Commons talk:Depiction guidelines
Credits
[edit]This page has been largely build on
Anthere (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Commons:Depicts, says (emboldening in original): These generic "tags" should not currently be added if more specific depicts statements already exist. We should not be recommending to tag a picture of bearded collie with "dog"; such use should be strongly deprecated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hello. I do not want to be rude in any way, nor do I mean to dismiss your views on the topic.
- HOWEVER, I would like to point the fact that THIS specific statement you report above, has been written by ONE person back in 2019, when the SD was being rolled out. This is here. I am not aware that this statement made by Toby Hudson has been voted upon since then, so that it would be justify to say it is set in stone. In fact, policies can change, approved guidelines can change as well. And in this case, it was not officially approved as a guideline in the first place ! And it is now partly in contradiction with what is being explained on Commons:Structured data/Modeling/Depiction.
- So I am not saying what is right and what is wrong. But repeating in bold letters what was written 3 years ago by one guy, does not make it more legitimate than what is written in the current guidelines proposed. Can we at least agree on this ? Anthere (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Every statement on every page is written by one person. The existing wording has the weight of three years history and consensus; your proposed alternative does not, and is in no way of equal authority. Since we do not operate as a democracy, there is no requirement for the existing wording to have been "voted" upon. the claim tat your proposal "has been largely build [SIC] on Commons:Depicts" is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Please... it is not really « my » proposed alternative. It is essentially a summary of Commons:Structured data/Modeling/Depiction, which I did not participate to... The key issue here is that... contrariwise to what you are saying... even though the first page was written 3 years ago... there is no clear consensus at all that all generic terms should not be added if more specific terms do exist. And there are many practices that actually result in adding those generic terms. So no, sorry, but the consensus is not clear at all to me. And my goal is not to force a guideline that do not meet consensus, but to try to find a middle path where the different positions would be acknowledged. Anthere (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Every statement on every page is written by one person. The existing wording has the weight of three years history and consensus; your proposed alternative does not, and is in no way of equal authority. Since we do not operate as a democracy, there is no requirement for the existing wording to have been "voted" upon. the claim tat your proposal "has been largely build [SIC] on Commons:Depicts" is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Ongoing discussion
[edit]For anyone coming to this page and not already aware. There is an ongoing discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Adopt_Commons:Depiction_guidelines_as_a_guideline. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion has now been archived (without any clear result) at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2022/10#Adopt_Commons:Depiction_guidelines_as_a_guideline. Ainali (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
A quick reference guide is needed
[edit]The average contributor or editor will not spend the time reading this document. The consequence of this is that the pertinent information won't be known by those adding Depicts statements.
Let's not have the work of those who created these guidelines be for naught. A quick reference guide with bullet points will be read and referred back to.
- Compliance with these best practices will be much higher.
- Errors, omissions, and constraint violations will be reduced, yielding better quality of data.
- Reduced user uncertainty/fear of making mistakes will result in retention and more contributions. Senator2029 06:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Anthere and GiFontenelle: the whole section about File:Maria Leopoldina regent.jpg is incorrect. I removed the redundant statements. This should all be on Sessão do Conselho de Estado (Q43485263). Multichill (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- The fact it is redundant (ok) does not make it incorrect though. It was unecessary, but not incorrect. Thank you for the update. Anthere (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Redundancies/Level of Detail
[edit]The redundancies listed under "level of detail" only make sense at first glance. At second glance, it is a workaround to compensate for a missing functionality of the search engine. Instead of including redundancies, the search engine or its index should be extended to find an image even if a parent class or similar is searched (see for example instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279)). In this respect I am against the current proposal of the guideline. --XRay 💬 05:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)