Wikivoyage talk:Photo hunt

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WT-en/WV-en pages[edit]

Since the first page of Category:Pages with broken file links was filled entirely with protected archived user pages I tried to go through and de-link broken images (using <nowiki>) where possible on the assumption that it's pretty poor form to ask people to help cleanup redlinks and then point them to a category full of protected pages. The task is about two-thirds done, so if anyone else with appropriate permissions feels like continuing the job please be aware of the following:

  • Before de-linking the image first try purging the cache - a number of images have been migrated and just need a cache purge to show up.
  • If the page is listed on Category:Pages with broken file links but there aren't any broken file links then a null edit is needed to purge it from the category page. To do so, click edit then click save without making any changes and the category page should update appropriately.
  • If the only contributions from the account are the user page then I've just been deleting the page - these pages exist solely for attribution purposes, so there isn't any reason to keep them around if the user has made no other contributions. In addition, I've found that in most cases where the only contribution is a user page that the page is more often than not an advertisement or sandbox test.

At the moment there are 108 remaining archived user pages to tackle. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just "fixed" Category:Pages with broken file links so that it only contains pages which really do lack files and so that red-linked files display in articles if they have been uploaded to Commons. This removed 100-200 pages from the category. However, more files are moved to Commons all of the time, so always remember to purge a page before replacing images. Maybe you could add a purge link to the site notice? Something like [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}}] should work. —The preceding comment was added by Stefan2 (talkcontribs)
All of the protected "(WT-en)" and "(WV-en)" user pages have now been updated to remove broken image links. The remainder of Category:Pages with broken file links should be fully editable to everyone. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ignore reasons[edit]

Was looking at red links at Leuven, for example [1]. What does Reason: Multiple different cameras, varying resolution mean in cases like this that appear not to be composite sewn images? There are quite a few of these. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a single person has uploaded images taken using an unreasonably large number of cameras, or with a too widely varying resolution, then this usually means that the images have been copied from some unknown source and that they are copyright violations. Apart from that, it says that the image was released to the public domain by the original creator without telling who the original creator is. Files can usually only be moved if the original creator can be identified. Additionally, Commons won't accept photos of buildings in Belgium unless the architect died before 1943 (because of restrictions in the Belgian copyright law, requiring you to get permission from the architect if you wish to publish a photo of a building in Belgium). In this case, the building was built in 1875, so it is very likely that the architect (H. Fouquet) died before 1943, but you never know. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK now I understand. Thanks for the info.--Traveler100 (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What will we do?[edit]

What are we going to do with these thousands of pages that still have broken images? I think there's no way we can replace them all in the coming months. Can't we just remove them with a bot? It might sound a bit drastic, but these broken links will cause a lot of confusion among readers. We have brought over most images from Commons, and there has to be a time when this migration process should be considered complete.Globe-trotter (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While it does seem to be a bit drastic, if someone could put together a bot that removed redlinks then at this point I'd be in favor of removing them for launch. The photo hunt task is moving extraordinarily slowly, and given enough time articles will be re-populated with images anyhow as people add them from commons. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

false warning[edit]

Can someone explain why Gävle is marked as an article with Pages with broken file links? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this edit addresses the broken file link: [2]. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah now I see, I just assumed the non displayed map was due to the https problem. Thanks for the edit. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]