Review
(criteria) |
 Comment Actually, I didn't. There is no category for this specific cairn and I don't feel it will be constructive to create one as there are quite a lot of these scattered along the Norwegian coast. I therefore leaned on the criteria: "Think of scope as being akin to a Commons Category, or to the generic title of a Gallery page. If you wish, you can make use of an existing category - or alternatively write your own scope." Apparently, the scope does not have to be a Commons category.--Peulle (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I didn't realize that; thanks for the link. But the problem with not linking to a category is, how do we know where to find other images in this scope to compare to this one? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean. Perhaps in such instances the title and description become more important? I know that if you search for "Buviksugga" (the name of this thing) you should find the relevant images. After all, if an image doesn't have a good description, it won't satisfy criteria #4 anyway. :D --Peulle (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Why not link it to Category:Daymarks in Norway? We can then at least see if there are comparable images of it there. DeFacto (talk). 08:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, as there are several images of the same thing in that category, I think that to satisfy criteria #6 you should create a specific sub-category for these and link to that. DeFacto (talk). 08:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the reason I didn't do that is that I don't want the category to be confused with the scope. There are literally thousands of these strewn across the coast, and each of them is not necessarily very important in itself, so I don't think creating subcategories for all of them is a good idea. Despite there not currently being many photos in the category "Daymarks in Norway", I feel that using that as the scope would be too general. The scope should be this specific cairn and the category should be a general one, not one specific to this cairn.--Peulle (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Peulle, with the current narrow scope (just one instance) it is appropriate to have the specific category. On the other hand, if you think they're not individually important, then the scope should be widened (e.g. "Norwegian daymark") and linked to the Category:Daymarks in Norway category. DeFacto (talk). 11:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it is not clear to me why this specific cairn would deserve a scope in its own when there are thousands of these around. I other words, how likely is it that anyone from our sister projects would actually search for a picture of this specific cairn? The answer appears to be "pretty unlikely", so a broader scope might be in order. But then again, if the other thousands all look different, it may not make much sense to pick out a single one of them to represent them all. I guess some kinds of objects just don't work very well with our current concept of what a valuable "scope" should look like. --El Grafo (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if criterion #2 is covered, i.e. whether having a VI of this specific daymark cairn is valued, that's the main problem as I see it. I have changed the scope slightly, but as I said there are many of these and there are also different types of daymarks, so using this one to represent them all would be ludicrous. The scope must be specific. The question then is whether it's useful.--Peulle (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peulle, it sounds then like this image is useful as an illustration of a Norwegian cairn-type daymark, but not necessarily as the specific Buviksugga daymark. So I suggest a scope like this: Norwegian cairn-type daymark would work. The text is not over specific - it covers them all, and the linked category is where they will all be. I'd support that. DeFacto (talk). 07:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea.
 Done :) --Peulle (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Peulle, well not quite done; the scope is still overly specific with "The Buviksugga" and "in Risør, Norway" narrowing it to that one specific object still. You need to drop those details and use just "Norwegian cairn-type daymark" as the whole scope, in my opinion. That way it covers all of these cairn-type daymarks, rather than just one of them. DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. --Peulle (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to all for discussion and constructive feedback. :) --Peulle (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
