On 7/27/09 10:39 AM, Robert Rohde wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Aryeh > Gregor<[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Robert Rohde<[email protected]> wrote: >>> Forgive me, but that seems like you'd be asking the community to do a >>> huge amount of work (moving images and updating [[File:]] calls) in >>> order to address a problem that could be solved on purely technical >>> grounds. >> >> Well, we could automatically move everything to the new names and >> leave redirects, and only leave conflicts to be manually resolved. > > Last I checked image moves weren't actually working and I thought > image redirects were disabled as well, though I could be mistaken. > Those are technical issues that it would be good to solve for their > own reasons though.
Image redirects are quite active. Renames were re-disabled due to breakage with images which had missing past versions (eg, a lot in production) -- which I think has been fixed to handle this case cleanly. Anyway, don't consider that an impediment. > However, if redirects work in the traditional way, then it wouldn't > solve my problem. Namely File:Foo.jpg might draw it's content from > File:Foo, but it still lives at a url for File:Foo.jpg. In order to > avoid the extensions in urls you need to change where the links > actually go, which at the present time requires changing each actual > call. You wouldn't care if anybody indexed File:Foo.jpg, since the content would be indexed at File:Foo. > Beyond that, it strikes me that it would be very hard to do the kind > of automatic resolution you have in mind without breaking things. You > can arguably do it on a single wiki, but with Commons in the mix it > gets considerably harder. If Commons has Foo.jpg and Enwiki has > Foo.gif, then who gets to live at File:Foo? Either you have to check > for conflicts across all wikis or you are likely to end up with at > least some wikis with unexpected links. This is hardly an insurmountable problem; automated renames can easily detect the existence of such conflicts and either leave them for eventual manual attention or give them disambiguating suffixes. > They aren't antagonistic proposals though. One could make changes > that allow extension agnostic file names, e.g. File:Foo, while also > coming up with an automatic way to hide file extensions on existing > works regardless of whether they are moved/redirected. Any reason not > to allow both? There's no particular reason to do the latter when its results are equivalent to the former. -- brion _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
