File talk:Streisand Estate.jpg
跳至導覽
跳至搜尋
 | 這個file曾於2024年2月4日被提出存廢討論，討論結果為保留。 如果您認為需要再度提出存廢討論，請先參閱該檔案的討論內容。 |
| 這個file曾於2013年12月15日被提出存廢討論，討論結果為保留。 如果您認為需要再度提出存廢討論，請先參閱該檔案的討論內容。 |
Assessments
[編輯]
Let's keep the assessments at the top, please, thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why? Seems highly inappropriate to me. Assessments are "in house" Wikimedia stuff. The description is the information most basic and crucial to any viewer. Someone not an experienced Wikimedia user should be able to find out what the photo shows without having to scroll through screens with what to them is irrelevant and confusing text. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Is there somewhere on Wikimedia Commons where it states the policy or standard practice for this sort of thing? On all other pages I've seen it at the top. -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- At least, I see File:Polarlicht 2.jpg's assessment is below the information template. — Revicomplaint? 00:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- For whatever it's worth, I agree with @Infrogmation that it's best to keep "in-house" stuff like assessments secondary to information that is broadly useful to all viewers; and agree with @Cirt that having this principle written up somewhere as a policy or guideline would be worthwhile. -Pete F (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Peteforsyth, am I to understand then that there isn't yet anything previously written about this? -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not that I'm aware of, Cirt -- but don't take my word as definitive! I've had little to do with assessments here on Commons. -Pete F (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ah okay, understood. Like I'd said, I've only seen these assessments templates on the tops of image pages before. It'd be helpful if someone could point me to a guideline about it, and I'd go read up on that myself. :) -- Cirt (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not that I'm aware of, Cirt -- but don't take my word as definitive! I've had little to do with assessments here on Commons. -Pete F (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Peteforsyth, am I to understand then that there isn't yet anything previously written about this? -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- For whatever it's worth, I agree with @Infrogmation that it's best to keep "in-house" stuff like assessments secondary to information that is broadly useful to all viewers; and agree with @Cirt that having this principle written up somewhere as a policy or guideline would be worthwhile. -Pete F (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- At least, I see File:Polarlicht 2.jpg's assessment is below the information template. — Revicomplaint? 00:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Is there somewhere on Wikimedia Commons where it states the policy or standard practice for this sort of thing? On all other pages I've seen it at the top. -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
