File talk:Strawberry Lake Wilderness.jpg

The documentation for the date parameter of {{Information}} states:

• If the creation date of a file moved from other project is unknown, {{Original upload date}} can be used – this template should be also used (in addition) if the first publication date (outside Commons) is relevant in relation to copyright. This template also use the ISO format.

So, having the original upload date is permitted. I would like to keep it. What policy basis do we have for removing/reverting? — hike395 (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A fact related soley to the Wikipedia upload date, for the file content this is absolutely irrelevant. It maybe is interesting for self-created photos but not for content imported from external sources. Way more important would be to ask USDA FS for the creation date of the photo and for the photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your use of profanity in the editing summary is not conducive to reaching consensus. It's clear that you don't like it and why you don't like it. It's clear that the original date is more desirable than the upload date, but we don't have that. I'm asking: what policy or guideline do you have for removing the original upload date from the information template?

I think the original upload date is quite relevant: it is the latest posible date for when the photo was created. — hike395 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The original upload date is written in the upload log already. Its unecessary to duplicate information or to clutter the file metadata with content that is - with respect to the original photographic work - entirely non-notable technical wikipedia information. If you uploaded the file a day later, what exactly changes this? With the same logic you can start writing "created 02:29, 23 January 2005" in the article en:Malheur National Forest, but you would not do this because for that purpose we have file/article history and logs. The latest possible date of creation is the publication on the website, not the upload to Wikipedia. The upload to Wikipedia is entirely irrelevant. I.e. the reuse of this file by Wikimedia not changes anything related to this file. --Martin H. (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The (Commons) upload log only contains the date the file was uploaded to Commons, not when it was originally uploaded to en Wikipedia. The good thing about keeping the data in the {{Information}} template is that it is easily parsed by software, especially if we use templates such as {{Date}} or {{Original upload date}} .If the creation date is unknown, and five years from now, someone runs some software and parses the {{Information}} template, then the best estimate for the creation date will be the original upload date at en Wikipedia. My uploading by one day sooner or later will change the estimated date for that person.

This is why I prefer to keep the date in the structured template. if you want to remove the redundant date lower down in the file, please go ahead: I don't care about that. — hike395 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and condensed the upload section into one line in the summary, and removed the upload section. Hopefully, this will meet your goal of removing redundancy in the file. The upload section is full of redundant junk, anyway --- the description is repeated down there, too. — hike395 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats the original file upload log as required by the GFDL. Simply leave it as it is, there is no reason to populate the date parameter with information if we not have information. --Martin H. (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This file is not licensed under GFDL, but is a PD file from the US government.

I still believe that my reason is valid, and I haven't heard any argument that has convinced me otherwise. It seems we are at a deadlock. If this were en, I would ask for a third opinion, but there does not seem to be such a process on Commons. Shall we get other editors' opinions at Commons:Village Pump? — hike395 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could solicit advice from a mutually acceptable senior member of the community. User:Wsiegmund, perhaps? — hike395 (talk)

I went ahead and solicited a third opinion from User:Wsiegmund.

More data: The template {{Original upload date}} is designed for use in the {{tl|information}. template, and is transcluded more than 17,000 times, according to Jerzy's template transclusion tool. I take this as evidence that the community consensus is to have original upload dates in the information summary. I believe that my restoring that data in this file goes along with that consensus. — hike395 (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am commenting in response to the request by Hike395 on my talk page. Martin H. is a senior editor, an administrator and checkuser. As such, he is recognized as an experienced and trusted member of the Commons community. My first inclination is defer to his judgment, but it seems to me that the following observations may be helpful.

Hike395 is more senior than I. We both began contributing to Commons in 2005, so it is kind of him (her?) to invite me to comment. Nice work, Hike395, on the transfer of this file from en.wikipedia.[1] It is used in five articles on four sister projects. A look at Category:PD US USDA FS demonstrates a wide variety in the way the date field is handled. In File:Chewaucan River, Oregon.PNG, the unannotated upload date is entered. In File:Chewaucan Weir.png, the date that the picture was taken was estimated. In File:Chrysocharis laricinellae ovipositing.jpg, no date is entered. I could go on, but I think I've made my point that better guidance may be needed. I don't see much point in arguing about just one file when there are more than 1100 in just that one category and more in similar categories that may raise similar questions.

I agree with Martin H. that the original upload date is not particularly informative. However, Hike395 is correct that it is explicitly permitted by the language of Template:Original upload date. That was written by Apalsola (留言 · 贡献) with no indication that it represents a general consensus.[2] That said, Hike395 can hardly be faulted for following that guidance. I agree with Hike395 that the original upload date indicates the file was created before that date so it is not entirely irrelevant. Moreover, the original upload date of a file on another project is not available to most users of Commons.

"3 January 2008 (original upload date)" was added by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) (留言 · 贡献).[3] It continues to place this data in the date field as in File:Enceladus (moon).jpg uploaded today. Hundreds of thousands of files seem to have been so-labeled.[4] Arguing with a bot is unfruitful, in my opinion. A better approach may be to review the guidance for this field and establish a broad consensus for the resulting language. That way, File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) (留言 · 贡献) may be changed and arguments between good editors may be avoided. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right that this issue affects thousands of images, and that it is a waste of time to fight the upload bot. I am unfamiliar with how guidelines at Commons are discussed and developed: what steps do you recommend? — hike395 (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with the process as I should be, but I think that Commons:Village_pump/Proposals may be the place to develop guidelines and policies. Those who are active on that page should understand the process. If you wish to informally gauge interest or sentiment, the main Commons:Village_pump page is a good place to post. The documentation file for Template:Information is at Template:Information/doc. "If the creation date of a file moved from other project is unknown, 原始上传日期 can be used – this template should be also used (in addition) if the first publication date (outside Commons) is relevant in relation to copyright." Sometimes changes are discussed on the documentation talk page, but it has so little visibility that it should be reserved for discussions of minor matters of interest only to the active editors/developers of that documentation. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)