Commons:Deletion requests/Nyctiprogne

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.

Nyctiprogne

Page was blanked as an abusive redirect. Not needed. Reguyla (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Keep I am by no means an expert on taxonomy, but it seems to me that this page, which was created in 2004, is useful, albeit only marginally so, and in no way abusive. Before the blanking, it redirected "Nyctiprogne" to "Chordeilinae", the subfamily which contains Nyctiprogne. Since we have no gallery for Nyctiprogne, that seems to me appropriate.

The page was blanked out of process by User:PurpleHz. I have added back the redirect. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Delete It is a taxon name and it has to host a gallery about said genus (of birds). The redirect is of no value in helping to find an image in relation with the genus Nyctiprogne, and is misleading as someone could think that "Nyctiprogne" is a synonym of "Chordeilinae". As of now, the only thing it provides is a blue link which is problematic for people (like me) who watch out the upload of new images throught 'Special:RecentChangesLinked' (see my page: User:PurpleHz/Articles sans image). SO, no reason to keep that page. Regards. PurpleHz (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You say:

"The redirect is of no value in helping to find an image in relation with the genus Nyctiprogne"

I disagree strongly. If someone is looking for images of Nyctiprogne, which we don't have, the redirect to the parent makes that very clear. Experienced users find their way around Commons with ease, but we need to remember that Commons is not here for us, it is here for the inexperienced user who needs a particular image. Anything that helps them find their way through our more than 25 million images is to be valued, not discarded.

You also say:

"is misleading as someone could think that "Nyctiprogne" is a synonym of "Chordeilinae""

Not if they can read. "Nyctiprogne" is listed as a genus of "Chordeilinae" at Chordeilinae. The fact that is is a red link makes it clear that we have no images of Nyctiprogne.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You wrote:

"The fact that is is a red link makes it clear that we have no images of Nyctiprogne."

You are contradicting yourself here. The category link is red, that's ok, but the gallery link is blue and there is no media of Nyctiprogne available, so that's quite misleading. As you said, the value the red link is to inform people that there is no media available, so why keep that one blue? Of the thousands of bird species which don't have a media available yet on Commons, this one is the only one to be blue (gallery or category). Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Delete Hello Reguyla and User:PurpleHz. We do not create temporary redirects. As this taxon is a valid genus it must either exist and contain a gallery or be deleted.
On wikicommons, in biology pages, redirect mean synonymy or invalidity, not "not yet created because media are missing". Can you imagine how many pages/categories we would have to create ? There are millions of taxons for which we will never have a media.
By the way we don't blank on wikicommons. Just add {{Speedy}}. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Kept: Per Jim. The redirect has been there for more than 10 years. We don't know if any external websites rely on this redirect, but deleting it will only result on broken links elsewhere. Green Giant (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)