File talk:1949之後 右派狗崽子話當年.mp3
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Filename[edit]
I think the original file name is a insulting name that is not comfortable to use in the file name,though it was used in VOA. SD hehua (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Roy17: --SD hehua (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- ping the filemovers moved the file:@Richardkiwi and Nihonjoe: --SD hehua (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @SD hehua: I'm not sure why you're pinging me. What am I supposed to look at? ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 18:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Aha. It looks like there's a naming dispute between SD hehua and Roy17. You'll need to sort it out amongst yourselves first before requesting it be moved back. I'm removing the request until you can come to an agreement between yourselves. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 18:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- between who? I dont know what Im doing here, first time on wiki dont know how to operate 2600:1700:90D0:D30:1D06:4C2F:134B:A15B 05:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Now that this come up again at the Village Pump, what is the request? The current name? A revert back to some other name? Can people use their words and explain it without posting one-line edit summaries? - Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- ???Who moved it back???There is no consensus about it. Why the filemover move it without any talk? Hehua (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Hehua Can people just start with a simple "the name should be X because reason Y" rather than ask questions as if I know what you all are arguing about? Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682Oh I cannot understang what you say.Who is the people you say? I said something wrong? Hehua (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think the picture name should be 1949之後 右派子女話當年 because "狗崽子" is an insulting name. Hehua (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Though it is used in VOA it is not a good filename.It should not mixed with a song name because the song should not be renamed, Hehua (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Hehua Sorry, I didn't realize you were the same as User:SD hehua above. Alright, I think that's silly. It's the name of the article, it's in the description (sort of) and a topic in the audio so why would it bother you? Maybe we should rename it to File:August 25 2007 VOA China article on the Anti-Rightist.mpg as a neutral middle ground but the audio isn't even used anywhere and we would likely need to keep the old name as a redirect so it's not like it will be hidden. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682I agree your advice. It is good. Hehua (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- In retrospect, it should be plural so it could be File:August 25 2007 VOA China article on the Anti-Rightists.mpg. Both titles would redirect to this anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682I agree your advice. It is good. Hehua (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Hehua Sorry, I didn't realize you were the same as User:SD hehua above. Alright, I think that's silly. It's the name of the article, it's in the description (sort of) and a topic in the audio so why would it bother you? Maybe we should rename it to File:August 25 2007 VOA China article on the Anti-Rightist.mpg as a neutral middle ground but the audio isn't even used anywhere and we would likely need to keep the old name as a redirect so it's not like it will be hidden. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682Oh I cannot understang what you say.Who is the people you say? I said something wrong? Hehua (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Hehua Can people just start with a simple "the name should be X because reason Y" rather than ask questions as if I know what you all are arguing about? Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- ???Who moved it back???There is no consensus about it. Why the filemover move it without any talk? Hehua (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @King of Hearts and Jmabel: asking for this to be place of discussion rather than VP. I can see points for either the name matching the article or my suggested sort of neutral English-language name and I can see points against both as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- If I were to uploading it, I'd be fine with any of these names. However, it does not meet any of the COM:FNC 2-6, so it shouldn't be moved without the consent of the original uploader. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- But it qualify under FNC 2-5? I mean the example provided is "Stupid fat idiot" which is a personal attack for sure but much less insulting that the words here. That's probably too broad of a reading of 2-5. In the end if the uploader refuses to comment and discuss it, isn't it permissible for a filemover to ignore the guideline (not a formal policy) and move it anyways? It's still just an opinion in the end so if we end up with keeping the original name just because the uploader refuses to engage, so be it. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- If we have a clip of Donald Trump calling someone "Stupid fat idiot", then it would be OK to have the title be "Stupid fat idiot.webm". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't that the 2-5 example? It would be better to be something like "Donald Trump insults X.webm"? Same here. Isn't it better to call it something like article on the Anti-Rightists than the insult that was used in the original article. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is not a question of what any of us thinks is better; only the original uploader's opinion matters as long as there is no policy violation. In any case, the title of this file simply isn't a personal attack. VoA is a reputable source, and if it's something they think is OK to have as the title of an article, then it's OK for us to have as the title of a file. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't that the 2-5 example? It would be better to be something like "Donald Trump insults X.webm"? Same here. Isn't it better to call it something like article on the Anti-Rightists than the insult that was used in the original article. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- If the file was a song named "fat stupid idiot" (god I hope noone makes this song) then actually the title should be "fat stupid idiot (song)". I unfortunately can't tell if this is a song or song lyrics. If this is a line from the song, then we should probably call it "song name (song)", but if the whole thing is actually "1949之後 右派狗崽子話當年" then perhaps we should call it "1949之後 右派狗崽子話當年 (song)"? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, so it's a podcast. If that's the title of the podcast, then I think we should add (podcast episode) after the title. That's my 2c. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- If we have a clip of Donald Trump calling someone "Stupid fat idiot", then it would be OK to have the title be "Stupid fat idiot.webm". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- But it qualify under FNC 2-5? I mean the example provided is "Stupid fat idiot" which is a personal attack for sure but much less insulting that the words here. That's probably too broad of a reading of 2-5. In the end if the uploader refuses to comment and discuss it, isn't it permissible for a filemover to ignore the guideline (not a formal policy) and move it anyways? It's still just an opinion in the end so if we end up with keeping the original name just because the uploader refuses to engage, so be it. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@Roy17 You put this file into Category:Voice of America audio files in Chinese but we already have Category:Voice of America audio files in Cantonese. Was this in Cantonese, Mandarin or should we create a parent Chinese language? Ricky81682 (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)