Commons:Village pump/Archive/2004/09

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Village Pump archives
+ J F M A M J J A S O N D
2004 Not available 09 10 11 12
2005 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2006 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

The above definition of this page

..could use some rework. Please change it to fit as this project takes shape. -- 19:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CC image tags

I've ported a couple of CC image tags over from w:en (-by and -by-sa). The rest still need to be are done now (23:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)). -- Grunt 20:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The main page looks messy with all of those CC subclasses. They should be subcats in a Category:Creative Commons thing. -- Grunt 23:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

File names

So, uh, if an Italian uploads "Quaglia.jpg", and I'm searching for a "quail" picture, it's not going to show it to me, even though it might be better than the ones with titles in English. How can we title images multilingually so that everybody can find them? Stan Shebs 14:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Searching should not rely on the titles alone. A file name which had the word for "quail" in 50 languages is far from practical. :) As long as translations are given on the image description page, you should be able to find quail even if the title is quaglia. Eventually, it would be good if the software could pick out the right language and allow you to search or view only the descriptions in your own language if you wanted to. Angela 15:54, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Still, it is an issue that we should be discussing, what to do with different languages. I will set up a page on Commons:Language policy with a proposal - Andre Engels 23:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Full-text searching doesn't seem like a good idea, because among other things it can't distinguish between identification of the subject of a picture and a match in random verbiage ("this is not a picture of a quail"). I was hoping someone would come up with a clever way to have, say, redirs for images, or allow multiple description pages per file or some such. Seems like you'd want the last so that the "GFDL" template doesn't expand into Chinese, which most people won't be able to recognize as a GFDL statement. (Or I could go read wikimedia source code and figure out how to make it possible, eh? :-) ) Stan Shebs 23:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We can just put the pictures on Quail and redirect Quaglia there. -- Grunt 18:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What about a keyword system? You could sorta roll categories and multilingual names in there. I'd say a policy for including, at the very least, english common name, scientific name, and some attributes: bird, GFDL, blue, etc. CXI 10:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Can I suggest requesting people uploading pictures of animals, plants and the like to name the pictures using binomial nomenclature? At least for anything to which a "live-language-neutral" name can be given, this should help. --Phil | Talk 16:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I do not think it is practical to expect people who upload the picture to do detail research on what is the binomial nomenclature. Some honestly do not know, some do not care at all, some might only know the local name, and do not care much what it is called in other language. Restricting too much on naming convention, might lose new image sources. Is it possible to put it similar to wikidictionary. As and when other speakers browse the picture, they attached the local name to the picture. Now, where should I put ( Pisang Serendah ) (a type of banana) picture since I do not know what it is in English. Or how about Eskimo who have 50 types of snow. Do we have Snow1, Snow2, Snow3 picture? or then type of snow in Eskimo language... Yosri 10:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
They can use the binomial if they know or look for it in Wikispecies

I do not see the pictures !!

I know many pictures have been uploaded already to the Commons. However, I do not see them. I had a look at Magnolia and there is no image. :( GerardM 07:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Strange, I do see an image there. Maybe you have a firewall/ad-blocker or such that is being too active? - Andre Engels 08:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How to handle a large collection of related images?

For large collections of related images (such as maps of a specific country), it is good to have references to these images in a single list. However, placing the actual image contents inside the list would bee unwise. Perhaps it is a good idea to think about this issue in an early stage. I'll try to put some examples in Maps of the Netherlands to illustrate what I mean to say. Quistnix 11:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We can use W:WikiAtlas!WikiAtlas.

Image reuploading problem

I just found a bigger version of a picture that I already uploaded. The first version I uploaded was this, and I wanted to replace the picture with this one, so I saved the new pic, named it accordingly and uploaded it. The outcome is this, which looks like a streched version of the first picture I uploaded. I don't have a clue what causes this, any help? --Conti| 01:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When a new picture is uploaded over the old one, but the old one is still in your cache, your browser takes the size information from the new one, and the content of the old one (or vice versa, I don't remember). Making a 'hard' reload (ctrl + reload or shift + reload on most browsers) should solve that problem. - Andre Engels 11:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ah, you're right! My bad, then. --Conti| 13:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

what are we gonna do?

connecting stuf

Most wikis by now have both a top down article hierarchy and categories to connect all articles.

