Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Image:Bartgeier Gypaetus barbatus front Richard Bartz.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Oppose –-For the file name : unnecessary auto promotion, the description page should be clear enough to credit the author. Sting 20:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think opposing for such a reason is over the top. The more information you add to a file name the larger is the likelihood of finding what you are looking for. The essential part of the file name is the species name. Extra information such as date, location, and author only adds to quality of the file name. Like if someone send you the image in an email wthout the image page, you have a much better chance to track down its origin the more detailed the filename. It also minimizes the risk of file name clashes. I do not consider the addition of author name in the file name as self-promotion. -- Slaunger 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's ok, opinion is opinion. I use it for filename clashes. --Richard Bartz 01:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't think that brings something to the picture because it has nothing to do directly with the subject represented. The more info in the title like you propose the less readable it is, otherwise no need to have a description page, and there are better ways to classify. To me, it looks like a disguised watermark which are deleted in the pictures but it seems nobody's surprised to have it in the file name. In my POV, it would be like writing an article and signing at the bottom of the page : nobody do it, so why should it be done for the images ? Sting 02:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Question I'm afraid I just do not follow you on that point. Can you pinpoint any guideline/policy/whatever on Commons stating that including the author name in the file name is considered self-promotion? It did not find any myself, only the upload page saying it should be descriptive, which is very much open for interpretation I guess. -- Slaunger 06:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)- It is more like an artist who signs their painting, would you have all art signatures painted over? ;-) 'Self promotion' in a filename is not a featured-picture criteria. It is not very helpful to oppose for reasons outside the stated criteria. I do not know why anyone worries about filenames at all, for most uses an image could be called xyz0001 and it would not make much difference to anything (searches look at the description as well as the filename, but the filename is only meaningful in one language (and any language is acceptable)). A filename is trivially changeable and has no impact on the image itself, a watermark is completely different. Lastly commons is not a communist state, it does not hurt to allow our hard working contributors to have some pride in their work :-) --Tony Wills 10:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what you both say, and no, there's no criteria about this, I know. But I really don't like that, that's my opinion. To promote their work, contributors have their own user page(s) to enlighten their pictures, like R. Bartz did, others create a specific category to classify them. It seems putting the author name in the file name turned the new fashion since last summer. I'm really respectful of the author's name of a picture, whatever type it is, but putting it in the file name seems to me selfish (again, it's only my opinion), as if the author was very famous. I'm pretty active in making maps. What about titling them < Image:Falkland_Islands_topographic_map_Eric_Gaba.svg > or < Image:Isle_of_Man_map_Eric_Gaba.svg > ? Weird isn't it ? Same for a photograph of a non internationally renown photographer. Sting 12:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- (I wouldn't find those map file names peculiar personally.) If I understand you right, you have a general objection against user names in file names although this viewpoint is not substantiated or supported by any current guidelines on Commons the FPCs are reviewed against (AFAIK). If that is the case I would suggest making a proposal via the Village punp for a general guildeline/policy about image file names in which you would stress that user names are not allowed in the file name. If that proposal gained majority support from other users such that guidelines were changed, I'd say this was the way to do it, instead of picking out three random FPCs with a user name in the file name and try to make your point by opposing them. -- Slaunger 20:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I accept your opinion but it will not change my mind ... and it will not change the positive polling progress this image gained during the last 7 days. --Richard Bartz 12:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Don't misunderstand me, Richard : I like this picture very much, it's only about the file name. I don't doubt it will be featured, I just made my vote to point out one thing I don't like and nobody noticed, it will not have much influence at the end. Sting 13:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what you both say, and no, there's no criteria about this, I know. But I really don't like that, that's my opinion. To promote their work, contributors have their own user page(s) to enlighten their pictures, like R. Bartz did, others create a specific category to classify them. It seems putting the author name in the file name turned the new fashion since last summer. I'm really respectful of the author's name of a picture, whatever type it is, but putting it in the file name seems to me selfish (again, it's only my opinion), as if the author was very famous. I'm pretty active in making maps. What about titling them < Image:Falkland_Islands_topographic_map_Eric_Gaba.svg > or < Image:Isle_of_Man_map_Eric_Gaba.svg > ? Weird isn't it ? Same for a photograph of a non internationally renown photographer. Sting 12:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't think that brings something to the picture because it has nothing to do directly with the subject represented. The more info in the title like you propose the less readable it is, otherwise no need to have a description page, and there are better ways to classify. To me, it looks like a disguised watermark which are deleted in the pictures but it seems nobody's surprised to have it in the file name. In my POV, it would be like writing an article and signing at the bottom of the page : nobody do it, so why should it be done for the images ? Sting 02:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's ok, opinion is opinion. I use it for filename clashes. --Richard Bartz 01:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
