User talk:Δ/20081101

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Failed renaming

Hello, the renaming process failed for Image:Chaetocercus mulsant.jpg, Image:Coeligena coeligena.jpg‎ and Image:Coeligena coeligena 2.jpg‎. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok I understand now ! The {{bad name}} model which is inserted after the renaming is wrong ('image:' is missing). So seeing the red link, I thought the renaming had failed. It needs to be fixed. Regards. PurpleHz (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone is messing with the templates which control the the rename. Betacommand 01:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep : diff, november 7. PurpleHz (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Phillip II

Hello! I don´t understand why this image [1] is proposed for speedy deletion, with the reason "bad named", if it represents Phillip II. The tag is also only reccomended if the uploader is the same editor who puts the tag. Please see [2]. Thank you.--Balbo (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

there was a request that the image be renamed, all the bot is doing is renaming and then tagging the old version as a duplicate. Betacommand 15:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

frequency?

Hi Betacommand,

  1. can you tell within what time-laps MedisMoveBot can be expected to be run?
  2. I was told by some admin that he is "reluctant" (at least), to see files being tagged as "rename|__", as there seems quite often to be quite a lot of work to be left to admins, due to shortcomings of the bot.
    (a) Is such true? Was/is the bot e.g. blocked on enWP?
    (b) Would you please like to pass by at Category_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh#Talk_on_File_names where I try to talk about optimized file names, before possibly starting renames of some 350 files in that category. If the renames could be done before improving on file descriptions, this would be very helpful: As of now, this CAT is "a mess".
    (c) This cleaning-up is intended to become a kind of "christmas present" to the rest of this (wp) world ;))
    Thanks, Wolfgang (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I need to run it more frequently, I just have been very busy. as for 2, If I knew what else was meant by shortcomings of the bot. I would address those issues. as for BCBot being blocked on en wiki, yes that is true, but my work on non-free images made a lot of people un-happy as it forced them to properly bring their images into compliance with the non-free content policy on en.wiki, those users who ignored the NFC policy or dont agree with it took every chance they could to get be blocked or banned for tagging non-complaint images. Ill start a run shortly that should address the remaining backlog of renames. but again any and all suggestions are welcome. (No one has brought any issues/suggestions to my attention) Betacommand 05:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I just was told by by some COM admin that I should not rename dozens of images, as they'd have a lot of additional work due to the bot's blocking on enWP "and other reasons" (he was not more precise). So, "shortcomings" referred to that fact. As I plan to create an "almost perfect" file naming for vGogh images (to start with), and do work on this since a while, I probably will do that anyways, some day [in honor of vG, I'd say ;].
Of course I'm not going to create noise and burden admins by my action, so, maybe, either the bot might be unblocked on enWP soon, or, I'd myself repair manually what the bot could not do in the enWP (I suppose it is about replacing old filenames by new ones, especially within boxes), on the renames which were done on my request. In this case, I would like to know in advance the time the bot acts, in order to not delay too much the "repairs". I'd therefore address you on this. From my part, the renames I plan could be done after about 8 days from now on. Would that be OK for you? Wolfgang (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The bots block on en has no impact on its actions here. Commonsdelinker handles all the actual file renames and cleanup after a file is moved to a new title. If I knew what the other issues are I would address those. but feel free to use the bot renaming as it is perfectly effective. Betacommand 14:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
For sure, I will. I'll however contact you after I did a request for ~100 items, just to be sure. This will very probably not happen within next 7 days. Best, Wolfgang (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
There are some problems with this method of renaming files:
  1. File history and page history are copied as wikitext, and are separate from the history sections of the renamed file and description page.
  2. All uses of the image has to be replaced so that the file is not delinked when the old file is deleted.
  3. Many admins doing the deletions don't bother to redirect the old file name. Breaking links from outside Wikimedia, for example from resusers of Commons media (try clicking the map at http://www.answers.com/topic/weddell-sea#Wikipedia). It also breaks images in old page versions, which are linked to when using the "Permanent link" and "Cite this page" features of Wikipedia.
  4. The whole process takes time (mark for rename, wait, order replacing, wait, delete, redirect)
  5. Undoing rename is just as complicated. (Not a problem when renames are correct, but mistakes are made, I have seen paintings with painter and title in the name renamed to worse names with only painter and som arbitrary number.)
I don't think there is much that can be done about this except making MediaWiki do real image renames. For files that really needs renaming I think the advantages of renaming outwighs the problems with this process (and point 2 and 3 are not problems, since we probably want to replace all uses of really bad names, and creating redirects is just confusing). But for files that already has OK names it is probably not worth doing all this just to get a perfect name. (And who decides which name is a better name?) /Ö 16:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Point one I have no control over until MediaWiki implements image renaming, as for points two and three commons delinker exists for fixing the images within wikimedia, as for external links there is not much that can be done except redirects. as for points four and five, I purposefully dont have delinker auto fix the moved images in order to avoid having to undo them. Im sorry if its time consuming but I would much rather have a safety than have a massive cross-wiki fuckup if some vandal got approved for renaming and caused 20+ image renames +global replacements. having separate bots handle the separate tasks insures fewer errors, if an image is renamed by BCBot and its not correct its as simple as deleting the new image. Betacommand 00:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Betacommand, I meanwhile learned that

