Roget said:
I'd say we should require 6 or 7 pieces of art that are obviously and directly related to the Foundationverse.
That feels rather specific. Is there any reason for those numbers or was that just what popped into your head?
Drewbear said:
Tag: "fanart"
Somehow that manages to express a judgement of value about the art in question, even if it objectively doesn't. I'd honestly prefer 'artwork' for the tag.
Drewbear said:
Requiring a minimum amount of quality pieces is a must. 5-8 sounds good to me.
The problem is, who decides what 'quality' is?
anqxyr said:
I don't see why this should be threated any differently than any other pages. Let people post whatever they want. If it's shitty it'll get downvoted. If there too little of it it'll get downvoted. If it's not related to the Foundation… you get the idea. We can certainly recommend people to only make pages when they have X works done (or they'll get downvoted), but I don't see why this has to be a hard rule.
This would solve absolutely any problems like determining a level of quality. If we allow people to post artwork on the site proper and it sucks, it'll be downvoted. There's no reason to think it would be different for artwork than for writing.
TroyL said:
Are we hosting these images ourselves, or are they hosting the images and linking them to us? Does the site that they're using allow that kind of hotlinking or is it frowned upon? Should we find sites that allow it and make a list of suggested hosts?
My preference is that artwork is hosted off-site, on DeviantArt or any other personal repository for images that is not subject to frequent purges/deletions. I prefer this for one reason and one reason only: images take up more space than text and unlike tales or scips, these pages - if successful in terms of votes - are liable to grow, and grow, and grow. SunnyParallax is immensely prolific. If we uploaded every single file they produced, I'm not sure what the ramifications would be.
TroyL said:
Should we have set guidelines for people uploading their art to the site? A limit of a number per page? Would we be better off simply having a specific, set-aside forum for it, then allowing the Images Team to agree that it's good enough to warrant its own page (similar to what happened with Sunny)?
I personally don't see any reason to keep artwork off the wiki proper. I think it adds to the diversity of creativity we have going, much like I wouldn't mind seeing quality SCP voice actors link their work on a page (e.g. TheVolgun). With the caveat that any non-textual work should be hosted off-site for the reasons given above. The fact that this might lead to pages not displaying content because the external host is down, or the file was deleted, is a minor inconvenience that if not transitory will ultimately solve itself (i.e. people will downvote and it will disappear.)
Should this stuff all be contained on the Visual Records site with a massive, massive pimp for that site? It was, after all, made for pretty, pretty pictures.
The Visual Records wiki, at least in my mind, is better suited to collecting non-artwork images that may one day be used for scp articles. I see it more as something of a resource than a display case. That is not how it was envisioned of course.
TL;DR: I'm with anqxyr really, allow it and it will take care of itself. I'd suggest writing up a format for these pages, (perhaps with the components currently in use on SunnyParallax's artwork pages) and let the democratic process take its course.
(account deleted)