Commons talk:History merging and splitting

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New page[edit]

Hey. This is a new page to deal with history merging and split requests. Feel free to participate or make modifications. Rehman 03:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the page for requesting category split requests? ----DanTD (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. What do you mean by a category split? If you could describe the issue, maybe I could help. Kind regards, Rehman 06:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current admin volunteers[edit]

@Rehman, PierreSelim, Ankry, and ~riley and @Jdx, Jianhui67, and Sreejithk2000. (I intentionally did not ping Revent who is inactive for more than a year and not an admin anymore because of this.)
The section “Current admin volunteers” is terribly outdated. In my opinion the best solution would consist in simply deleting it. The difficulty here is that we would need a translation administrator who would also delete the translated equivalents. (Well, I know two of you are able to do this). — Speravir – 23:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Morgankevinj that I overlooked you. — Speravir – 23:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed --Sreejith K (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I created the page some years ago so that admins can list themselves (allowing other users to directly ping for any urgent help). It does not necessarily have to list every admin that works on HMS (which technically could be all admins). I suggest deleting the subpage, but moving the list to the main page (instead of deleting it completely). That being said, I'm totally fine with the majority decision. Cheers, Rehman 06:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OOps I had not noticed that the actual list is in a sub page. I think for the translation system the sub page is better as long it will be not deleted. — Speravir – 20:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, instead of voting I have simply deleted the section and the (sub)page. --jdx Re: 20:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jdx, I think the outcome was to keep the page, not delete. Speravir, correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers, Rehman 03:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, Rehman, deleting was my first intention. Only in case it would have been kept I wrote the sub page was better. — Speravir – 17:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, okay. Cheers, Rehman 01:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Handling split request when one of the revisions needs a COM:DR[edit]

Several times recently, I have found files that were improperly overwritten and reasonably tagged for splitting. However, in some cases I think either the newer or the older should simply be deleted, either for license/sourcing concerns (for example, newer revision at File:Florent de Ligne.jpg) or because one really is inferior (for example, old revision at File:Schablone Logarex 25525-S, Chemie III.jpg). That is, if I were to split it, I would then start a COM:DR for one of them. Filing a DR for select versions feels confusing (and is there a way to prevent future tagging for splitting?), but doing the split (and then checking all uses to use the "correct" IMO one) just to clarify the DR process feels like moot/needless work. What's the best process here? DMacks (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: Splitting takes an inordinate amount of time. DRs takes seconds (relatively). In these cases I don't really see a problem with filing a DR with the rationale stating that only one revision is up for discussion. I've seen it before. To take the time to split the file, again one of the larger time commitments of any admin action, just to file a DR request on one of the split off files is far more annoying than just having the closing admin at DR do some individual revision deletions. That is my personal opinion on the matter. I don't believe there is really a "best" process that people use. --Majora (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buttons at Commons:History merging and splitting#Current requests[edit]

The "Current requests" portion begins with a set of buttons [View] [Edit] [Add topic], which are actually part of the transcluded Commons:History merging and splitting/Requests page. Above the Current requests title itself is a separate [Add a new request]. I recently noticed that [Add topic] was slightly smaller than the other two adjacent to it (looked mismatched in button height, which was based on text size), and made it the same size. User:Speravir, who had added [Add topic] long after the [View]/[Edit] pair were there, noted that these three are translated into the user's language whereas [Add a new request] is not, and that the color of the [Add topic] was also chosen to be different (both vs the other "add" and the other actions of its set of three). At Speravir's request on my talkpage, let's have a central discussion about how to arrange this portion of the UI (transferring their ping of User:Jdx here as well). DMacks (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My claim the button [Add a new request] button above the Requests section is not translated is embarrassingly wrong: I was on the English language page, sorry for this misleading statement.
Nonetheless it would probably be good to think about the buttons and their position. I actually do not anymore fully remember why I added the [Add topic] button. Judging myself I thought it was better placed here next to the other two which by the way had been added before by XXN. Note that all three buttons have the translatewiki text {{int:Vector-some-string}}. — Speravir – 00:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft image?[edit]

