Welcome to the Village pump proposals section
This Wikimedia Commons page is used for making proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Commons:Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. Discussions here should be of wide interest; those which are more specific may be moved to the main Village Pump, with a note left here. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. For old discussions, see the Archive. Recent sections with no replies for 14 days may be archived.
wikimedia commons app
I have a proposal to develop commons app . I want to develop a gallery part in the app so that people are able to see all the uploaded pictures until now it has only one feature i.e to upload but by having a gallery part , users are able to see various pictures also . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Uploading to Wikimedia Commons — The technical side
If you are curious how uploading files works, what a multipart message is and how FormData is easing the upload process, show your interest at the proposal's submission page. It will be a mix of a presentation and tutorial for technically interested people and it will help you to understand and tracking down a lot of errors you may experience as a user or developer of upload tools. -- Rillke(q?) 16:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- That would be very interesting, but I guess only for people going to Wikimania 2014. --Jarekt (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-01, same author, but 2014 instead of 1998. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Removing AddInformation.js from the gadgets
MediaWiki:Gadget-AddInformation.js is old and unmaintained and it its present form it does more harm than good when invoked. It should be removed from the gadgets until its numerous issues are fixed.--Underlying lk (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I still use it. I should be fixed rather than removed. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
If you want more editors, lose the necessity of knowing computer languages. I would edit if it did not take quite so much time. 02:44, 30 March 2014 220.127.116.11
- Wikimedia projects are on a slippery slope down to Talkingpaperclip Town with Visual Editor. Isn’t it dumbed down enough for you? What else the dimwitted need? -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think that WYSIWYG tools are not bad per-se and I believe there is a lot that could be optimized in regard to how we are managing our media files. Hope Wikibase for Media files will be available soon so we can have structured data and more friendly file description editing. -- Rillke(q?) 20:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's called Typography refresh. Unfortunately, regular opt-out is no longer an option. However, you can cancel nearly all of its effects by importing mw:User:Cathfolant/typographyrefreshoverride.css in your personal CSS. --Ricordisamoa 18:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- LOL, I thought Vector was a mistake and I still continue to use Monobook. But luckily the skin update at least has an opt-out located in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering along with a few other skin selections like Modern and Cologne Blue. Perhaps it's a font change you'll just have to get used to like the Vector skin when it was introduced back in the heyday (though I personally still detest it). TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Quality rating for vector versions
Please see Template talk:Vector version available#Parameter for quality rating. --Ricordisamoa 18:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
New editors should not be able to create userpage
New page patrollers are worried about self-promotional accounts, who make nothing in Commons except userpage and maybe uploading photos for it. This is bad. They get speedily deleted, but anyway.
User:Motopark sent to me a personal e-mail, where explained, that there is an easy way to diminish that bad habit. New users should not be able to make an userpage. For making a userpage, you should have some number (5? 10? 20?) edits. And maybe not on the first day, but the account must be some days (3? 4? 5? 7?) old.
But there is a problem. Some users with very few edits make userpage, which says: I'm mostly active in some other wiki. This can be done in form of soft redirect. This will be also prohibited, if new users are not allowed to make an userpage.
- Oppose You mean, one own user page? That should obviously be allowed. If you mean something else, please explain. The solution to this kind of issues is not to restrict what users can do. It is to increase patrollers and admins, as I have already said. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Official and funded new editor campaigns actively encourage new editors to create a user page as their first edit, even uploading a selfie to Commons as part of that process. I am not suggesting that is a good thing, but it is currently how many new contributors start out. I do not like the focus on "self-promotion" like it was spamming or vandalism. Frankly if someone creates a user page with their photo on it saying what football team they like, I do not care, good for them, sometimes those contributors go on to become regular contributors to this project. --Fæ (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- One would think. However, see User:Augusto De Luca. This person, a possibly notable photographer, -- if not an imposter -- with many uploads (by others) to Commons, see Category:Photographs by Augusto De Luca, apparently decided to create a user page on most WMF wikis. At the time, there were articles on him on most wikipedias. They had been standing for a long time. He'd have thought that stable. There is no policy against what he did, and nothing that would warn a user not to do it. All those user pages were a single image, from a file hosted here, no external links, no text. All those files are still standing.
- The articles had been created by other editors, mostly single-purpose accounts (I call them "fans," and two of them seem to be professional photographers themselves, from evidence found with images at Category:Augusto De Luca. One of the editors was De Luca's daughter, who never edited cross-wiki, but uploaded some of the Commons images, first, to it.wikipedia. These were obviously not highly skilled Wikipedia editors, for they didn't understand the essential requirement for a Wikipedia article, reliable sources indicating notability. From what I can see, ADL is likely notable, (i.e, because of his access to subjects, and the shows he has put on, over many years), but it may take reference to print archives, in Italian, to establish it. ADL had no idea, my guess, as to what would happe, nobody expects the Spamish Inquisition. If anyone is interested, see my study on this case at wikiversity:en:User:Abd/Augusto De Luca. I've been waiting to go to meta with an appeal until I'd studied the affair thoroughly.
- The opinion expressed at the top of this topic is a common one. Self-promotion is BAD. Yet w:Wikipedia:User pages allows a level of self-promotion on user pages. My own opinion about user pages is that we should leave them alone unless they are actually harmful. If the user page could cause Commons or the WMF to fall into ill repute, then, sure, they may be deleted. Otherwise, it's a waste of time to even consider them. --Abd (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
RFC: Merging CheckUser and Oversight requests
I've had a brief read over at Commons:Checkusers and Commons:Oversighters and it seems the policies governing their activities are quite similar, and they both are derived from the access to nonpublic data policy. Their work concerns sensitive data, and there's bound to be a lot of overlap between each of the roles, but the difference is that respectively CheckUsers and Oversighters prefer to be proficient only in the scope of their assigned permissions roles. However, judging from the checkuser election archive and oversighter election archive on average totaling much less than the frequent successful and unsuccessful requests for adminship archives, unfortunately there does not seem to be a whole lot of demand for their services. Therefore I propose to merge the requests pages to a single "Requests for advanced permissions" page, or something similar concerning rights access to nonpublic information. We can still keep the checkuser and oversighter request archive logs respectively, but I feel this simplifies the process and oftentimes the trust required for one permission is sufficient for handling the other. On English Wikipedia for example both CheckUsers and Oversighters are appointed by Arbitration Committee; not saying that's good or bad, but illustrating an example process on another wiki of assigning these permissions for comparison.
P.S. I'm thinking about merging the roles of CheckUser and Oversighter so a successful request for one permission is automatically granted the other, but it might be too much for right now. This is only a proposal to consolidate the election process into one; nominees could still indicate preference for one role over the other, by indicating whether the "request for advanced permissions" is for CU or OS. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)