Talk:Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Pinnacle/Gallery

This sub article is part of a Star rated travel topic. See discussions at Talk:Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Pinnacle for reasons and consensus.

I have used the same page banner as the main article as they are on the same topic. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

VFD discussion

All the pages listed Category:Gallery_pages

There are only three of them. People can find these pictures at Wikimedia Commons if they want; these pages do not seem to match our goals. Two of them were created in 2009-2010 by the same user, and the other one was created in 2016. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• I hope we hear from people more involved in the diving articles, but I'd vote to delete on the same basis as you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete St. Louis/Mississippi Gallery, but I wouldn't object if it was merged into St. Louis. I don't find this a useful set of images and the creator didn't justify it at the time.

Keep Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Coral Gardens (Rooi-els)/Gallery and Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Pinnacle/Gallery. These are appendices to a star and a guide article. I think that they are a useful addition to the article, and at the time the minimal use of image policy would have deterred putting these in the article. Longer term they could be merged in to the articles, but there is no hurry for that. AlasdairW (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with AlasdairW's assessemnt and recommendation. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember now taking part in a discussion about this with Peter Southwood. I agree that these could simply be galleries on Commons, but I can respect that this is how the diving community wants to structure diving guides. I think it's perfectly OK for there to be differences in how articles designed for different audiences are structured. So I'll be neutral in this nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree—the two diving galleries don't seem to be doing any harm, so I'm happy to defer to editors who work on diving articles.

As for the St. Louis/Mississippi gallery, it might be better to redirect it to St. Louis#See, and include the images in listing templates. Alternatively it could possibly be expanded into a travel topic or itinerary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that very few, if any, pages listed at VFD do any harm. But VFD is still used to delete articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The St. Louis gallery should absolutely be deleted. There's no good reason to keep it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd say a significant fraction of pages that are deleted were doing harm, by misleading or distracting readers without offering much value. In any case, I'm not saying "They do no harm, so let's keep them"; I'm saying "They do no harm, so let's let the people who edit in this area make the judgement call". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I see. That makes sense. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense in terms of St. Louis. Galleries are for Commons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe Granger was referring to the diving galleries, not the St. Louis one, but I may be wrong. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I meant. For St. Louis, I think merging or deletion makes sense, unless someone wants to expand it into an itinerary article or something similar. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

And when you say "let's let the people who edit in this area make the judgment call", you mean people who know about diving, you don't mean people who live in the St. Louis area. That may be what IK thought you meant. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I was just clarifying. I think the result of these noms is clear: Delete the St. Louis gallery unless someone wants to put it in their userspace and keep the other two. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. We should wait out the 2 weeks though, right? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It could be moved to Commons, where galleries are in scope. Is it better than Commons:Category:Bridges over the Mississippi River at St. Louis or what could easily be done using the subcategories? At least these images seem to be well documented and valuable. I added them to that category and its subcategories, they were uncategorised before. --LPfi (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: St. Louis/Mississippi Gallery is deleted; Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Coral Gardens (Rooi-els)/Gallery and Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Pinnacle/Gallery are kept. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)