On 29/01/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: It seems unnecessary to me. My feeling is that our mainspace spam is only overly visible due to the facts that (a) we allow anon editors to start articles (and I hope we continue to), and (b) we have very few Special:Newpages patrollers (I have a look from time to time, I know Herbythyme has been doing quite a lot lately). I think changing the main namespace tab name to 'gallery' has been a great change. What makes you say that "There is also a lot of confusion about how Perhaps all we need is more admins deleting namespace crud. I delete on sight 99% of anything that is only text. Even if it's in another language. A lot of them look like misplaced articles or promo bios. regards, Brianna user:pfctdayelise _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

What are you meaning with "reserving the main namespace for main pages"? Do you mean pages that currently reside in the Commons namespace?

Perhaps somebody can run a script through the main namespace that filters out all pages that do not contain images?

Sure. I list these all the time... You can find a copy of a recent run here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/scratch There are also a lot of junk pages which do somehow manage to have an image in them. I often find them by looking for external links in the main namespace.

Not an issue if we stop creation of any page in that namespace. :)

Can someone explain these to me? Why not write on the category page?

Brianna Laugher wrote: Guilty as charged (the not-deleting part, not the promo-bio part). I guess I just assumed nobody was creating nonsense pages, silly me. How many are we talking about? Proper galleries have at least one image, and not a whole lot of text in any single language. Seems like you could have a bot detect excessive text and mark those for further review, and have a manually-added "yes this gallery has a good reason for large amounts of text". Seems like you'd want this no matter the namespaces, people are always going to be tempted to use commons to park text that has been rejected from other projects.

Perhaps all we need is more admins deleting namespace crud. I delete on sight 99% of anything that is only text. Even if it's in another language. A lot of them look like misplaced articles or promo bios.

I am obviously against deleting the main namespace on Commons. It has many useful uses. Please see for example for a chronological classification of data, which is not possible with a category: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_K._Gandhi

Also other namespaces have also a bad referencement.