Yes, I totally agree with the beer spitting part, and also wish you lots of luck and
patience with your adminship!
Most people don't realize that of the 15 million files on Commons, 99% of the ones
*not* linked into a sister project are pretty well "unfindable" unless you
happen to google the name of the file.
As far as notablity guidelines go for categories, I am not sure that this could be done,
or that it would be useful. The category trees on Commons are one of Wikipedia's
best-kept secrets, despite all the linking going on from sister projects like the English
Wikipedia. Hopefully WikiData will change that. These categories are extremely useful
however for insiders.
What I do think might be enforceable through the Wikimedia Commons uploader is that for
photos of a location, the local name of the location should be in the file name, and for
art, the name of the artist should be in the filename, and for portraits of people, the
name of the person should be in the filename. I myself try to keep a basic hierarchy as a
naming convention, in the order " Artist - subject - where - date" and if I
don't know the subject's name or place or date, I try to approximately describe
this. Recently I started adding the museum accession number if there is one. So for
example the name on this one should give an impression of what it is:
The main problem with enforcing such naming conventions is the English-centric bias
built-in, though that is not the issue here. The subject category of this email thread may
be by some artist and using such a naming system would allow the uploader to sort the
uploads into some category where people could use notability conventions for artists, in
which case the deletion discussion becomes much easier. On the English Wikipedia, I
believe notability guidelines are that an artwork must be worth about 3,000 dollars or
more. This includes almost anything that has survived before 1800, but would not include
most modern art such as these photographs.
We would have a problem with grafitti art & artists though, so maybe an exception
could be made for street art.
On May 24, 2013, at 12:18 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well you do realise that now you are an admin your days of browsing any type of pr0n are
behind you. ;)
You are right, no-one in their right mind would use Commons to search for pr0n. I just
did a search for big dick on Google, and there is one result from a WMF project in the Top
100 results -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Donato
-- obviously picked up because he
was on BIG brother. But amongst the other 99 results from the top 100 there are all sorts
of sites one would go to if they wanted to see, well, big dick. :)
I must admit. This had me LOLing and almost spitting this delicious beer on my laptop.
In relation to the category Alison raised -- are they in scope? Who the hell knows. I am
very liberal minded, and have a very liberal interpretation of scope as it pertains to our
projects, and while I struggle to see scope in those images, I am sure there might be some
sort of scope there -- even if they were to illustrate an article on the gender gap in
computer sciences -- would that be an encyclopaedic topic?
Crazy insane idea: notability guidelines for media categories?
Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian
Gendergap mailing list