Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Billinghurst

< Commons:Administrators | Requests
 Support = 15;  Oppose = 2;  Neutral = 0 - 88% Result. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billinghurst

Vote

Billinghurst (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 01:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Billinghurst is an active member of the Wikimedia community, and one of the most prolific contributors to the English Wikisource. Here at Commons, he has been editing regularly for over a year, uploading files and preforming general content-related maintenance. While he doesn't generally comment on community discussions, and stays away from the noticeboards for the most part, he has a significant need for the tools; as I understand, issues with file names here at Commons cause trouble over at Wikisource, and I think Billinghurst is among the most qualified people to sort it out. As a sysop on Wikisource and the English Wikipedia, this user is thoroughly trustworthy and I have no doubts he'll prove to be an effective sysop. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss this as a general issue previously with some people in the Wikisource IRC community, before opening a discussion with Julian. I accept the nomination, and thank him for his confidence in me. billinghurst sDrewth 01:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

I had thought that I had clearly said that I was wanting to work on the backlog on {{Rename}} in answers to Eugene and Rocket; it was my work at WS that brought it to my attention. After that you asked specific questions, about djvu and WS, so you got specific answers. Apologies if you wanted platitudes, I am very WYSIWYG. billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Noted and undertaken. billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • djvu can be build in a lossless way, so for jpeg, djvu can be superior. In some case loss of data is possible, that's why we need admins knowing the pro and cons when a request will be done, to accept or not the deletion. For page containing only text it's not a problem, for page containing plate or figure, we need anyway separate file for some pages (like the content of [[::Category:Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1st series, vol 1|this cat]]) Deletion process is more likely to occur with cat like Category:Poésies complètes, it makes little sense to keep monochrome image for text in jpeg format. Phe (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We too are concerned about lossless images, and well aware of the matter. We are not looking to progress on a means that is contrary to the goals of Commons, nor in a void. Another example to Phe's is Category:The Passenger Pigeon - Mershon. Such works we work from the best available source. billinghurst sDrewth 21:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answer. As person who contributed several book scans/photos here, I just wanted to be sure that quality of book images will not be downgraded in both quality and resolution during format conversions. Even for text pages. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, one of our Sourcers has even run testing and found that we can get a better image from a screen capture from the 'read online' files at archive.org, rather than to use the .djvu files once here. So that is now my preferred methodology, and I now updating, as necessary, some of my derivative works. billinghurst sDrewth 15:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your comment, though I am not wanting to be an opinion leader in this community. I am looking to specialise in an area which is not a focus for this community, and to assist in an unassuming means in area where this is a demonstrated need. In my specialty area, I would naturally be participating in discussions, and in renaming files, there would be an implicit requirement to interact with editors. In areas of policy that relate to transwiki and crosswiki, I have an interest and can represent an knowledgeable opinion of the impact or benefit upon WS.
Julian mentioned that ill-named files are problematic for WS, and we want to work on that. Fixes are best very early in the transcription process from a WS viewpoint. For our works that have started, we need to coordinate the cleanup at the same time on both sites.
If my skills are not wanted, does that mean that the existing community is going to provide us with a resource to undertake the required work? I hesitated on this solution, however, after watching a simple rename request not be undertaken; looking at the amount of work in that queue; I thought that offering assistance was the correct way to progress. I am not a maverick; I do not make policy on the run; and I consult about new or less conventional solutions. billinghurst sDrewth 21:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question I assume the main reason you want the tools is so you can easily rename files, correct? Would you simply move the file to the new name and leave the redirect, or would you replace all uses with CommonsDelinker (or manually) and not make a redirect? What would be your reasoning? How come you're not more involved in the Commons community? Is it simply because Wikisource/Wikipedia is your home (and you're too busy there) or is there some other reason? What other areas do you plan to help out in? Rocket000 (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct WS keeps me busy, though, with regard to rename, easily is not the word, as admins are the only people who can rename files. When I do a job, I prefer to do it properly, so I would be looking to move files and utilise CommonsDelinker and available tools & means to clean up properly. That said, I add redirects as necessary, after a rename/move, and especially in lieu of your not having a dated soft redirect functionality. Other areas? As mentioned by Phe, WS is looking to modernise some of its older works and to convert .png/.jpg collections of works to .djvu, and there will be cleanup there. More? I generally help on queues with backlogs (as time permits) and I am still planning on working on Move