Commons:Village pump/Proposals

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:VPP· COM:VPPROP


  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
Commons discussion pages (index)


Welcome to the Village pump proposals section[edit]

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.

  • If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  • Have you read the FAQ?
  • For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump.


"In other projects" sidebar[edit]

(Moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard)

A new "In other projects" sidebar will be going live as a beta feature on Wikipedia, Wikisource and Wikiquote in eight days time.

As it stands, it will only link categories to categories, and articles to galleries.

However, I have asked the developer to show links to both Commons categories and Commons galleries in the sidebar, for both Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia categories. This should be fairly possible using Wikidata properties Commons category (P373) and Commons gallery (P935), rather than the default direct sitelinks (which have to be more limited, as described at Commons:Wikidata/Commons-Wikidata sitelinks).

Update: I've pinged User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), who she says she needs to speak to User:Daniel Kinzler (WMDE), the technical lead developer for Wikidata, when he's back in the office on Wednesday (27), to see whether this would cause any other technical issues or complications. It's something that Wikinews are also very interested, because they would like an wiki article to link to a category of stories about a subject, rather than an individual story. Then they will see how it goes from there. Jheald (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Update 2: Lydia and Daniel have now talked. Apparently, there are technical issues, but "It should be doable. It'll definitely not be pretty from the technical side but ok... It'll probably take a bit to get it done." Jheald (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we have a quick show of hands to confirm that this is what we would like? Jheald (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jheald (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jmabel ! talk 21:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - if this means we can have better connections between related categories and articles on different projects. Green Giant (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The current practice to not accept Wikidata links between WP articles and Commons categories has always been a puzzle to me. Any improvement of the connection between articles and Commons has my full support. --A.Savin 22:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A Commons category which corresponds to a WP article is one of the most common cases and needs to be supported. --Ppelleti (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support; galleries simply do not reflect the richness and value of Commons, and do not keep up with our growth. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, do not see any issues with the proposal.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, as per all above. (To make a long story short.) -- Tuválkin 07:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think links extraction from d:Property:P301 and d:Property:P910 is much better idea. d:Property:P373 and d:Property:P935 is duplication of broader functionality. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Implementation details are probably best left to User:Tpt, who's the one actually writing the code. However, two possible advantages to d:Property:P373 and d:Property:P935 might be (i) their definition is precisedly the property we're interested; (ii) they are defined for both article pages and category pages, so no "if" statements would be needed; whereas d:Property:P301 is typically only defined for articles and d:Property:P910 typically only defined for categories. But really, as Commons users, it's the desirability of the functionality that we're qualified to talk about; the implementation details I think we should trust to User:Tpt's judegement. Jheald (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, this will be good to have, and will cut down on clutter and uncertainty in the articles themselves. BD2412 T 17:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a good thing IMO -- Christian Ferrer Talk 11:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for Commons categories and Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose for Commons galleries because the most galleries are unmaintained and outdated. Note: sitebar links to Commons were implemented in ruwiki half year ago. For example see section "В других проектах" on page ru:Луна (космическая программа). Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
True. But on the other hand, if galleries were more visible, then more people might visit them and update them. Jheald (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course. Yann (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Usable connection between related Commons categories and Wikipedia articles of identic item had to be one of the first things which had to be thought-out before formation of the Wikidata structure. However, every surrogate tool which help to patch this basal defect is welcomed. Galleries should be not symmetricaly linked to articles because they are not equivalents of articles (they are not designed to be unique for item), galleries are rather equivalents of files. However, I would welcome a tool which would enable to link related articles (through Wikidata item) from a file page or from a gallery page. --ŠJů (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Translation administrators[edit]

In my opinion, the current translation admin approval system is not the best because there is no policy how to deal with it. Translation admin is a powerful tool (if you break pages, a lot of time is needed to fix the broken/wrong marked page). I suggest to make the following lines a policy:

  • Commons administrators are able to add (and remove) themselves to the group if they are willing to help. (status quo)
  • Bureaucrats can assign this right upon request on COM:BN. The request should remain open for at lest two days to allow community input. The Bureaucrat determines whether there are no severe objections to the candidate, if there are not, the 'crat will close the request and add the candidate to the group of translation admins. (Similar to Commons:License review/requests)
  • The right will be removed if the user does not use this tool for one year.

Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 16:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support The inactivity-point is new. -- Rillke(q?) 12:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jarekt (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Motopark (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Revicomplaint? 13:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support JurgenNL (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Comments[edit]

Activity statistic --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

From time to time -- maybe once a month -- while doing NewPagePatrol, I come across a page that needs to be deleted that has the translation tag. Since I am not a Translation Administrator, I simply edit the page to remove the tag, then wait a few minutes for that to propagate through the system, and go ahead and delete the page. I'm not at all certain why we have the TA role at all -- it really protects nothing since anyone can remove the tag and thereby convert the page into an ordinary page, free from the restriction.

