Commons talk:User pages

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

Another heading?[edit]

Users often use their user page to create "articles" that have been deleted as "out of scope" in mainspace. Indeed I often come across quasi articles on user pages with no other contribution to Commons (and frequently nothing elsewhere either) - my feeling is these should be out of scope if only to help people understand what the scope of the project is. A final area would be those who mistake Foundation projects as another form of social networking space (partly covered in the previous sentence) with solely links to facebook/youtube and similar. Thoughts welcome. --Herby talk thyme 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've added the "articles" bit. I'm not quite sure how to phrase the "social networking" thing (the link to the COM:NOT section is already there). Rd232 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a tendency to create "band/group/singer/DJ" user pages which I guess was partly what I was getting at. --Herby talk thyme 15:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thats pretty much allowed as it keeps them quiet. Google doesn't index userpages, it indexes mainspace and filespace and so on, so it has an effect of making a lot less work. Penyulap 15:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Meh - borderline at times particularly if it links to myspace/youtube etc --Herby talk thyme 15:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Google doesn't index userpages - sure it does, see Commons:Controlling search engine indexing. This can be changed by filing a bug asking to change Commons' settings (if consensus is shown for it). Rd232 (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Promotional[edit]

I had "obviously or excessively promotional", which Herby simplified to promotional. I'm not sure about this; I've adopted wording from COM:PSP. Rd232 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

People have always had links to sites on their userpage, probably best to get some support for the idea of a change. Penyulap 15:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec) My main worry is the obvious opportunity for that delightful pursuit of wikilawyering... I imagine that will be a joy.
I can think of quite a few over the past months including one who uploaded some fire extinguisher images and had a user page stating they made fire extinguishers with contact details - define "blatant"? --Herby talk thyme 15:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Well that's the current policy, per COM:PSP. That supersedes COM:ADVERT, which says advertising or self-promotion. Definitional issues aren't really going to disappear, so I'd rather just adopt what current policy is, and leave any changes for future discussion. Rd232 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a similar concern. Professional photographers (and prospective professional ones) often want to link to their webpages their userpages, and both amateur and professional photographers are usually proud of any award they got or the places their images are used (outside WMF) and often want to link to such webpages. Furthermore, some professional photographers put their professional curricula (as photographers) in their userpages.

I think all this is harmless (or even useful) to the project, and it should be allowed. Furthermore, it can help a lot in attracting professionals to contribute to Commons.

Although, there has been a lot of bitter debate on userpages with this kind of potentially promotional content and even some bitten newbies, and the new policy should clarify what is allowed information about oneself, and what is forbidden blatant promotional content.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Further clarification may be helpful (beyond the "leeway for regular Commons contributors" mentioned in the guideline proposal, taken from existing policy). Perhaps there could be examples given, in the way COM:OVERWRITE does (though it might allow some gaming of the system). Rd232 (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

other stuff[edit]

a two second scan for other stuff people won't agree with is the gallery limits, that'll never pass for popular support, people use galleries to show off their work and are quite attracted to them for reasons that don't worry me but do worry them. Penyulap 15:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - personally I am not inclined to worry about galleries - it is kinda what Commons is about. --Herby talk thyme 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
No-one's stopping people making userspace galleries. But as the current thrust for mobile access to Commons should remind us, not everyone is always accessing Commons via broadband. Large galleries are not what userpages are for. Rd232 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, looking at the RfC now, it's 17 regular supports Vs 17 opposes, 7 of them strong opposes and most of them mention the gallery limits as the deal-breaker. I also expect that it won't stay even but will continue to run further and further into oppose territory as far as percentages go. Penyulap 08:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly[edit]

To me there is often an issue about the level of contribution to the project (or projects). Folk who have been around and contributed should (for me) have a greater leeway on their user page than a newbie in part because we need to get over to people what the project is about. Indeed if they have contributed an image (other than of themselves and with the exception of the fire extinguisher example above) I tend to not bother looking at the user page.

