File talk:Shilpa Shetty.jpg
?[edit]
@SVTCobra: I'm not sure what I'm looking at. On one hand, I'm not sure why bawolff set up this locally visible association of the image to the category. On the other hand, I'm not sure why you removed it. What do you figure, here? --Pi zero (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: I probably should have straight up deleted the local page instead of just removing the category. Back in 2007, it may have been hard to find a free photo of Shetty. That's the only reason I can figure Bawolff did it ... as a bookmark of sorts. Since it's a) not hard to find images of Shetty, and b) inappropriate to use such an old photo in a new article, I decided whatever purpose it may have served is long gone. Anyway, I think you'd agree we should not be locally categorizing media from Commons. I have ignored it in rare instances when the media was produced by wikinewsies but shared via Commons. One example is media Brian McNeil made while covering some local protests. Even though I felt ambiguous about it, I didn't want to cause a stir, and ignored it. This, however, was clear as day. We should not categorize what amounts to stock photos (from our perspective) from Commons. Cheers, --SVTCobra 10:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I tend to upload maps and graphs locally because news are snapshots of time, so are images related to those articles and they should not change. Someone can overwrite the map/graph on Commons. But I can't find a justification for this.
•–• 11:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)- As I recall, brianmc was delighted to realize we could categorize images independently of the way they're categorized on Commons. I recall agreeing with him (at the time, when I was current on the specifics involved), that it can be quite useful, allowing us to group Commons images in ways useful to us that Commons might not be interested in doing.
That said, I also agree there's no point in local categorization of Commons images redundant to Commons categorization; we now make it easy to find the Commons category so there's no call to also repeat what they say on the matter. --Pi zero (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I can't speak to the past, but today, Commons is probably the most categorized project. They have intersection categories for almost anything you can imagine (nauseatingly so). Well, whatever they have going on, I am not sure we need all the media in Category:Tony Benn. In fact, I don't think we even used any of the images until today when I made one the main image. Why would we have local pages for media we do not use? Well, if this talk goes on, we need to move it from here to a water cooler page or something. Cheers, --SVTCobra 07:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- As I recall, brianmc was delighted to realize we could categorize images independently of the way they're categorized on Commons. I recall agreeing with him (at the time, when I was current on the specifics involved), that it can be quite useful, allowing us to group Commons images in ways useful to us that Commons might not be interested in doing.
- I tend to upload maps and graphs locally because news are snapshots of time, so are images related to those articles and they should not change. Someone can overwrite the map/graph on Commons. But I can't find a justification for this.
FWIW, I have no idea why I categorized this image as such back in the day. Maybe there was the hope that people using categories (as a portal) might also want to see a gallery of newsworthy images about the subject in question, or something. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