I certainly understand that edits or deletions of translated pages can cause major trouble, but we have many other pages to which that applies -- many templates, for example. Do we need to create the new role of Template Administrator? Or should we just rely on the good judgement of our Admins and our ability to restore anything done in error and not have these special roles? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: See, Commons:Requests for comment/Translate extension. Admins can selfadd to this group. The extension is not a protection, but a tool to help users translating pages. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand the tool, but it seems to me that requiring Admins to be TAs in order to delete or protect such a page is just erecting a fence that has a big hole in it, as I described above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
See also this. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Activate Flickr option in current UploadWizard to all users[edit]

Upload wizard with "Share images from Flickr" button

Recently I noticed that "Share images from Flickr" button available in Special:UploadWizard is not activated for all users. According to Commons:Upload_tools it is restricted to admins and image reviewers only. I found this tool to be the easiest way to upload images from flickr and I think we should encourage its use (by documenting it for example) by all users, instead of forcing them to do it by hand or use other tools, like flickr2commons, Flinfo, F2ComButton, etc. which are available to all users. Other tools should stay but I find Special:UploadWizard interface to be the most friendly and I do not see a reason why regular users should use non-standard tools. --Jarekt (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support in general but Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for technical reasons: 1) OPS has not agreed yet, AFAIK, 2) AFAIK, the verification tag set by UploadWizard can be easily faked. The feature - as currently restricted to a group that can be probably trusted not to fake these tags - gives at least some certainty about the uploaded work's licensing information. -- Rillke(q?) 14:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
At Wikimania I talked to @GDubuc (WMF): about this. It seems there is less of a technical blocker than I thought. Gilles, would you confirm/weigh in on the technical aspects of this? Jean-Fred (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Ping: @Fabrice Florin (WMF):^^ --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any technical blockers. Some development work might be required, but it's small. I'm not familiar with the verification tag, but I imagine we can make that configurable (i.e. it could be turned off for regular users, turned on for trusted users, etc.). I doubt that Ops would disagree to opening that feature to everyone, given that a subset of users already has access to it. It'd just be a matter of informing them so that they keep an eye on server load.--GDubuc (WMF) (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
FWIW I Symbol support vote.svg Support the principle of easing Flickr uploads, but Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose doing it in UploadWizard - I think we're aiming to have a separate tool for Flickr transfers sometime within the next year or so, pending some better technical infrastructure surrounding front-end uploading. --MarkTraceur (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't understand why this was not enable a long time ago. IMO we would get better metadata if users upload images from Flickr this way, rather than manually and copy paste description, license, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Per rillke. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now because the verification tag set by UploadWizard can be easily faked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support There should be a well-supported, well-documented tool for uploading Flickr images. The current state of things is less than ideal, because Bryan's tool was decommissioned, and although Magnus's tool is pretty good, it isn't adequately publicized, and the user interface can be a little intimidating for first time users. (And even though I've used it a lot, I still manage to click on the wrong button by accident fairly often.) Whenever the issue comes up, the official answer seems to be "We have great support in Upload Wizard... but you can't use it", which isn't a very helpful answer. If you're not going to enable it in Upload Wizard, then you need to better maintain and document the existing tools. --Ppelleti (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
A big +1 to this comment. It's very frustrating for me to see resources being allocated to work on tools such as MediaViewer (which nobody asked for) rather than improving upload tools (which plenty of people have asked for). --MZMcBride (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Note, Commons:Upload Wizard feedback#WMF plans for 2014-15. --Nemo 14:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
+1. We've only been waiting for fear of abuse, but I don't think the risk is so high, or rather it's low enough that we can give it a try and restrict it again if needed. Given the assassination of Toolserver by WMF, the first concern should be the necessity to compensate the decrease in functionality. --Nemo 14:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support If we suddenly get a dinosaur sized pile of Flickr-powered-fertilizer, it will be easy to spot and we can switch it off again until better safeguards are in place. I favour proceeding with good faith towards contributors, unless the process gives demonstrably sucky results, it seems the nice thing to do. As a licence reviewer, I actually had no idea this was not standard already, I am sure I have told people that this was available during editathons (oops). -- (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent feature, only has one or two 'bed bug' (misspelling intended), have used it for over 10 months now, its actually more reliable than Magnus tool with only 2 problems being unable to upload more than 50 images at a time and editing of description can freeze and kill browser..excellent for small/limited uploads and is spot on on licences so I'm not sure how this feature can be abused..--Stemoc 14:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There does not seem to be any way to tell if a file was uploaded through the upload wizard or using some other method. Upload wizard content can easily be faked using "api.php?action=upload". Direct users to toollabs:flickr2commons instead, or get the upload wizard to tag files as unreviewed in need of review if the user isn't a sysop or licence reviewer. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Rillke and Stefan4. Revicomplaint? 13:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Strengthen license verification for UploadWizard uploads[edit]

Split to own section.

