Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013-05-14 15-39-20-diptera.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:2013-05-14 15-39-20-diptera.JPG, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2013 at 10:51:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment Please use a more specific filename than just the date-time and the species order. We wouldn't accept "2013-05-14 15-32-31-primate.jpg" as a useful name for a portrait of a person. Colin (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- But many of our contributors are following such a naming convention. I think the main reason is because sometimes subjects are not well identified at the time of upload. Later, after several discussions even outside Wikimedia, they may identified up to a specific Taxonomic rank. Sometimes we made mistakes and corrected later. So renaming in every attempt is a bit annoying. But in my opinion, including the lowermost rank available at the time of upload in the file name is a good start. JKadavoor Jee 04:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the order is remotely sufficient for FP. This is supposed to be our very best work. There are 150,000 species in Diptera. The flower example you give has the genus, of which there are only 100 species. Even so, since the flower has been identified, I do believe for FP we should attempt to improve the filename to the level of confidence. Also IMO it would better if the date/time and the subject were not joined with a dash - use a space so that search tools can find them as proper words. Colin (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not against your argument. I too against careless file-names, improper description, etc. My only argument is whether we need to rename it on every update, or keep the existing name and update the description and categories? BTW, this picture is identified to the species level. JKadavoor Jee 09:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is no advantage to keeping a poor name if a better name is possible. The rename facility will fix up links (at least within Wikimedia). If renaming is a hassle, then we should fix that problem, not just shrug and live with poor data. Ultimately the filename of the JPG may be the only identifying feature of this image should it be copied (per our free usage desire) or linked to -- the extra information in the text/categories on Commons description page is relevant to its storage here but not on its usage elsewhere. For example, Wikipedia would need to wikilink to it using the filename, which is unhelpful in letting anyone know the correct image was linked. I appreciate that if one has uploaded loads of images, then tweaking their filenames would be a fair bit of work. But here I'm interested in FP and for that we should certainly lead by example. Colin (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not against your argument. I too against careless file-names, improper description, etc. My only argument is whether we need to rename it on every update, or keep the existing name and update the description and categories? BTW, this picture is identified to the species level. JKadavoor Jee 09:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the order is remotely sufficient for FP. This is supposed to be our very best work. There are 150,000 species in Diptera. The flower example you give has the genus, of which there are only 100 species. Even so, since the flower has been identified, I do believe for FP we should attempt to improve the filename to the level of confidence. Also IMO it would better if the date/time and the subject were not joined with a dash - use a space so that search tools can find them as proper words. Colin (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- But many of our contributors are following such a naming convention. I think the main reason is because sometimes subjects are not well identified at the time of upload. Later, after several discussions even outside Wikimedia, they may identified up to a specific Taxonomic rank. Sometimes we made mistakes and corrected later. So renaming in every attempt is a bit annoying. But in my opinion, including the lowermost rank available at the time of upload in the file name is a good start. JKadavoor Jee 04:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support Better details on head and better resolution; but overall details and clean bg in File:Tanzfliege Dance fly.jpg. JKadavoor Jee 16:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Colin. Also poor DOF and blown flowers. B.p. 16:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)- Oppose -- Poor lighting Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
