A lot of stuff in here needs blue links... there are a lot of things referenced in passing that should be followed up with links (the tool efforts, more of the nifty galleries, the translation efforts, advice about disputes, etc etc etc).
More expansion on the what to/what not to do lists.
I wonder, couldn't essays be put in the user namespace? I dislike how it works on English Wikipedia, where essays are being referred to as if they were policies. This is just a thought, what do you think about it? / Fred J(talk)15:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I on the other hand like the notion of essays (once edited by more than one person) being in project space not user space. So I'd favour it being in Commons: ... but have no STRONG opinion on it. (We already started a shortcut to it with COM:MELLOW though. It was a running joke for a while, then I decided to make it real.) ++Lar: t/c15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand. So what do you think about me creating an essay called "COM:DONTMELLOW" :-)
(and please don't "WP:POINT" me, or I'll "WP:AGF" your ass!!!! ;)
Every essay needs an equal and opposite counter-essay so ya, go for it, both of yas... make my day! do you feel lucky? You gotta ask yourself, did I write 5 essays already today, or was it 6??? well huh! do ya feel lucky? do ya? ++Lar: t/c20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's not in the main space or somewhere non-nonsensical like in the category or MediaWiki namespaces, I think it's fine. Putting it the user space does deter other editors and it's not really specific to any one editor. It's about the project itself, so the project's namespace seems suitable. I do think instead of writing your own you should add to this one (unless you totally disagree with it). Rocket00014:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The essay says "This is not your home wiki." The problem is that, to some of us, Commons is our home wiki. Does that mean we are exempt from following this page?? ;-) --Boricuæddie03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That fellow is not very mellow. The persons responsible for the release of the møøse need to be sacked. He has a point though, it seems like a good change. ++Lar: t/c03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colors of things, names, titles, which lang to use? None of that really really matters.
Hm, maybe someone should explain why, because I think those things frequently do matter.
I am all for staying cool but just to note, this essay almost sounds like it is veering into flippancy, which is like "your concerns are not serious, or worth taking seriously", which is a pretty arrogant attitude. If something is important to someone else we should at least take their concern seriously, even if it is not important to us personally. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that refers more to the project itself. Of course, they may be important to users, but not something that deserves huge arguments over (here). It seems in line with our general mindset where we suggest just uploading a new file (or fixing it) if you disagree instead of making a big issue over it. Rocket00014:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't at all want this essay to be flippant. I want it to be lighthearted but I think it's making a very important point... (else I would not have written it and asked others to help with it) To be a really successful user here, you have to be laid back about stuff. More so than at your "home wiki", even (for those of us that have home wikis elsewhere... as commons grows in neatness there are more and more users for which this is home, which is pretty cool, but I digress)... if that section is coming off arrogant, please Please PLEASE help fix it. There is a balance to be had here... stuff is important and it matters, but still, we should not get worked up about it, and we need to realise that what seems important to US may not be as important to others. Recognising that, and at the same recognising that because WE don't think it's important doesn't mean others agree (two sides of the same coin) is not easy. Nor is putting it into words that strike the right tone. But really, that italian flag kerfluffle kind of upset me, that people were so passionate and could not see why others did not think it was absolutely vital that it be solved ... insufficient mellow. ++Lar: t/c17:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the "really really" part gave it the right tone, but the Italian flag thing did get to me too (obviously) so I'm not the best judge right now. Maybe it should be reworded but I wouldn't know what to. It does belong in some form or another, though. OTOH, what you think doesn't really matter!! ;-) Rocket00017:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What upset me about the Italian flag discussion, if anything, was that people didn't acknowledge how important the issue was to those who were upset. We (Commoners) should recognise that almost anything that is important to local project users will be more important to them than it is to us. So I would say, expect people to be upset about any given issue, and find ways of helping them express that without hyperbole or personal attacks. Then we can get to the heart of the issue and try to address it. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not about offense, it’s about whether this is appropriate and/or necessary for this page. Could you please explain what this image brings to the essay? Jean-Fred (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(not sure why you talk about wheel warring − I don’t believe me reverting your edit is wheel warring [it’s more like BRD])
Because 4nn1l2 (also translation administrator) accepted it, now you revert it. And I can't fully undo you because I'm not a translation administrator.
