple articles with a name then DAB pages need to exist under the unqualified name. People searching for "Silver Peak" then can select the one they want. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never agreed with jcb. Evrik (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedias do need at least articles and categories. Commons needs at least files and categories. One cannot compare articles with galleries. Commons would work very well if there were not even one gallery. --Achim (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is room for both. What is needed is a coherent policy. 21:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, we have an official guideline for galleries, but IMO it could be improved. --Achim (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have read [[Commons:Galleries#Galleries vs. categories. Would you like to collaborate on fleshing out a better policy at: Commons:Category disambiguation and Commons talk:Category disambiguation? Evrik (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't need the galleries themselves then a DR should be filed first, if that resulted in delete then the DAB gallery could probably be deleted to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Most of the links on this page are either to other wikis or red links. The disambiguation needs to be between pages on Commons, not between multiple wikis (Wikidata might be appropriate for such pages). The disambiguation task is more than adequately performed by the category. --Green Giant (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restored on request but I have removed most of the objectionable content such as external links and links to pages on other wikis that have no corresponding page here. Commons galleries should support COM:SCOPE, so I’ve left in the Commons pages and those photos hosted here that don’t have gallery pages yet. I’ve also added a qid for the Wikidata infobox. Any future entries should abide by COM:SCOPE. --Green Giant (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]