  1. Renaming does indeed cause trouble, up to now, more often than desirable.
  2. The reason why I wanted to do 350 renames in Category:Vincent van Gogh, which was: to clean up this mess before Xmas, is obsolete: Order by date (which I absolutely need to become aware of multiple files from same original piece) can be achieved by "DEFAULTSORT" ;))) I therefore will be very reluctant on renaming. Best, Wolfgang (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi. I am not sure about the rules, but what's wrong here? Thanks for answer. --Doktory (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see Commons:MediaMoveBot and Commons:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage as you must be listed on the check page in order to rename images. Betacommand 00:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot

Could you please create a template for the file history sections on image description pages of images moved by BetacommandBot? Look at Image:Wappen Sassnitz.svg, it is messed up, ugly and not localizable. If you would create a template

{{filehistory-entry
|date=2008-11-15-19:57
|uploader=Ollemarkeagle
|url=/9/95/Wapen_Sassnitz.svg
|resolution=542×613
|size=32
|comment=verbesserte Version
}}
{{filehistory-entry
|date=2007-03-01-23:01
|uploader=Slomox
|url=/9/95/20081115195733%21Wapen_Sassnitz.svg
|resolution=744×900
|size=5
|comment={{Information |Description= {{nds|Wapen vun de Stadt Sassnitz}} {{de|Wappen der Stadt Sassnitz}} |Source= |Date= |Author=<a href="/wiki/User:Slomox" title="User:Slomox">User:Slomox</a> |Permission= {{PD-Coa-Germany}} }} [[Category:Coats of arms from the Landkreis Rügen]] [[Category:Towers in
}}

that would make it much less messed up and easy to localize. --Slomox (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am by no means good with templates, if you know someone who can develop a template that works Ill be glad to use it. Betacommand 20:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
{{filehistory
|
{{filehistory-entry
|date=2008-11-15-19:57
|uploader=Ollemarkeagle
|url=/9/95/Wapen_Sassnitz.svg
|resolution=542×613
|size=32
|comment=verbesserte Version
}}
{{filehistory-entry
|date=2007-03-01-23:01
|uploader=Slomox
|url=/9/95/20081115195733%21Wapen_Sassnitz.svg
|resolution=744×900
|size=5
|comment={{Information |Description= {{nds|Wapen vun de Stadt Sassnitz}} {{de|Wappen der Stadt Sassnitz}} |Source= |Date= |Author=<a href="/wiki/User:Slomox" title="User:Slomox">User:Slomox</a> |Permission= {{PD-Coa-Germany}} }} [[Category:Coats of arms from the Landkreis Rügen]] [[Category:Towers in
}}
}}

now will create a table

File history

Date Username URL Resolution Size Edit summary
19:57, 15 November 2008 Ollemarkeagle /9/95/Wapen_Sassnitz.svg 542×613 32 KB verbesserte Version
23:01, 1 March 2007 Slomox /9/95/20081115195733%21Wapen_Sassnitz.svg 744×900 5 KB {{Information |Description= {{nds|Wapen vun de Stadt Sassnitz}} {{de|Wappen der Stadt Sassnitz}} |Source= |Date= |Author=<a href="/wiki/User:Slomox" title="User:Slomox">User:Slomox</a> |Permission= {{PD-Coa-Germany}} }} [[Category:Coats of arms from the Landkreis Rügen]] [[Category:Towers in

But the URLs are basically pointless, cause the image will be deleted after being moved and the URLs will point to a 404 page. --Slomox (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)