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
 
Important discussion pages (index)
Gnome User Speech.svg


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.


3D printing files and 3D rendering files[edit]

A next logical step for Wikimedia Commons is to host files containing public domain 3D printing instructions, which would allow a user to "print" an object serving both educational and utilitarian purposes (a working model Geneva mechanism, for example, or a scale model of the Nefertiti Bust). This technology is nascent, but rapidly increasing in both quality and availability (much like computers themselves in the past few decades). This is an opportunity for us to lead the curve on making educational models available, so let us begin discussing how such media will be presented and made available to our users. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn’t going to happen until there is the code necessary for rendering those files to check them for copyright violations quickly. That code then needs security review and so on. So if you are excited to write an extension, have a look at MediaWiki.org -- look for existing stuff and if nothing exists you'll have to write it on your own or find someone doing this for you. We do not only need files for 3D printing: See COM:UNSUPPORTED. -- Rillke(q?) 15:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a coder, but I know some people who are. We'll talk further when I get home from Wikimania. ;-) BD2412 T 22:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@BD2412: We can also just talk at Wikimania. Most of the time I'll be in the garden room, you can meet me there for sure from 18:00 to 21:30. -- Rillke(q?) 09:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Good. As long as you're here, talk to Paul Sohi at the Makeversity table. He does 3D printer files, and tells me that there's a website called Thingiverse where people upload files under various licenses (apparently some PD and the vast majority some kind of CC). That's exactly what I think we should be aiming for. We should also, by the way, be making/hosting 3D object rendering files which allow the user to look at an object from different angles. There are many open source programs for such renderings. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So now I am led to understand that Wikimedia already has 3D rendering display capability, and just needs files? Or does it need something else in between the model and the display? BD2412 T 12:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh, how did you come to this understanding? -- Rillke(q?) 12:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I went looking for you in the Garden Room and ran into another group of Wikimania attendees. I ran into a subset of them again later in the hotel bar, and one of them (I wish I know who) told me that. It should not be too hard to confirm. BD2412 T 21:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

What do we need in order to have something like this in an article? BD2412 T 16:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Erm … Commons is repository for media files – content –, not for printing instruction files – software –, and it has a specific scope   FDMS  4    13:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside the software issue for a moment, I presume that the 3D image renderings count as content. I'm told by the experts that the difference between a 3D graphic rendering file and a 3D printing file is largely where you send it (i.e. if you send it to your computer screen, it is a 3D viewable file, and if you send it to your 3D printer, it is made into a physical object). So, why not lead in providing access to the files, for instructive purposes? BD2412 T 13:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, right, 3D image renderings sounds far better than printing instructions :) .    FDMS  4    17:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
With the right software (which Wikimedia might already have), we can have a 3D rendering suitable for inclusion in an article, so that the reader can look at many-sided shape or object from any angle they choose. If this happens to be translatable to printing the shape, so much the better. BD2412 T 18:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Category moves[edit]

Commons allow to move category pages through "move" bookmark at the top bar of the page. This way have some advantages (the history of the category page is kept, the text shouldn't be copied, the interwiki connection is corrected automatically). However some issues should be thought-out still.

  • The old category should be soft redirect {{Category redirect}} by standard rules. However, this way makes hard redirect from the old category. (P.S.: seems to be treated by RussBot --ŠJů (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC))
  • As I know, no bot corrects "commonscat" (P373), "commonsgallery" (P935) and "image" (P18) etc. properties in Wikidata when the Commons page is moved.
  • Would be possible to integrate Cat-a-lot script into the page-move process to allow to move the category page with all contended pages (files, subcategories and galleries) together by one click? --ŠJů (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I was already working on something like that on MediaWiki:Gadget-catMoveLink.js but found that one of the libraries I wrote was trash and didn't work. -- Rillke(q?) 16:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
#1 would be fixed by this change. --Ricordisamoa 11:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"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)

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)