Template talk:Incomplete move to Commons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Template:Now Commons[edit]

This concerns what template to use after the image is OK to move to the Commons. I think we should link to {{Now Commons}} instead of {{subst:ncd}} - which is {{subst:Now commons dated}}

{{Now Commons}} is simpler to use. It is what most people use. See "What links here" for {{Now Commons}} versus {{Now commons dated}}

Please see also:

I am trying to simplify moving files to the Commons. I have been consolidating info. See:

I linked to both tags. This gives people a choice. Many editors will be confused by {{subst:ncd}}. I prefer {{now commons}} myself. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Now commons only[edit]

As of this post, {{ncd}} states that it should no longer be used, so I replaced it with {{now commons}}. — trlkly 18:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why Timeshifter marked it as deprecated; it's not. I've unmarked it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Related discussion at Template talk:Copy to Wikimedia Commons#Problem with Template:Not moved to Commons[edit]

There is a discussion at Template talk:Copy to Wikimedia Commons#Problem with Template:Not moved to Commons concerning recent changes to this template. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate template name[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Template:Incomplete move to Commons. There is consensus to replace the current name with something else but no agreement on the new name. I picked this option from all the suggestions made below in the hope that it is inoffensive and it does cure the problem with the current name. An image carrying this template is one for which a move to Commons was attempted but whose enwiki version can't yet be deleted. For examples, see the Category:Wikipedia files moved to Wikimedia Commons which could not be deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)



Template:Already moved to Commons → ? – Inappropriate template name. The name suggests that you should use this template instead of {{subst:ncd}}. See for example File:Ney grave.JPG where a user used the template in that way. I think that we should rename this into something else, possibly simply reverting the previous move in May, and then change {{already moved to Commons}} into a redirect to {{Now Commons}}. Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support I certainly agree it is an inappropriate name and I don't understand the reasoning behind the previous move (discussed here, I think). What it should be called I can't work out because the template documentation is completely opaque to me. However, I'm not sure the previous name is appropriate either. Thincat (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
    • This template is used if someone tags a file with {{Now Commons}} but it is revealed that the file doesn't satisfy WP:CSD#F8, for example because the file is unfree (often tagged with {{Nominated for deletion on Commons}} instead) or because the file on Commons isn't identical to the file on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • So where does this leave us? There's consensus to move but no specific destination. Back to {{not moved to Commons}}? And is it just me, or does that name express the complete opposite idea of this one? --BDD (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I shall suggest something, however silly: {{Previous move to Commons was abortive}} Thincat (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support {{not moved to Commons}}, since that seems to be what this is expressing. Could Enric Naval or someone clarify why exactly this got moved in the first place? I read the discussion linked above, but again, "not moved" and "already moved" are completely different ideas. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I find "not moved" to be misleading, because the image has been moved to commons. The local image couldn't be deleted because of problems with speedy deletion. Improving on Thincat's suggestion, maybe {{incomplete move to Commons}}? --Enric Naval (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • "Not moved" sounds like the most natural name as this describes exactly what has happened: it has not been moved to Commons. It may have been copied to Commons, but it has not been moved to Commons as the local copy remains. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm being dumb, but isn't the purpose of this template to flag images that were flagged for moving to Commons but failed to make it over there due to not meeting one of the Commons criteria (e.g. the image is non-free, or doesn't meet Commons' "educational" remit). Thus it is for images that can't be deleted from the English Wikipedia because they haven't been copied to Commons. If that is not the purpose, please could you clarify what you think the purpose is? There is no reason I can think of why an image should be retained on en-Wiki if it has already been copied to Commons.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
This is used for files which have been tagged with {{NowCommons}} but which do not fulfill the criteria listed at WP:CSD#F8. For example, the file might be in a different file format, or it might not be identical to the Commons file. It could also be used if the file has been nominated for deletion on Commons for some reason. If someone adds {{copy to Commons}} to an unfree file, then you should remove that template and, if necessary, correct the copyright tags. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, the name of the template doesn't convey that meaning. Personally, I think that the current name conveys the meaning a little better, and it confuses readers a bit less. Personally, I think that conveying the correct meaning is more important than a grammatically correct name. I still think we need a more informative name, such as {{Moved to Commons but not deleted here}}, but I can only think of very long names. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Note that {{Moved to Commons but not deleted here}} is incorrect as it has not been moved. Moving something means that it is only present there – not here. However, files with this template are still present here. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
So, something like {{Incomplete move to commons}}? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - there appears to me to be clear consensus that this page should be moved to a different title, but no consensus as to the appropriate target. Figure that out, and we'll be done here; otherwise, the title will stay as is. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • If no consensus is found for a target, wouldn't it simply mean that the previous move is reverted, as it lacked consensus? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess that's up to the discretion of the closer. Since the request was placed almost six months after the move, that seems a bit long for WP:BRD. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • One possible scenario is that a page X was created on Wikipedia, and moved to Commons, and then re-created on Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Names[edit]

Considering that consensus have been achieved for a move, it is where to move this to that is the problem. So, I believe that a list of the current suggestions should help figure this out and possibly generate a consensus on this. Potentially, I would like to suggest having this relisted for a few days so that this discussion isn't closed early. (I did assume that Thincat and Enric Naval are suggesting a Move and Redirect. If that isn't the correct assumption, please edit the list above.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should try hard and do something. The problem seems to be that the more descriptive names are more like essays than titles. {{Now Commons}} just seems wrong to me. As for the rest any would be an improvement. I am reluctant to suggest any more names but Stefan's remarks that we are talking about a failed copy (rather than move) seem helpful to me. Thincat (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
@Thincat, Stefan2, BDD, Enric Naval: - Well, if you four can come up with an agreement, then I believe that it will be a simple matter of a quick move. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't really care a great deal, and the closer can discount my vote accordingly if necessary to find consensus. The world of files is a labyrinth. It doesn't make sense to me that we would move a file to Commons but keep a redundant copy here. I realize there can be reasons, but I just can't get my head around the purpose of this template, let alone a good name for it. {{also in Commons}}? I don't know. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that these templates are a labyrinth. We could be arguing all day on what the verb "move" entails. I don't really care any more. Just someone put a name that helps users understand. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that "not moved" and "incomplete move" both would be fine. The suggestion {{Moved to Commons but not deleted here}} could maybe work if you use "copied" instead of "moved", as the word "moved" suggests that the file no longer resides here. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This may happen with a page which is merely a dictdef or not much more, but so many other Wikipedia pages link to it that a page with that name it is needed on Wikipedia. See e.g. Talk:Vial. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.