Template talk:Discussion menu

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

Should probably be in [[Commons:]] namespace? / Fred J 17:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

But, er, it's a template? ... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but Nilfanion moved all those templates that were not intended for public use to the Commons: namespace, such as Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests... / Fred J 21:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going move it back because I'm making a new category for all project/editor-oriented navigational boxes. This is the only one I know of that's not in the template namespace. I hope that's ok. - Rocket000 10:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Contributor feedback[edit]

I'd like to suggest adding Commons:Contributor feedback to the menu. Previous discussion now archived at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/06#Close_Commons:Disputes_noticeboard was inconclusive about adding Commons:Contributor feedback (and it was probably a bad idea to mix it in with closing the disputes noticeboard anyway). Rd232 (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure from looking at Commons:Contributor feedback what it's even for. - Jmabel ! talk 15:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Short version: it's basically the equivalent of en:Wikipedia:Editor review. Rd232 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
      • It would be good to have a short statement saying why someone would to be reviewed. Perhaps it's just me, but part of the reason I never went through it on en.wikipedia was that I never quite saw the point. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Feedback is supposed to help people learn and do better. The tricky part is deciding "yes, I could use some feedback"; but basically, every active contributor could do with an occasional feedback session. Rd232 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support an inclusion but perhaps it should be clarified whether the focus is on the uploads or all contributions in general? --AFBorchert (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It could be either, depending on what the contributor wants. I envisaged that one scenario would be contributors who've uploaded a lot and then become concerned that they've not interpreted something correctly. They could use this page to ask for help in reviewing their uploads. Another scenario is people considering running for adminship, for broader comments on their contribution history and style. Rd232 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we have something like w:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations? --Trycatch (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not yet, this was usually handled by opening a thread at COM:AN/U or through deletion requests that submitted all uploads of a user on the ground that they did not appear to be trustworthy. The point of CCI at en-wp is to fix or delete articles. In our cases, it is somewhat simpler as we can keep or delete a file where en-wp is enforced to find what copyright infringements survived in an article and to remove the infringements from the article's history. This is significantly more complex than simply nuking the uploads of a user we do not trust. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, they use CCI for image-only investigations as well. And it still makes a lot of sense. Both alternative methods you mentioned -- COM:AN/U and DRs -- are not well-suited for this particular purpose. Generally, people nominate for deletions images they want to delete, not to review. If, say, 20% of user's upload are copyvios, and 80% are ok pictures, then idea to create DR for all user's contributions would be terrible. COM:AN/U and other forums were not designed for collaborative reviewing, too. In case of w:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kos93, en-people two times asked to review uploads of one particular contributor on the forums of Commons, and each time their requests were ignored. "Review" DRs also have the same problems with visibility -- after day or two a complex DR would be hidden under tons of smaller trivial DRs. --Trycatch (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not opposed against a CCI process at Commons. But I think that most of these cases are more efficiently through regular deletion requests. Here some cases of this kind I closed recently: 1, 2, 3, and 4. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
In relatively trivial "purge everything" cases DR is good enough. In something like this, this, or this (when you need more "review" than "deletions") -- not so much. --Trycatch (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Is important really important?[edit]

Steinsplitter (and anyone else watching and/or interested), I don't think that the (rather inactive) Commons:Photography critiques can be considered an "important discussion page", and I don't think that Commons:Centralized discussion is a discussion page at all. Tell me why you disagree – however, I'm afraid that "important is important" will not be sufficient this time.    FDMS  4    22:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Minimal width for pages with odd layouts[edit]

@FDMS4: a revert demanding a discussion is bogus, you are entitled to start a discussion whenever it pleases you. It should be obvious from my edit comment that (1) 240px ate too much horizontal real estate somewhere when I reduced it to 200px, and (2) it had no effect at all on the length of this template from my POV. I often use zoom factor 150% (old eyes, old glasses, etc.), so when I say "no effect" I already tested a rather unusual case. Please post before+after screenshots where 200px fail, I'm curious, and did this elsewhere recently, so here it's your job, digging up my 2015-01-11 issue with 240 (one month ago) is no plan if you have a fresher issue with 200. Interestingly nobody else reported an issue with 200. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

BRD✨! I know undoing over a month after the actual edit might not count as a revert, but then you also edited this template despite the fact that what looks "good enough" enough on your screen quite likely looks wrong on most other users' screens. Screenshot (NFC).    FDMS  4    23:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
JFTR, BRD is only an essay, and I strongly reject it for ordinary contributions (not this case, spam or vandalism.) BRD violates CIVIL, BRD violates AGF, BRD violates BITE, and it is redundant as long as 3RR is a policy. Real contributions (not changing one 4 to 0 and back again, as it was here) take time, just undoing it with a single click is not nice. That's how it looks from my POV:


Your evidence is compelling, but I'm curious how this happens, why is your version so much different? –Be..anyone (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Tried [1]?    FDMS  4    00:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)