to Commons from both enWS and enWP, and Move to Wikisource from enWP. billinghurst sDrewth 21:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answers. Yes, "easily" is the right word. It's as easy as moving pages. The alternate way of doing it is to reupload the file under a new name and delete the old. That's the hard way. You should have your signature subst'd so it doesn't leave behind the parser function. Rocket000 (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is, it seems that your {{Smaller}} is different than WS's, and not subst: as neatly. By the by, modified to fully coded. billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Do you think that the fact that you are now standing as a steward in the coming election might mean that the time you have available for actually doing things here might be rather curtailed? Assuming you succeed there will be quite a learning curve and a need to work more on Meta. --Herby talk thyme 14:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there are more favoured candidates than myself, though there is always the chance to get up. I do want to get those files renamed, and I am still prepared to do so, and to continue to do so. Though I do understand your viewpoint, and that you may have doubts on whether I can do both. billinghurst sDrewth 15:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  QuestionDo you forsee any instances where renaming a file to function on WS would adversely affect other projects? As I see it the renames only become a problem if new files supersede the previous files and the original file needs to be deleted, however we no longer delete superseded files and superficially identical images e.g. svg replacements and their png cousins co-exist together on Commons. Would it not be an easier option for you, to upload files with the file extensions that you need for WS and leave the original unchanged, which can all be done without the admin rights. Given that you can achieve your stated objectives without the admin rights, is there any other reason why you wish to be an admin on Commons?KTo288 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At WS, we are primarily looking at djvu files as the filenames feed through to our Index: and Page: namespaces, and I have only seen these used at WS, though that may not be the situation. The files that I generally talking about arrive here from archive.org with an unhelpful, non-contextual name as per Commons:File renaming. An example …File:Fastiecclesiaean03leneuoft.djvu. A problematic rename would not occur, as the described circumstances would be enough to put an hold on any move while assessment takes place, and probably skupper any move. Some of these djvu files of large works, can be big, and personally I know a reload is a major nuisance for me, see 63 volumes of Dictionary of National Biography.
The discussion of what to do with piles of .png files once we have made them into our required .djvu files, is indeed a matter for this community to discuss, or to resolve into existing policy, though it is not a policy discussion that I want to address here, or at this time. billinghurst sDrewth 15:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should I read your anwser to be: yes, though a nuisance, it is possible to do what you wish to do through the upload of a series of WS configured alternative files and no, there is no other reason why you wish to be an admin here.KTo288 (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. The primary reason of renaming files .djvu and other files remains. The need for file renames stands. Admin tools are the only way to move files.
The second matter, that which was raised by Phe, of our building djvu files is a separate issue, and not directly aligned with the administrator request. It is aligned with an experienced WSian being involved and promoting our viewpoint, whereto from there is a separate matter. billinghurst sDrewth 12:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment by candidate Commons plays a very important part of the WMF infrastructure, it is the place where files are to be stored for use in the projects. Above I see feedback and commentary that only looks at a person's candidacy in the self-reflection of Commons. That grieves me as it may indicated that Commons is above or separate from other projects. I rejoice that we have Commons and its interoperability, and can demonstrate the importance of Commons to me in my movement of files to it from both Wikipedia and Wikisource, directly and via Magnus's lovely tool; however, if Commons forgets its relationship or puts itself above its relationship and makes matters difficult for other projects, then what is the outcome? What advice would you expect to be given?
The adminship bit is not about participation in the community, it is about a permission to undertake a task, to undertake it responsibly, in line with the community's expectation. I get enough politics at work, and in other communities, whereas in some places, all I want to do is work and achieve. For what I want to do here it would seem that the admin bit would give the better means. If you do not think that I am responsible and capable, then be candid and honest and say it, I understand, I respect your opinion and I don't get the bit. If that is not what you want from a candidate, then that is okay with me, there are places I am sure that will appreciate my efforts. If that seems a little feisty, my apologies; I am not navel-gazer, lint has no interest. :-) billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Commons community live and well here. To those of us who call Commons home, we dislike when people from other projects treat it simply as an extension of Wikipedia or whatever, like a global File: namespace and that's it. I'm not saying you are doing this, but it might explain why we're hesitant to give the tools, or more importantly, the role, to someone who says, "I'm just here because of another project". Yes, we're all Wikimedians, but just like every other project we want our individuality too. Rocket000 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Billinghurst&oldid=66821741"