rowan.collins wrote:

I would add:

3. ability to explicitly refer to the commons version ("[[commons:Image:Foo]]"

or similar); without this, (2) is only partially useful.

rowan.collins wrote:

*** Bug 1666 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

emddudley wrote:

I'm upgrading this image from an enhancement to normal severity. Users uploading
images to Wikipedia with the same name as an image on Commons can cause a lot of
disruption on articles that use Commons images.

We either need a way to explicitly include the Commons version of an image
(right now we can only explicitly link to them) or we need to prevent images on
Wikipedia from overwriting Commons images.

There's no point to moving images to Commons if this problem isn't fixed; moving
the images just creates more difficulties.

We already prevent images on Wikipedia form overwriting Commons images.
Only sysops can do it, and I think there's a warning displayed for them.

emddudley wrote:

Ah, I'm a sysop, so I didn't see that regular accounts can't overwrite Commons
images.

However, there is no warning displayed for sysops, which is why I didn't realize
it in the first place. Should I file it as a seperate bug? Once there is a
warning, this bug can be closed.

plugwash wrote:

not really, there is still the issue of existing images that the commons
uploader is unaware of and existing conflicts

to REALLY close this issue we need a way to reference the commons image even
when there is a local image of the same name.

rd0hfl2zg51kj0o wrote:

I would rather propose to *prevent* name collisions between the commons and the
local images. KISS principle. Besides this, I think we should have a way to
rename images, both on commons and on single wikis, and a well-done image naming
policy. It is a mess now, as we have names such as asuslogo, AsusLogo,
asus_logo1, as187whoknowsm etc; and these are all things which cause error and
waste of time for everyone.

The reason for supporting image renaming and a naming policy is maybe better
illustrated with an example: let's say I upload, an image named origami.jpg to
en.wikipedia while an image with the same name exists on commons. On receiving
the warning I go to commons and see that the image showed there is about the
Microsoft ultra mobile PC, while mine concerns the paper-folding art. There
should then be an unambiguos way to decide what to rename and how; it could be
origami (paper folding)/origami (umpc) or origami/origami (computer) or anything
else (the example is purely illustrative, it's obvious that "origami" is such a
generic name that it is obviously inappropriate for the image of a particular
origami example).

Maybe we could just enforce that all (and only) image from commons have a name
beginning with "common_"
I don't object to having a syntax to specify that the image is from commons, but
I don't support the use of "namespaces", so to speak. IOWs, common::name would
just be an alternative to common_name.

ayg wrote:

(In reply to comment #7)

common::name would just be an alternative to common_name.

Is there a difference between the two punctuation marks? The latter, since
MediaWiki treats underscores as spaces, would incidentally prevent any
non-Commons image to be identified by anything beginning with the word "common"
(which is a fairly, well, common word), and would also mess up localization
(since the prefix would be added centrally at the Commons rather than a
"virtual" namespace being added locally at each project).

As for moving, that's Bug 709. You can try voting for it if you like.

phi1ipp wrote:

Commons should likewise indicate impending name collisions with e.g. images on any of the local projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc.). If we can check usage globally (http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php), we ought to be able check for those collisions.

I also agree with the first sentence of Gennaro's comments.

Fixed in r33972.