Do we have any pref here for categories or articles? Or do we both? Or neither? TeunSpaans 21:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My method upto now has been to use Categories for the hierarchy, but a normal page at the 'end' of the hierarchy to put the galleries on. Categories are a good way to make a hierarchy, because of their 'automated backlinking', but using that method for the pictures themselves is not such a good idea, because then you only find their title, not a thumbnail or description. - Andre Engels 07:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) you mean "not yet"?? It would be very nice to get thumbnails on the categories, and very efficient, would spare a lot of work. Elly 15:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if the categories function got expanded with the option to show thumbnails, title in native language and maybe other metadata instead of the filename, so that all images could just be added to categories instead of articles with image galleries. Fuelbottle 23:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like that idea. 21:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
One more thing: if we get galery-categories and all that, and decide to drop "conventional" galery-pages, the article-namespace of the commons wiki would (ideally) be empty. But using the default search function, one will not find categories. So we will need a way to "drop" the categories into the article-namespace... -- Duesentrieb 23:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We can redirect articles to categories (multilingual if needed). Or we can search the categories directly. -- Chris 73 00:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No unused images

Should we adopt a policy/rule of thumb/guideline/whatnot that there should be no unused images on this project? Every images should belong somewhere, on some page. I am currently working through the list which already had close to 100 entries :-(

This will also help finding doublettes. See Red Fox. --Magnus Manske 12:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More than belong, they would be USED somewhere. We can import the Wikipedia images here, delete them from Wikipedia and redirect the wikipedia [[Image:]] links, if necessary.
I agree, images should be on some page here. I uploaded a few pictures under a better fitting name, therefore there are a some doublettes that can be deleted as soon as we have an administrator here. --Conti| 13:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the principle - I have already been working on a lot of the pictures uploaded by Anthony. However, your additions to Red Fox I find a bad idea: Those were pictures that already were on Candidates_for_speedy_deletion for being duplicates. Putting a picture on a page while it is already on Votes for deletion is only adding work for yourself and the sysop who removes the picture later. - Andre Engels 15:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As another request: Please write down on the picture page what the picture is and who the author is. In particular, for a painting always give the painter and the title (unless they are unknown). - Andre Engels 15:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The idea of not having usused images is against the reason for setting up this project. Pictures that have merit should find a home on the Commons. There can be many great pictures for a topic but there is only need for a few in a wikipedia project. Reasons for deletion are: poor quality with existing quality pictures. Duplicates. Copyright violotion. .. Not it is not being used. GerardM 21:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. Just having pictures here is no use. We should be a place where people can find images. If an image fits with some existing subject, it should be on that page. If an image fits with some non-existing subject, the subject should be created. If an image fits with no subject, whether existing or non-existing, it is not 'a picture with merit'. - Andre Engels 00:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wait, I now understand what is going on. You misunderstand what is meant by "not used". We do not mean "pictures not used in any Wikimedia project" but "pictures not shown (or linked with a [[Media:-link) on any WikiCommons page. What is said here, is that every picture should not just be uploaded to WikiCommons, but be put in a gallery somewhere here. - Andre Engels 00:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do user pages count? Gerrit 13:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It depends. Having a picture of yourself or your dog or a nice flower on your user page to give it a more personal look, is something I like, and to do that the picture would need to be uploaded, so I would consider that an exception. But putting a gallery of 'images I contributed' on your user page is another matter. I would not mind anyone making such a gallery, but I would mind it if that is the only place where the pictures are found. - Andre Engels 16:29, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Every image should be linked from somewhere eventually. I'm not sure this is the same as saying that "there should be no unused images". Having a list of "unused" image thumbnails would make this process a lot easier. I assume this and other tools are forthcoming, as we kind of threw this wiki up before making any enhancements to MediaWiki to support it. Anthony 15:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think we also need an exception for raw versions of images which are used (in a cropped or otherwise modified format). It's always nice to keep a raw image version so that if someone wants to make modifications they can do so to the original and not lose quality. I don't think these need to be linked directly from article pages. They can be linked from the modified version. Anthony 12:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I belive pages should be used to group images that show the same Thing. Thus, some categories should be applied to the page, not the image. Others should not, for instance categories that specify a type of image (like category:photo), categories that specify an artist and categories that represent a license. -- Duesentrieb 21:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About wikimedia link

Commons wikimedia
another projects

Why?[] does not exist...Shin-改 T 01:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Logo design

Squash designed a logo that could be used for here; see Commons:Logo for an ongoing discussion. It has been proposed that one week from this posting that if a consensus is reached to adopt the logo that it will be adopted. -- Grunt 03:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would be preferable if the image were released under CC-BY or a similar license, so that it can be used in press coverage and other non-GFDLed situations. Not as important for commons right now, but who knows, one day maybe commons will be big enough to get coverage like this. Anthony 12:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)