Hello. I noticed today that PBrieux is using two images (BrouillonIMG.svg and BrouillonIMG.png} as "drafts" (brouillons), before uploading an image under its definitive name. My concern is because by doing so, the previous upload history of his/her files is lost. Can someone more knowledgeable please clarify if this is acceptable? Thanks. —capmo (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Actually I use these draft files as any other contributor to wikipedia has access to a sandbox for preparing an article before publishing it (and where the history during the draft phase will also be lost in fine). I use the drafts in the context of the illustration helping board on the French WP [ https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Atelier_graphique | Wikipédia:Atelier graphique] (as contributor). Hence, these iterative files are useful for collaborating with other members regarding the way an illustration/map/diagram/graph answers to their request or should be modified. Most of these illustrations (95%+) are from scratch and have by definition no history yet before being eventually published under their name for a first version.
The use of drafts provides the advantages that it avoids unnecessary long history trees for typos/bugs/layout changes/etc during its creation process, it centralises all the requests I have treated in one place, it minimises the risk of numerous faulty uploads of new images in a specific format (that cannot be changed afterwards) before the green light of a requester. Using a draft file on wikimedia allows moreover that the illustration is directly uploaded under the CC status from the begining and is not published on a third-party website beforehand (again for consultation of the requesting WP member during the creation process). It is the best solution I could come up with until now. I am eager to see what could be a more acceptable and cautious way of using wikimedia. cheers --PBrieux (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I understand your point in using the draft images, I'm just not sure whether it's in the scope of Commons to host such files. Articles that start as drafts on the user namespace are generally moved to the main namespace when they are ready for it, so as to keep the page history from its very innception. Maybe you could do the same with your image drafts, asking them to be renamed to the proper title and then reusing the draft title for a new work. Sorry if I sound too picky with all this, I'm genuinely curious as to which is considered the best conduct in such cases. Regards, —capmo (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello capmo, I don't see any problem about questionning a practice to get it right. I also consider that there is a lack of the right tool (sandbox mode for images or temporary images) and my use of the drafts is kind of a patch-up job to bypass an original lack. On the other hand, I disagree on the fact that the sandbox in wikipedia is used -as academically as you say- to "move" articles to their final page when they are ready (and thus keeping the history); most of the users are actually copy-pasting whole sections they are working on on their own (often chaotic and mixed*) private sandbox which imply per se lost of the modification history. *with several topics in development for instance
Regarding the need of knowing the whole history behind the first collaborative steps between an illustrator and a contributor needing an illustration, I honestly doubt it serves any purpose or supports any legitimate transparency need to register these (sometimes clumsy) steps. I do even think that it goes against the readability of the modifications if the registered steps are multiplied. Again, where I join you is that it is maybe not the right "scope of Commons to host such files". Please also bear in mind that I opted for this "solution" because my drafts merely represent 1-2 files among millions (and I was keeping a low profile about that imperfect practice, but nonetheless useful for the community: I mean I don't host my personal artworks or holiday snaps). Regards, --PBrieux (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Disclaimer: TL;DR everything.) @Capmo: I think this is not the right place to discuss this. Probably, the Village pump is much better.
@PBrieux: I am not sure, that your use is legitimate, because there already exist several file pages dedicated for testing, e.g. File: Test.svg and File: PNG Test.png, but at least you should add such an orange box in the beginning of the file descriptions mentioned above by Capmo. And what do you have in mind with File:BrouillonJPG.jpg?
— Speravir – 19:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emm, your images lack proper categorization. I noticed the test images are in Category:Test images, surprising name ;-), which even contains a sub category for someone’s sandbox. So, if you’d add your images to this category and the infobox I wrote above into their description all should be OK. — Speravir – 02:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Speravir, I started discussion here because I supposed that one possible outcome of it might be the necessity of spliting the draft files in order to separate the unrelated file histories. Thanks for bringing to our attention the category Test images, it's a good idea of categorization for PBrieux's draft files. —capmo (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All files have been modified accordingly. BrouillonIMG.svg - BrouillonIMG.png - BrouillonJPG.jpg. Categorised + orange warning banner.--PBrieux (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:History_merging_and_splitting&oldid=437990485"