Commons:Village pump/Proposals

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
  • For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation.
  • For photograph requests, please post at Commons:Picture requests.
Start a new discussion


Category:Possibly unfree images[edit]

A user created this category presumably for handling the cases of images that might have copyright issues, but the person who put the images into this category has uncertainty about that and implicitly searches for a second opinion. Commons apparently has not a specified procedure to follow or tool to use in cases like the above-mentioned. I think this sort of shared watchlist would be made known and improved, unless someone proposes an alternative procedure. Jespinos (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We already have {{check categories}}, {{wrong license}}, and {{LicenseReview}}; I tested the latter recently, worked like a charm. FWIW I've fixed the missing parent cat to License review needed, but I still think this new cat is a kind of dupe actually asking for a far better documentation of what already exists and works. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Fixing cats turned out to be a good idea, Copyright statuses already has Possibly unfree license images, there's one cat too much for this job. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Among the mentioned templates, only "wrong license" appears to be suitable for the intended purpose, but there are images that have been within its associated category for years and the images are not necessarily suspected copyvios. On top of that, it appears to me that manually tag an image is a bit more complicated than categorize it using HotCat, though the ideal thing would be a one-click tool. With respect to dupe categories, certainly would have no more than one category for the same purpose. Jespinos (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Has a one-click tool ever been suggested? That would be really useful. --CyberXRef 05:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I've never used a tool for categories so far, but if something works for you: The surviving "possibly unfree" category (of the two a month ago) should be good enough, using a template for this job isn't required. If there are still two categories better stick to the template(s) until folks sorted it out. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

wikimedia commons app[edit]

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 14.139.238.98 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Out of Scope/Private images should be speedy deleted.[edit]

Why do we allow random images which people upload to wikimedia to stay on wikimedia for atleast a week?. I propose we be allowed to tag all images for speedy deletion which we feel should not have been uploaded to commons in the first place....I feel atleast 90% of images that are currently awaiting deletion at Commons:Deletion requests should have been deleted the moment they were found...... I won't be surprised if commons has atleast a million images which should not be here in the first place, especially those out of scope or those which are private in nature. We should not be allowing users to treat commons like a dumping ground for their "social" images and i feel its about time images, especially those which are private in nature (self shots etc) be deleted on sight....just like Copyright violation images...Some may need discussing, but its usually up to the person who tags the image to decide if it should be added to "DR" or tagged for speedy deletion....I propose we change our stance in relation to this and this will also allow admins to focus on images that really deserve discussion...--Stemoc (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What’s obviously off-scope for one admin is obviously in scope for another. Because there are disagreements of what the scope of Commons is, regardless of COM:SCOPE. Too many DRs are closed through a coin-toss outcome: If the closing admin is a “deletionist”, it will be deleted, regardless of any discussion. And that is the problem about scope evaluation. (Also, some times DR nominations and closings are used as a weapon to attack users, incl. even by, and against, some admins. But that is not just a problem of scope, that’s a wider problem.)
That said, I can only agree with you about the utter garbage that gets loaded every day into Commons, and how much those uploaders have no idea about, or interest in, or even respect for, the scope of Commons (regardless of a handful of those that turn out to be usable). The surest way to shut that down is to turn off mobile uploads and all the silly UI crap that comes with it («This article lacks a photo: Add one now!»), but there’s no likely chance that will happen.
I cannot see, though, what’s the rush. I have been going through 2012 uncategorized uploads and nominating the most egregious cases for deletion — the months those files were in Commons, forgotten by the uploader and noticed by nobody else, are no big deal, compared with the risks of what is being proposed here: Speedy deletion based on content/scope can be hijacked by narrow-minded deletionists and cause loss of valuable material, and can be misused for malicious attacks: Meanwhile, it is not necessary, nor sufficient, to avoid the creeping of crap.
-- Tuválkin 12:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Stemoc -- Random personal snapshots without discernible general interest should certainly be deleted, but there are official zones of tolerance for some personal images (such as "userpage images") and de-facto tolerance in certain other areas (such as proposed flags / "special or fictional flags", unless hoaxing or hatemongering, etc.). I'm not sure that this is the highest priority area for a rigorous crackdown. AnonMoos (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of the user page images but generally, a person uploads a certain number of useless images as well..I generally report those that upload multiple images and ignore those that upload one or 2 pictures of themselves assuming they would use it on their userspace..probably not a high priority but at the end of the day, i would say over 80% of all the nonsense images on commons would probably be those private images..from time to time i come across images that would have been deleted earlier had the admins been able to keep a closer attention to them but with the influx of over 1000's of unnecessary images per day, it may just be hard to do so...I think a change or an upgrade to the system is very important..--Stemoc (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe a deterrent then? Not sure how many actually read the notice when uploading images, if they did, we wouldn't have to deal with so much cr*p everyday..Maybe changes to the uploading warning form or rewording of the Commons:Upload section, and yes most images do come via "mobile" platform. Most people assume uploading from other sites is OK, i remember monitoring twitter/facebook for the last 2 years and reading ridiculous comments regarding image uploads, even tagged one for deletion earlier today..Ignorance of Commons policy is one thing but to completely disregard the policy whence uploading is another..I don't have a number but i assume most "violation" uploads are by users who upload the image via "ownwork" option....this was a problem a few years back on enwiki until the sysadmins decided to move all uploads (except NFC) to commons..with so much "cra*" on commons now, its no wonder that some images that fail the copyvio licensing remain hidden on commons for more than a year..we definitely need some way to counter this, even if it means getting Skynet involved.. --Stemoc (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
One thing I agree on is that the {{own work}} template is much abused; unfortunately it's also been used as a rationale in deletion debates for keeping images that might have otherwise appeared to be copyright violations. This shifts the burden of proof from the uploader merely asserting that it's "his own work" without any necessary evidence whatsoever to the one proposing deletion, when it should arguable be the other way around. I believe that oftentimes people only put the "own work" tag because they want to simply bypass the hassle of shutting off the glaring red warnings on either the Special:Upload or Special:UploadWizard forms, not because they truly believe it's their own work or even understand what the tag is used for. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope images are not the most serious problem. Blatant copyvios are. In one day only, I deleted over 400 obvious copyvios from Category:Media uploaded without a license as of 2014-03. 99% of images in this cat are not OK. More help welcome. Yann (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

For info: Meta RfC[edit]

On another page an editor posted a link to a Meta-RfC about the Creation of a Global Wikimedia Commons. Only for info, I missed it despite of editing on both wikis, and maybe it is not only me. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploading to Wikimedia Commons — The technical side[edit]

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)
Thank you. But still a draft, unfortunately. -- Rillke(q?) 20:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing AddInformation.js from the gadgets[edit]

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)

More Editors[edit]

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 99.108.214.161

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)

Font[edit]

I don't like the new font of this whole website. It should go back to the font it had before. Blackbombchu (talk) 02:12, 3 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)
Please don't and use our maintained version. Activate the typographyrefreshoverride gadget now! -- Rillke(q?) 20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Use Monobook "skin" and skip most of the drama (for now)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 16 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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

What do you think about the idea? Taivo (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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. -- (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Merging CheckUser and Oversight requests[edit]

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)