Forum:File replacement

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > File replacement
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 24 October 2010 by Stelercus.

Recently, a couple of admins have been mass deleting files which were replaced with new ones. After a few hours AWBing Wanted Photos away, I have found it annoying when the deletion comment is a plain "Replaced by a newer version with a different file type" and the new file has a name not similar to the deleted one. I think it would be very helpful for editors working at the "rear-end" of maintenance to be able to locate the new file to be replaced with a simple click.

The proposal is, make it mandatory to specify the location of the new file in the deletion/move summary:

  • Old summary - Replaced by a newer version with a different file type
  • (Move) - Better name
  • New summary - Replaced by a newer version with a different file type: [[:File:Generic name.png]]
  • (Move) - Better name: [[:File:Better generic name.png]]

This isn't a large change, but a change that would be beneficial.

Discuss, 222 talk 00:13, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

How UCS applies here

  • If the new file name is simply a change in format e.g. OLD: Generic name.gif - NEW: Generic name.png. Specifying the new file's name is not required.
  • However, any other cases are necessary.

222 talk 23:58, October 7, 2010 (UTC)


Support - As nom. 222 talk 00:13, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Major pain tracking down the "better" image. >.< Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 00:15, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - RS:MOVE says "Please keep in mind that you need to replace all instances of the file with the name you would like it to be moved to, or it can cause problems once the file is moved." but this does not happen most of the time. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 00:28, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and my previous thread to deal with this failed dramatically. 222 talk 00:33, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It would be a good thing to do. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:29, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Slight support - All the inventory images we've been replacing over the past few days have been uploaded as 'Exact ingame name.png', so there shouldn't have been any problem tracking them down. (If there are multiple items with that name, we go by the article name.) I can see how this would help, but it also means whoever deletes them has to manually type in the message every time (rather than just select a message from a drop down box). Riblet15 00:32, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. This will come out as this. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 00:55, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
I see. I can't say I've ever deleted anything myself to see that before, but admins are already lazy enough as it is. Riblet15 00:59, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You do realize that I've mindlessly clicked delete a billion times, right? >.< It was tedious enough as is. It would be much more time consuming and tedious if we had to add the new name in there also. I think this is unnecessary, because the new name is just the in-game name of the item or NPC or familiar or whatever (at least that's my interpretation). --LiquidTalk 00:58, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

If you click the image on {{m}}, the move page automatically uses the reason in the template... --Iiii I I I 01:11, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
We're not moving. TLULbot takes a GIF, converts it to a PNG, reuploads the image as a PNG, and tags the GIF for deletion. Is the same thing on {{D}}? --LiquidTalk 01:13, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Yep. --Iiii I I I 01:14, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
No offense, but I find that you are just being lazy. I know that the current deletions you and a few others are doing a relatively straight-forward, but once we move back to standard replacements, file names may not be as obvious. 222 talk 01:16, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
If we move back to standard file replacements, I don't see a problem with this. However, given the special circumstances surrounding the current deletions (their obvious new filename as well as their sheer number), I really don't think this is reasonable at the moment. --LiquidTalk 01:35, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I already do this =] --Aburnett(Talk) 01:17, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Minimizing instances where you have to search for the new file name would be beneficial. Suppa chuppa Talk 01:52, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think it's common courtesy to our editors to make sure I provide a link to the new version (or indeed its duplicate if it is, or whatever) when deleting things, I don't see why theres any decent excuse not to. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 09:45, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This could also be made easier by some JS, but that would involve certain other small changes to things that we could look into at a later time. With the current proposal, I have no desire to turn the task of deleting 50 images from something that takes 5 minutes to something that takes 10, quite frankly. The most important point I have here though is that I really don't see the need. Who cares where an image was? It's been replaced. Nobody should care. I see no reason why anyone would need or want to care. ajr 22:19, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Well if someone doesn't update all the references, and the filename has been changed, and it is nothing similar to the current name, it takes some legwork to get from where it was to where it is now. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:25, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
No? First of all, any admin fixes the whatlinkshere before deleting/moving. TLULbot does that too. So what is the problem here again? ajr 22:28, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure. I'm mainly thinking on what-ifs. User:Liquidhelium has said that he sometimes just mindlessly clicks whenever it gets full, so you never know. :x svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:32, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
No, I only mindlessly click when I see that it was added by TLULbot. If it wasn't, I stop and check everything before deleting. It's quite rare for something to slip through the cracks. --LiquidTalk 22:37, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
If every admin fixed file links before deleting, why isn't Wanted Files empty? You might all be correcting file links this time round, but even here with TLULbot, I have found unreplaced files, and these were pretty hard to locate. But later on when you aren't running deletion marathons, are you going to replace the files? I highly doubt it, otherwise Wanted Files should be empty, unless this is a new habit. I will say it again: Stop being lazy, you're trying to make your job easier, but our job is still just as difficult. 222 talk 22:46, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Then you can count me out of any further image maintenance. Special:WantedFiles has always been like that, and builds up mainly because of a couple of incidences here and there that add up, and nobody bothers to fix. And I'm not going to support a policy change over a couple of isolated incidences, especially when it causes me unnecessary extra work. ajr 22:48, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Also, you'll notice that over half of the entires in Special:WantedFiles have already been dealt with, but are still there due to Wikia's cache issues. Did you bother too look at any of them? ajr 22:50, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed over 50 of them myself. 222 talk 22:53, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
I see... two? Not quite the 40 some on that list. ajr 22:54, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
They were done on my bot, genius. 222 talk 23:46, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but once again, those are isolated incidences, and not the normal. ajr 23:51, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
And looking through the page history, I might take a moment to comment on your deleted comment. Yes I obviously know that they are cache issues, that is why if you check the majority of BrainBot's file related edits, they have been appending 1 line of whitespace to force-update Wikia's cache. And I don't mind you calling me an idiot, since I know it isn't true. 222 talk 23:53, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Don't deviate from the subject, seriously. Can you provide me with any reasoning, at all, why we should change the entire policy, and give admins more work, over a few isolated incidences? ajr 23:55, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
I've added a few extra provisions to the proposal, so the stuff TLULbot and co. are doing don't require specifying file names. 222 talk 23:58, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
You are missing my entire point. Why not instead just make sure that admins do actually fix the whatlinkshere, instead of adding this policy which makes them do whatever they were already doing, and to take double the time on the delete summary? There is no need for this. ajr 00:00, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
Edit conflict Also, isn't every other support and my proposal reasoning enough? After all, your oppose boils down to not wanting to do a bit of extra maintenance work, which if I am not mistaken, is what sysops are supposed to do. 222 talk 00:02, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
Use common sense, if you are going to replace the files immediately; there is no need to add a link. We are not going to be stupid and warn you for not doing something you didn't need to do. 222 talk 00:02, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
That isn't what you are proposing, and also you seem to have completely misread my post. I'm not opposing this entirely because I don't want extra work, I'm opposing because it seems like a stupid idea, with very little benefit for anyone. If your use of UCS is what you meant to propose, then that hardly even needs proposing. Just tell the admins who aren't fixing the links to leave the file's new location in the delete summary. You hardly needed to propose a policy amendment for that. ajr 00:06, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
My use of UCS is not my proposal, it is that if it passes, what you are currently doing does not require the file link, because UCS means you do not require to add the link as you are fixing it up yourself. 222 talk 00:10, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
edit conflict And I forgot something else. "make sure that admins do actually fix the whatlinkshere": I tried to do that before. but Liquid told me it would be too hard to implement and make sure it occurs. It'd be great if you could make it pass, but this is the next best thing. 222 talk 00:10, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying that either. I'm saying to ask the admins to either do it, or leave a link to the new file in the edit summary. Considering there are maybe two admins who don't fix the links (I don't know about anyone who doesn't), then it is easy enough to just leave them a message and politely ask. ajr 00:13, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
I can second Ajr's statement. I don't know anyone who doesn't make sure that the links are fixed before or after the file is deleted. I also join Ajr's pledge to not perform file maintenance in excess quantities if this passes. As for wantedfiles, I am almost certain that the overload a few days ago was caused by the bug in TLULbot's code, and thus it should not happen again. This is really overkill for a single programming error. --LiquidTalk 00:22, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have discovered that a standard deletion message can have additional text appended to it. So you can have "Replaced by a newer version with a different file type:" and still append some text to the end of it "Replaced by a newer version with a different file type: [[File:generic name.png]]" 222 talk 22:53, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