The verification tag set by UploadWizard can be easily faked, until this bug is resolved we can't enable this tool. I pinged Fabrice for a Statement, see above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have submitted a change that will classify any subsequent uploads using {{FlickrByUploadWizard}}. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 18:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
What matters in the end is how reliable an information we offer to reusers. Do reusers really trust manual reviewers and bots of unknown code more than an extension in version control? Isn't it better when the responsibility is "outsourced" to MediaWiki rather than taken on Commons' shoulders, even if we're confident we can do better? Bugs are IMHO more likely a source of errors than abuse. If JS is an issue, just make the check PHP side? --Nemo 19:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Bot's code is open source on toolslabs. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Even if you check the license php-side, you need to put the source+license somewhere that can't be spoofed (e.g. a tag or through an account that is driven by an extension, like FuzzyBot. What's not working is an edit summary or file description content because that can be set to arbitrary values by scripts using the API. -- Rillke(q?) 21:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconds in metadata section[edit]

Though file metadata have times registered in seconds, the Metadata section at file pages displays only hours and minutes. I think, it cannot be difficult to display seconds too?

If two images have a difference 1 minute of the time when the photo was taken, it can mean a real difference from ca 0.5 second to 119.5 seconds. That can represent 0 to 200 meters of pedestrian walking or up to several kilometers of vehicle ride. More exact data would be helpful for identification where the photo can be taken, from the sequence of photos. --ŠJů (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It depends on your date preferences in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. The default doesn't show seconds, but if you switch to iso 8601 (The 5th choice) it will show the seconds. Bawolff (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Show the de facto situation for maps[edit]

I want to propose to make a rule to only show the de facto situation on maps regarding laws and location. This issue mainly came up because of the disputed Crimean peninsula. Crimea is de facto a part of Russia and follows Russian laws, Russian time and uses Russian currency. Some users choose to represent Crimea on maps as a follower of Ukrainian law due to the position of the UN, which is simply incorrect as it follows Russian law. Showing Crimea as a part of Ukraine in maps regarding law isn't only incorrect it's also an act of POV pushing as there are 15 countries and a few partially recognized states which recognize Crimea as part of Russia. Some users also choose to show Crimea as an integral part of Ukraine on location maps rather than choosing an NPOV position and showing it as a disputed region. Crimea isn't the only problem with not showing the de facto situation for maps regarding law and location as there are some breakaway regions which have significantly different laws than the country they broke away from. Despite that fact some users still choose to show them as followers of the laws of their original country which is incorrect. Showing the de facto situation is the only NPOV decision as there is no absolute de jure position that all countries agree with, and picking one side is POV pushing. --Leftcry (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Every POV is POV. The NPOV principle supposes that all relevant POVs should be described. Thus, all maps are in scope - those depicting legal status as well those depicting a view of the occupier or invader. 40 years of East Germany state would be a better example because it was de facto recognized but legally controversial. Occupation or sovereignty which is recognized by nobody but the occupier or the self-proclaimed body has less relevancy than the commonly recognized status - but should be also depicted and described. --ŠJů (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Leftcry -- It was decided long ago that wherever there's a legitimate dispute or point of contention, images embodying all the different points of view can be uploaded to Commons, whereupon it's up to each of the individual language Wikipedias to choose which images to use in articles. It's simply not Commons' role to make this choice for the Wikipedias, or to try to act as some kind of pre-filter. Of course, this does not apply in cases where there is not a legitimate dispute, and intentionally hoaxing images can be immediately zapped. AnonMoos (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Maps are controversial and one person's correct is another person's heresy. It is well known that if a mainstream western magazine such as The Economist publishes a map of India, it must omit it from the edition sold in India, because the Indian government looks on its borders differently from mainstream western publications. Since none of us want or, indeed, could be the judge of your de facto, we have our current policy. While it makes many people unhappy, at least it makes both sides of such disputes equally unhappy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

License reviewer's noticeboard[edit]

Currently License Reviewers request other reviewers/admins' attention via AN, but I would like to propose a dedicated noticeboard for license reviewers. In this way, we could get attention of LRs, backlog notice or request for second eye on an image would be much easier. — revi^ 15:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)(Fixed few words: — revi^ 02:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC))

Symbol support vote.svg Support, good idea!    FDMS  4    17:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --Krd 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Why not? --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support good idea. Green Giant (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. Allan J. Aguilar (Ralgis) 13:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why not just have users add Category:License review needed to the file? That will eliminate a step. To make it even easier, we might create {{License review needed}}, which would put the image into the category. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't that template already exist at Category:License review needed? Green Giant (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Green Giant: I fixed the template to show its name.
@Jameslwoodward: I'm not proposing to change the way we review them. I'm just proposing to add a noticeboard to tell there is backlog, someone say "Can you have a look at [Image]? I'm not sure what to do..." or something that needs reviewers' attention. For example, see CAT:FLICKR, and you can see +800 files waiting for review. We can use noticeboard to tell reviewers to help reviewing them. And at COM:AN, Natuur12 was asking for help about some LR waiting images at License review needed. — revi^ 16:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
But I don't understand why you think we need a notice board when anyone who wants to review licenses can go to the category and do it. A notice board just adds an additional step to the process. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Watermark[edit]

Although this is started as a DR, now many people suggested "rewording" (or deprecating) as a solution too. So I hope this can be considered as a proposal too. Please keep all the comments on that DR. (as a single place) :) Jee 13:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)