Another type I see is the obviously third party written "write up" about politicians, solicitors, doctors and the like (the give away is that they are invariably written in the third person...). --Herby talk thyme 15:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The leeway is written into current policy (COM:PSP) and I've put that in the draft. I don't think we should worry too much about writing down when and how that leeway is applied - it seems to work fairly well in practice. Rd232 (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Opinions[edit]

Looks like a pretty good summary. I've added the following for consideration:

  • ✘ should not express hatred of or vilify others.

--99of9 (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine. I'd intended that to be covered by the fourth bullet under the "Copyright, privacy, scope and other policies" section, but there's no harm in putting that there more clearly. Rd232 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement, sanctions, retrospective application and third party editing[edit]

I guess one of the reasons why this rfc is needed is because there are userpages that falls foul of this, I think that we need to state that retrospective application of this policy applies. One of the causes of resentment is the editing of user pages by third parties, to prevent things getting too personal, I would suggest that it be made explicit that third parties should not normally edit other users pages but that they have every right to nominate pages for deletion via the existing deletion process for being contrary to policy, with the userpage only being deleted if the user fails to bring the page in line with policy.--KTo288 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

El jesuita[edit]

Hola!!! quería saber si alguien podría subir una imagen de la portada del libro publicado en el año 2010 llamado: El jesuita, que trata de la vida de Jorge Mario Bergoglio (actualmente papa Francisco).

Esta imagen vendría muy bien para el articulo creado en wikipedia al libro y también para poner la imagen en el articulo biográfico del autor uno de los autores y escritores del libro Sergio Rubin.

Saludos... Usuario:Manulqsa

Creo que no. Si libro fue publicado en 2010, todavía está protegido por leyes de copyright en todo el mundo.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hinweise und Empfehlungen[edit]

Es ist zwar nett, wenn der Banner auf deutsch meint: Hier könnt ihr ...abgeben. Aber den eigentlichen Hintergrund der Frage wird mir mit schwachem Englisch klar. So geht es sicher vielen und damit ist klar, dass die Beteiligung hier und an Commons insgesamt als Community von vielen nicht wahrgenommen werden kann. --K@rl (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Nur wer soll all die Übersetzungsarbeit leisten? Gerade, wenn man sich auch noch seine Zeit verschwendet, weil manche Nutzer cross-posten. -- Rillke(q?) 06:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Could we convert this into a guideline, at least?[edit]

I am often answering questions at Commons talk:Abuse filter. 99.9% of the questions there aren't about filters that I made myself but instead about filters made by vandal and spam fighters. Frequently, I encounter cases where the user attempted to create a "profile page" like social networks endorse it. I suppose we agree that we are not a social network? I usually recommend that they read Commons:User pages but with a big fat {{rejected}} on top of this page, it does not look trustworthy. We must at least have something that recommends what users should put on their user page. Therefore I suggest to collapse points rejected by the community and starting a new RfC about the remaining stuff. -- Rillke(q?) 22:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As a side note: I always hated putting internal-related banners smack on the top of front pages which are read by people who know nothing about the internal workings of the Wikimedia projects. It's either total gibberish to them, or largely misleading. (In this case, the big fat "rejected", is misleading). IMHO, these types of banners are to be placed on the talkpage.
Yes, parts of policy/guideline are not fully accepted by everyone, but it is largely accepted. If there's something that so bad, we should remove it, and discuss it at the talkpage. Rather than pouring acid over the whole page. There are quite a bunch of important/key policies that are still with these stupid banners because "some" people don't agree with it. For a vital project like Commons, it is absolutely necessary to have them ready at all times. Random example: There's so much of speedy deletions happening at Commons, yet people just can't agree with COM:CSD. And the reasons in the delete dropdown: Just some random text with no solid reference to why it was deleted, because anti-Wikipedia people don't want it to look like Wikipedia.
The above has nothing directly relating to what you said, Rillke. Just though I'd have my say, since you brought it up. :) Rehman 01:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)