Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chicago September 2016-39.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2016 at 23:32:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Reflections of OneEleven building
  •  Info @W.carter: & @Daniel Case: : I have decided long ago not to give detailed descriptive names to the pictures I upload. Two reasons: first, the effort would be inconsistent with the normal practise in Commons, where any language can be used in the file names and no standards exist; second, for someone looking for something the effective way of finding what's needed is searching through categories, not file names. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not exactly sure what "normal practice" you are referring to since Commons:File naming (links to this are at the top of the FPC page) says: Names should be: - descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray. The category system is all very well for folks who are familiar with it, but for the ordinary person (not a community member) the most common way of finding pics is to use the search box. Even if the categories show up there, those who are not familiar with them chose the images that appear based on their file name. Question is: Are you organizing your pics just for the community or for anyone looking? There have been several lively discussions at QIC about proper file names and the majority of posts speak for following the guidelines. Yes, language barriers do exist, but a good file name in any language is better than a bad one. Especially with the new browsers that translate between languages. I'm not asking you to change all your files' names, but since FPs are supposed to be the best, I think we should follow the guidelines for these pics at least. cart-Talk 11:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do comply with the rules in Commons:File naming, at least at a minimal level: the place where the photo was taken (which is also its subject) is referred to, as well as the date. But I won't go any further, with detailed titles like "Reflections on OneEleven Building in Chicago September 2016 - nn". In what FP and QI are concerned, the searching work is much facilitated by the extra categorization given by the FP and QI galleries. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already explained the logic behind my naming convention and this is not the place to engage in a theoretical discussion on the subject. Whether the reviewers consider this picture has the merit to become a FP or they do not. Of course, anybody is free to change the names of the existing FP or of any picture in Commons, for that matter. But I'm not going to do it as a requirement for promotion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suit yourself, but it means that I will try to remember not to nominate any photo of yours with an unclear name. You see that it is losing you support in this thread. I won't change my vote, but I think that cart and the others have a point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral after reading Alvesgaspar's response. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Chicago_September_2016-39.jpg&oldid=225517664"