Agree This page is on my watchlist since this change specifically has been performed (or a few days later, but definitely because of this edit). I was tempted to revert it like Jean-Fred, but finally chose to wait and let others proceed (as I'm not very involved in this part of the project). The reason I support the step back is because the page is actually more mellow without Snoop Dogg. A picture of a rapper breaks the tranquility, whatever the polemical subject, if Snoop Dog is allowed to smoke or not, it's just too hard here. Giraffes are 100% ok. This illustration is pacific without ambiguity, and perfectly matches with the content -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like thisor this.. we probably have better ones.
@Basile Morin: The giraffe doesn't calm me. And it's a barren desert. It just comes off as childish, almost making the page belittling as users will often be given a link to it when they lash out. I felt some pot was needed to balance it out. I'd be just as fine with a photo of a random person smoking or just an image of the product, but somehow I wasn't able to find many good pictures. As an alternative suggestion, perhaps the giraffe could be replaced by an image of a person visibly relaxing? Or just anything that doesn't feel too childish. - Alexis Jazzping plz01:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A giraffe and two impalas, different species drinking water together peacefully from the same source is a great metaphor to show how things may work here. The previous illustration with birds was previous illustration less successful (only one species, carnivorous, and squeaking often). This shot of a fresh oasis is of good quality with nice evening light and beautiful water reflection. I don't find it childish, just natural and poetic. But some pages like What Commons is not don't have their illustrations yet and could certainly be improved -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't find it childish, just natural and poetic." @Basile Morin: because you already appear to be mellow. This essay wasn't written for you. For someone who is upset and has just been given a link to this essay, it may not be "natural and poetic". - Alexis Jazzping plz19:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone upset should become mellow, and this page is adequately mellow to inspire this feeling. Trying to adapt its content to every specific case, with all the particular personalities and special moods will never be possible, because each person is different (nationality, age, education, taste, mentality...). We need universal notions here, easy to understand, to agree. The content of this image is natural because it is objectively located in a natural environment, with different species having their own instincts and behavior, but nevertheless able to share a common resource peacefully. That's what the picture says with no words, and the reason it's poetical, IMO. More than a cute kitten that is just nice, this one is adapted to the context, providing a relevant and powerful metaphor -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The edit that added Snoop Dogg was childish and mocking this essay. The giraffe image is great and represents sharing and getting along. Images of someone mellowing out on their own.... just don't get the point at all. Btw, this essay should not be given to someone who is upset and making a fuss. That's a bad and counter-productive thing to do. When dealing with someone in that place, it is you who needs to be extra mellow, not them. -- Colin (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is a media repository, so there's space for all. If you feel you should improve an image, go ahead and do it. It's not worthwhile to quarrel around how a picture should look like - just upload a different version!
was first added in 2008 and then amended to
Commons is a media repository, so there's space for all. If you feel you can improve an image, go ahead and do it. It's not worthwhile to quarrel around what a picture should look like – just upload a new file with your version and link it in the "Other versions" field of the existing file! (overwrite existing files only for improvements that won't be disputed)
because uploading new versions is indeed a source of quarrels. The original text linked to WP:BE BOLD but the emphasis of this essay is more "be cautious" and "be careful not to upset others". There are lots of other things this essay could recommend people do on Commons to emphasise "there's space for all". Unlike Wikipedia, Commons is not a collaborative editing project. While articles on Wikipedia are continually a work-in-progress and not owned by any editor, media on Commons is generally complete and is owned by someone. We certainly collaborate to improve descriptions and categories but modifying media files is not our primary purpose and can be a source of conflict. So, I suggest the line be removed and we retain the bit about saying sorry and thank-you. -- Colin (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: What about if you feel something needs to be illustrated, go ahead, find an image or video and upload it! (provided that it's your own work, or if not, be sure it is free)? It's still about media, and it encourages users to find free media of something that needs to be illustrated. pandakekok911:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree This page is on my watchlist since this change specifically has been performed (or a few days later, but definitely because of this edit). I was tempted to revert it like Jean-Fred, but finally chose to wait and let others proceed (as I'm not very involved in this part of the project). The reason I support the step back is because the page is actually more mellow without Snoop Dogg. A picture of a rapper breaks the tranquility, whatever the polemical subject, if Snoop Dog is allowed to smoke or not, it's just too hard here. Giraffes are 100% ok. This illustration is pacific without ambiguity, and perfectly matches with the content -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC).jpg)
.jpg)