^I lol'd. :| --Iiii I I I 23:49, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
I idea. Anyway, I oppose this. It's not worth the extra time and we admins are particularly lazy. This is incredibly bureaucratic, as well. ʞooɔ 00:27, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
How is this even bureaucratic? It's just asking people to add a few extra characters to their deletion summaries. You'd have to be an anarchist for this to be bureaucratic, no offence intended. 222 talk 00:44, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • If the new file name is simply a change in format e.g. OLD: Generic name.gif - NEW: Generic name.png. Specifying the new file's name is not required.
  • Changes in capitalisation do not require specifying file location either.
  • However, any other cases are necessary.
Sounds pretty bureaucratic and time-wasting to me. ʞooɔ 00:56, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
No it doesn't. That was to make Ajr happy, which didn't work. I'm quite happy to remove it. 222 talk 01:01, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
Then why do we even have edit summaries then? it's bureaucratic too then... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:42, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support Edit summaries should always be given at changes that aren't logical to everyone imo JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:42, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per Liquidhelm and Ajr. I also oppose this proposal because this seems like overkill when the proposer can easily remind the sysops doing image maintenance to provide an edit summary instead of wasting time by proposing a needless amendment to an existing policy. I think RS:UCS would apply here... [1] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 00:00, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - This is common sense. Adding it to a policy is just another case of instruction creep. A simple reminder to the admins in question would suffice.

Also, I'd like to note that for many of the recent image updates to this effect, the speedy deletion tag specifically states "Replaced by File:New_file.png", so it's not too much trouble to find out the new name. Also, for many of those cases, most of the references to the old file have already been updated (generally, if there are remaining references, it's userbox templates that are missed). I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:14, October 9, 2010 (UTC) 

But the edit summary doesn't, and the speedy deleton tag will have been deleted by the time maintenance is being performed. 222 talk 04:22, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
This is true. My point in the second paragraph was that it's not difficult for admins to find out the new file name themselves. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:26, October 9, 2010 (UTC) 
This isn't just about admins. It is about normal editors who are helping to clean up any messes left over. This job is made harder by being unable to easily find the file to link to, I am trying to remedy this. 222 talk 04:31, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I know that this can be a great problem, but I'm not going to support a stupid policy just for this. bad_fetustalk 05:48, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Something that the admins really should do is correct links in userboxes properly. Most of them haven't been done. 222 talk 06:21, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for File replacement. Request complete. The reason given was: Discussion has quieted

svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 14:13, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The proposal will not be implemented. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 15:22, October 24, 2010 (UTC)