File talk:Republicanos cargando un cañón del 21 (2 de 2) - Fondo Marín-Kutxa Fototeka.jpg

Removal of regular description

@Discasto: Good evening, so what is up? I arranged the automatic, primary source irregular description so far into a proper description layout with a trilingual version to widen the audience understanding. Since it is the regular procedure in editing and our edit interaction is likely to go through different points of view, I suggest you add an edit summary to your edits for a better understanding of what you are intending to do. Also note that you have first breached WP:BRD, although I reverted you later, and still no edit summary from you about the edit content.

The media you uploaded have no title whatsoever so far, except for the file name itself. If you are enthusiast of filling out the title, well, do it in all the media you uploaded. The description belongs in the description field, where I respected the original text in Spanish for the sake of diplomacy, despite being short and poor. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Conoces perfectamente el razonamiento, porque es el mismo que el de File:Republicanos cargando un cañón del 21 (1 de 2) - Fondo Marín-Kutxa Fototeka.jpg. No vengas aquí a tratar de confundir al personal haciéndote el desentendido. --Discasto _talk 21:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Discasto: Excuse me? Down to detail, I do not have a clue. Commons is nobody's courtyard, and certainly not yours either. So what it is about? I took the pain to explain my point, let me know yours. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hola, perdonad que entre a la discusión. Por lo que he visto en el historial del archivo, pienso que el problema está en que el título está en el campo descripción y la descripción, que puede ser en uno o varios idiomas, está en el campo título. ¿Cambiando ambas cosas de sitio no se solucionaría el problema?. Saludos. --Rodelar (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rodelar, efectivamente! Y punto pelota. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Anda, si sí que sabía de qué iba el asunto. Qué curioso. --Discasto _talk 21:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Cleaned up title in this and the other file. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Como sospechaba, es imposible alcanzar un acuerdo. O es lo que quiere Iñaki o es lo que quiere Iñaki. Si vas a seguir eliminando la información de cuál es el título original seguiré impidiéndolo, como es obvio. Supongo que consignar que el título original es en castellano (the original text in Spanish for the sake of diplomacy, despite being short and poor) molesta. Pues eso --Discasto _talk 13:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Serious? You are edit warring again, and you know it, so stop wasting my time, this is no one's private property, I do not know if you realize, the title is the title, shown in the file name, not the rough template imported by the application, what part don't you understand?

"Español: Título original: Republicanos cargando un cañón del 21 (2/2) Localización: Guipúzcoa" is no title of anything, it is a rough transfer by the application of a template with all it metadata including location, which is not the title, start being helpful, get over it and move on. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Las opiniones son como los culos. Todos tienen una. Tú opinas una cosa y yo me limito a transcribir el título original dado por la fuente. Lo que tú opines de la fuente me es irrelevante. Has entrado como elefante en cacharrería, como habitualmente, y pretendiendo imponer tu opinión. Tus negritas me son irrelevantes. (a) One of the cornerstones of the project is as simple as this policy: Verificability, not truth. If the nice guys at the source provide an original title, we just have to keep it. Additionall, your primary source (whether this cannon was actually at San Marcos or not) should have been removed. (b) This is a collaborative project and consensus is usually the right path. I've agreed to include all your proposals (even those that are primary source) and to exchange the fields in the template. No problem from my side. However, you keep on removing the information from the source. Así que sí, creo que eres tú el que tienes que superarlo de una vez. Sí, hay un título original y está en español, ese idioma que te niegas a usar. Así que, por mi parte no hay problema en mantener tus aportaciones, tus fuentes primarias y en ajustar los campos de la plantilla. Tú, en cambio, te niegas a mantener información verificable. Señores, no hay más que añadir. Venga, haz algo constructivo en este proyecto, que ya va siendo hora. --Discasto _talk 14:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You were having an irrational behaviour in your previous edits, and you still keep it. I do no like either your tone, so calm down, do stick to content to stay cooperative. (b) There is nothing mysterious to my edits [1] (I also made a mistake, so I corrected it), not an opinion, a three-language layout with descriptive information is not an opinion, it is a regular layout, My proposal were regular proposals that pose no problem, so do not make a fuzz of it.

"You keep on removing the information", what? Nonsense. I just polished the information, removing awkward metadata or mislocated tags that you stubbornly keep misplacing. That is all.

The descriptions are poor? Obviously so. I am from the area and added the exact location. Rules are there to solve problems, not to add to them. Do you have some knowledge on the area? What is your objection to San Marcos? Do you know the area? I DO. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I have duly accepted your layout. No problem. That's making a consensus. Next, you keep on trying to impose your "polishing". I object and simply want to remain the information about what the "original title" is. No more than that. In spite of my willingness to reach an agreement, you just seem to want to impose yourself. It does not work that way. With regard your "knowledge", I have no particular trust in your knowledge, especially when it comes from first-hand observation (that's original research... you know what's that, right?). In spite of that, I haven't objected to it, as it seems sensible. Thus, it's time for you to get over it and move on (your quote, it's really funny). You have included a description in three languages and provided a more fine-grained location information. Right. "Polishing" is just an opinion and, given that the current text in the file description is not wrong, your opinion has not a higher value that mine. Given also that it was me the uploader (about 9000 pictures from this collection), I don't see any reason to (being indulgent) change a valid text by another "valid" text, just because you like it most. As an aside, there are plenty of files in this project. Go to other files not uploaded by me to propose your witty "polishing" (even better, fix the many mistakes in your uploads). Best --Discasto _talk 20:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, let me disagree. For a start, it is a Basque institution by instigation of the Basque Wikipedians which put it accessible to everyone, with me the first to start uploading to Commons, in a rather artisan way, one by one. It is not about opinion, it is about accepting the collaboration of others to improve the file's information and layout. Commons is nobody's courtyard as I noted before, so the regular practices apply. Overall, on verifiabiality you are right, but remember rules are there to apply with common sense and to fix problems, not perpetuate them. As for my knowledge, not many people have as good an insight into Donostia's geography, patrimony and history as I do, and my contribution to Commons is there, especially regarding Donostia's history.

The title was 0 before, and since you have now insisted for these two files to have a title (no information is lost anyway), let us do it right. The title is the name of the file, not what the mixed data the application has imported in a mess, which for everyone to see in the description below is actually in the Spanish language. You will not find an exhibit label in a museum (like any in a Commons file) going Título: "Título original: Español: whatever", that is a forced title and a typo. The file name remains the same, so. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree. As told, your opinion is valuable but not more important than mine. You've found an already uploaded file to commons. You don't like the wording and propose one that you think is better. As the current description is, at least, as good as yours, and you haven't get a consensus, the current description remains. It's a basic procedure in wikipedia. If you have plenty of time to spend in Commons, there're plenty of tasks you can carry out (clue: finding the right source of your uploads) instead of keeping on ranting just because we don't appreciate how smart your opinions are. Best regards --Discasto _talk 08:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be not understanding anything. It is not "now it is my turn", it is about improving and cooperation. The present title as you put it does not follow a regular pattern. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

LOL. "Regular pattern", you say. There's no regular pattern. Anyway, the discussion ends here, at least from my side. You keep on saying that your opinion is better than anyone else's. We're not here to impose ourselves, but to cooperate. You show again and again that your idea of cooperation is agreeing to your opinions. Well, it does not work in that way. You've made a proposal, most of if has been accepted and a small part hasn't. You can live with that (and there's a bunch of your uploads waiting for a source. Work in a constructive way. You'll enjoy it. Cheers --Discasto _talk 20:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)