User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/talk/2013 archive

Dubious treatment

I wonder how the page is managed. Opposed and controversial reqeusts were moved to the main page, while tens of uncontroversial ones wait many weeks needlessly. The processes here are somehow protracted and inflexible at all. --ŠJů (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't comment on the requests that you say were controversial as I'm not an administrator but this page, like many other parts of the Commons, is worked on by a handful of volunteers. Sometimes volunteers get busy in their lives and don't have time to spend on Commons stuff. I agree that it would be great if requests could be attended to more quickly, but I think this may be one of those things we just have to accept since Commons relies on volunteers. Maybe the answer is for more administrators to be appointed. (By the way, discussions are apparently supposed to take place at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/documentation" instead of here.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Real controversial requests are just dropped (some are moved anyway as the move is an improvement anyway, if one disagrees with a move, he is allowed to remove it anyway), there are formal procedures to do controversial renames. Last months, Toolserver and SieBot (3 weeks down now) have got several stallings, which explains the current backlog. My intermittent availability last months was not the major cause of the backlog. --Foroa (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, Foroa. We need more editors like you. By the way, should we rename this page to "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/talk"? "Documentation" seems a bit misleading. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. By the way, the whole system is a bit misleading. The talk page is not a talk page, the documentation page is not a documentation page…

I've renamed this page to "/talk". — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought, the User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands exists beside User:CommonsDelinker/commands just because the requests should be a bit checked before they are moved to User:CommonsDelinker/commands. I think, comments are (in some cases) more effective to clarification than simply removing of the request. I have in mind requests like {{move cat|Stary Rynek 7|7 Stary Rynek in Bydgoszcz}} and my objection that standard form of adress is "street-number", not "number-street". In never saw adresses like "7 Stary Rynek" - the standard format is "Stary Rynek 7". --ŠJů (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Order is language and maybe country specific. In Belgium, French order (and France) is <number> <street>, In Flemish the inverse. --Foroa (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the main reason for "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands" is because "User:CommonsDelinker/commands" is a fully protected page that only administrators can edit, so another editable page is needed for us ordinary folk. As for your concern about the "7 Stary Rynek" requests, as the instructions indicate you can simply remove the requests. It would be a good idea to leave a message on the nominator's user talk page as well explaining why you have done so, though this is not a must. Then, if the nominator still wishes to have the categories renamed, he or she has to place the {{Move}} template on the categories or raise the matter for discussion at "COM:CFD". — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a template which can be put on the page that says something like this: "Toolserver/Siebot is currently down. The problem started on [date]. There will be delays in processing requests. Thanks for your patience." — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

As this discussion was brought to my attention, I would like to comment on the Stary Rynek 7 versus 7 Stary Rynek discussion. ŠJů (talk · contribs) here is right in writing that the official format for addresses in Poland is Streetname Number. However, it is my belief that at some point a couple of years ago, the Polish-speaking Wikimedia community adopted the English format of Number Streetname; as far as I am told, it was done to make things easier for the English-speaking users of Wikimedia Commons, but now that I checked it, this format is also popularly used when writing in English about places in Poland; it is used, for instance, by the Warsaw University of Technology and the University of Warsaw. All in all, I don't think that this issue is particularly controversial. odder (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Interiors

[Copied from "User talk:Smuconlaw#Interiors".]

Hi Smuconlaw! You do accept that the word "interior" has also plural (Interiors of castles in Slovenia etc.). A simple building has its interior. However, an object which has not only more separate rooms but even more buildings (e. g. some castles, châteaux, airports...) can have also more interiors than just one, cann't it? It seems a bit rash to me, to move all such categories to singular. --ŠJů (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You are technically correct, but I'm not sure it is really necessary to distinguish between an interior and interiors for the purpose of category names. Personally I think it is easier if we just standardize on one term. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker and I'm not able to assess how much appropriate is singular e. g. in case of the Prague Airport which have several buildings and several separate terminals. Up to now I tried to use singular for simple interiors (typically churches and chapels) and plural for bigger compounds. Maybe you are right and singular can be suitable enough in most cases. --ŠJů (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that by definition, an interior consists of several rooms, floor levels, ... So switching from interior to interiors because the item contains several galleries, floor levels, attached buildings, side buildings, ... seems pretty difficult to define properly. To me, interior is always a collection of interiors, so no need to make it more difficult by making it plural on some cases. --Foroa (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we could reach consensus on this issue quickly. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)