[mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Brianna
Sent: 20 February 2007 01:07
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Commons request for input:
policy onautomatic image replacement
On 20/02/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/07, Brianna Laugher
Here are some main ones I know of:
* Art. IMO no art "near-duplicates" should be deleted unless they are
TRUE duplicates (eg by hash). Colour differences are too subjective to
rule which one is the most accurate, so best idea is to keep them all
and let local projects decide which to use.
I don't think we should make it a policy to always keep extra images,
we should do so only when there is an honest and reasonable
disagreement over which image is better. Many times there is no
disagreement, and we shouldn't keep around many useless near
duplicates just because.
So, for example, if a version is unused on other projects there should
be no problem.
Well in those cases we can virtually do what we like, because no one
will notice. ;)
However I suspect we still have quite an army of hardworking "SVG
gnomes" who spend some time re-linking PNGs as SVGs. Then, when an
admin comes to *look* at the image, it appears that is not used
(virtually, was never used). I don't know what to do about these
its a pretty serious issue with mediawiki, categories suffer from the
i'm not going to go looking for bug reports right now but i bet its already been
the problem is we only track history for page text and file content. While all other
history can in theory be recovered from this in practice such searches would be
impractically slow but this is a big change that would need to be done by the core devs
and they are busy firefighting growth issues afaict.
one thing you can do is check where the svg is used and look for recent edit warring over
the issue but thats a lot of work.
personally i think such svg gnomes should be blocked on sight but thats a descision for
individual projects to make.