File talk:Suicide bomber climbing West Bank Barrier cartoon.jpg

File description

In response to [1]: the point of the description is to describe the image. this may be for visually impaired people using screen readers, for data mining, for helping the search function, etc. That it is a cartoon is indeed obvious - just as obvious as the rest of the description. That doesn't mean the rest of the description should be removed too, rather that the mentioning of it being a cartoon should be re-instated. And so I have done. Plrk (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

May I please ask you why have you chosen that particular cartoon to help visually impaired people using screen readers, and if you are planning to change the descriptions of all (more than thousand, two thousands, I do not know how many) cartoons we have on Commons any time soon?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was enough time to respond. I took your changes off. Please do not change the desription before you discuss it here. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so discussions have time limits now? Plrk (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you ever go fishing? When you do, do you catch all the fish? Do you have a problem with the description mentioning that it is a cartoon? Plrk (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, it is interesting. I asked you a question last night, and you never responded it, but as soon as I have changed the description to the way it should be, here you are,and once again not going to respond the direct question, don't you? Your changes of the description are more than silly. The rename request is not justified. We have quite a few users, who believe West Bank security fence were built because of Islamofobia or to harass innocent Palestinians. That's why I spelled the name out. Any problems with that?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I wrote my last message, I've eaten, played some games, slept, eaten breakfast, gone swimming, and some other stuff. That I came back and started replying to your message just as you decided that my time had run out. That is why there is an edit conflict note at my first reply. Do you think I intentionally ignored you until now? I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not my entire life. Why is my description change "silly"? My main problem with the name is the length, but including a description of the barrier in the title of an image of said barrier is a bit over the top. As for how I stumbled across this image, I really can't remember. I do remember I was surprised at the length of it's name. Is it relevant somehow? Do you remember how you come across it? Plrk (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should focus more on the description and less on my swimming, though. I'm arguing that the description should describe the image, the image is a cartoon, hence, the description should mention it is a cartoon. The description is there to describe and elaborate on what the image pictures, and to help visually impaired people using screen readers, for data mining, for helping the search function, etc. Do you have a problem with this image being labelled a cartoon, or what? I don't get it. Plrk (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a problem with that as long as you are unable or do not wish to explain why you decided to add silly "cartoon" words to only that cartoon file out of thousands other--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not really explaining what the problem with Plrk's changes is. You seem to be suggesting that unless people make the same changes to all related files they have to be able to justify why the edited a particular one. That seems an extraordinary requirement. I, as I'm sure others do, edit many unrelated images simply because I spot it somehow. Adambro (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is Plrk, who should explain what is the purpose of his/her changes. If it is that the case that he/she wants to help visually impaired people, than not changing other files description is a discrimination against visually impaired people. On the other hand changing only that particular file description means singling that particular image out.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Plrk has explained why they have made the changes. You've said little about your concerns about these changes and seem to continue to expect that people justify why they edit a particular file. Are you suggesting that unless people change every related image they shouldn't change any? Adambro (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That description is silly because it is absolutely obvious that the image is cartoon. The author name should not be added to the image description. There's a special tab for the author name there. The image description should explain what West Bank Barrier was built for because some users, and I am sure some readers, are confused about it. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious if you look at the image, as Plrk has said though that isn't always possible and the more comprehensive description makes it better for searching. Wikipedia exists for people to learn about the West Bank Barrier which is linked to from the description, I don't see why it is needed in the filename. Does the name come from the artist or is it something you just came up with? Adambro (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The cartoon was sent to me by email I guess. I do not recall what was the file name, but I did send the link to the image's creator, and he did not ask me to rename the file or/and change the description. I agree that there's a link to West Bank Barrier, but if we are to help visually impaired people using screen readers, it is better to have the full description in the file itself versus forcing them to hit the link. Besides the full description will help mentally impaired people, who are confused about the purpose of West Bank Barrier, to understand it better.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty unnecessary to start spelling out the intended purpose of the subject of the image. If it isn't a name given to the image by the cartoonist then I would agree with the shortened name as suggested. Any "mentally impaired people, who are confused about the purpose of West Bank Barrier" will get a much more comprehensive description of it by visiting Wikipedia. Adambro (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how the section you linked to makes it necessary to explain the intended purpose of this barrier in the file name? Adambro (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was talking more about image's description. The more complete the image description is, the better it is. IMO the same could and should be applied to a file name. Not all users have the time to hit the links, not all users know how to hit the links. Once again visually impaired people using screen readers will be discriminated against, by not complete file descriptions --Mbz1 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No need for long editorials in file names. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, a screen reader user can click the link in the description to read about the wall. They can not, however, click a link in the description to find out it is a cartoon. Plrk (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mbz1. Kooritza (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

About what in particular and why? Thanks. Adambro (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • • @Rama, "Point naming" Really? I'd rather would call it a descriptive naming. Point naming is "palestine nazi camp" for example.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree - Keep the name smaller

The proposed rename on the File is good. This current name would be hellish to get right while adding it to an article and it's very unwieldy. Shorten it. Crazysane (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The very first edit of the bran new user... Should I request check user here? If one knows how to copy and how to paste it is not the problem to add a name to an article.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you do that... Plrk (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm. Wow, talk about bad faith. A bit of research would show CrazySane is an active user at the English Wikipedia. Mbz1, please don't talk about checkusering people without doing proper research. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

PeterSymonds, it was not a bad faith, it was a good faith honest mistake. The user, who creates an account a few minutes after the file was put to AN/N to make the only edit, and who does not know how to copy and paste file names is suspicious. CU is the research tool. I am not. I cannot check myself all Wikipedias to see where, and if the user is active. Thanks a lot for finding the user on English Wikipedia and pointing it out to me. Great and fast job!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The account was created over a year ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, if you go to the bottom of Special:Contributions/Crazysane, you will find links to "SUL accounts" and "Global contribs" which will give you an idea as to whether or not a user is an established user elsewhere or not. Adambro (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not know about that. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no basis for your claim that the commons account was very new. Most obviously, the talk page link was blue - created 2008. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe, that I have noticed it, yet claimed the account was new? I simply looked at the contributions only, and did not look at anything else. Mistake? Yes. Bad faith? No. On the other hand your claim is a bad faith, but no surprise here, everything as usual and, as expected.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)