This isn’t really a surprise given how I edit, but I think a well formatted stub that contains all the critical information a user needs on a topic is actually a really good thing, and in the form of documentation, noting things in laconic form is often best.
Reason: Naming things on computers is surprisingly hard, and sometimes ambiguous names can lead to different interpretations. It is good practice to leave a line or note explaining what something is meant for precisely.
What I like about the Proposal: The part of their proposal to use language templates is fine, I recall similar things being done on Wikimedia Commons due to it being multilingual. In such projects explicitly noting the language used can help avoid miscommunications between languages that are similar enough to be mutually intelligible, but have false friends that could cause misunderstanding on a casual read.
What I disagree with in the proposal:
That said, I know relatively little about Miraheze Commons specifically, so perhaps that is why i struggle to understand what this proposal addresses or solves.
Reason: Naming things on computers is surprisingly hard, and sometimes ambiguous names can lead to different interpretations. It is good practice to leave a line or note explaining what something is meant for precisely.
What I like about the Proposal: The part of their proposal to use language templates is fine, I recall similar things being done on Wikimedia Commons due to it being multilingual. In such projects explicitly noting the language used can help avoid miscommunications between languages that are similar enough to be mutually intelligible, but have false friends that could cause misunderstanding on a casual read.
What I disagree with in the proposal:
- Miraheze Commons isn’t an encyclopedia and this is being used to justify the removal of topics like Wikimedia Commons has. However, Wikimedia Commons is also not an encyclopedia, and it has topics. The logic does not follow. A practical reason as to why topics are counterproductive to the goals of the project should be outlined before they are removed.
- Transcoding notable images can have value in a gallery. I don’t think there should be a blanket ban on this, but I understand why it might be discouraged. If disallowed, tooling should be developed to rapidly import images to Miraheze Commons, though that opens a new set of worms if an image from Wikimedia Commons is deleted or updated for good reason, and at that point the wheel is reinvented.
- The threshold for a gallery should be 2 images, or if you want to be more strict, 3. Five is arbitrary, and could be a good recommendation but shouldn’t be an end all be all requirement. A gallery is more than the images it contains: The context, and arrangement also make huge differences in the final result. Authors should be given maximum freedom to reasonably express themselves.
That said, I know relatively little about Miraheze Commons specifically, so perhaps that is why i struggle to understand what this proposal addresses or solves.