Commons:Village pump/Proposals

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


  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.

Request for community input on IEG proposal: editor interaction data sets and visualizations[edit]

As you may have heard, Editor Interaction Data Extraction and Visualization is an individual engagement grant proposal. I am working on this proposal with volunteer assistance and advice from Aaron Halfaker (WMF), Haitham Shammaa (WMF), and Fabian Flöck (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology).

We would greatly appreciate your comments on whether you support or oppose the general concept of this project, and any suggestions about how to refine the proposal.

Additionally, we would like to hear from you about which sets of editor interaction data, and what visualizations of editor interaction data, would be most relevant to your interests. We intend to prioritize our outputs with your comments in mind.

Please comment on the proposal talk page. Questions and feedback, both positive and critical, are helpful to us as the proposers, and also help the Individual Engagement Grants Committee [1] to assess the proposal.

Regards, --Pine 18:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

[1] I am a member of the Individual Engagement Grants Committee. I am recusing from reviewing proposals in this funding round.

RfC: Should we request Wikidata Phase 2 to be activated on Commons?[edit]

Wikidata Phase 2 would allow templates to draw information from Wikidata, though only from the unique Wikidata item that was directly 1:1 sitelinked with the page.

(For a short introduction to Wikidata, see Commons:Structured data/Short introduction to Wikidata)

In practice, the effect of this would be limited, because really only gallery pages would be able to access wikidata items with very much useful information. But it would mean we could try out gallery headers that come with an automatic link to the Commons category, an automatic link to any language-localised Wikipedia entry, an automatic language-localised description, and automatic links to corresponding pages (if any) on Wikisource, Wikiquote, and the corresponding page on Wikidata, and Reasonator. A very basic prototype for such a template can be seen tested at d:Template:SimpleCommonsGalleryHeader/test -- obviously, it could be made a lot more polished.

I think this is something it would be valuable to be able to start to play with. User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) has said she is happy to activate Phase 2 whenever we decide we want it.

So: should we give it a try? Jheald (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jheald (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Limited use, but it can't harm. The really useful change will be when we can use WD in any template (Creator, Artwork, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dschwen (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. A "trial (galleryspace) run" is better than no run at all.    FDMS  4    17:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Meh, why not -FASTILY 19:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe I would oppose this on Wikipedia, but it seems sensible here. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Oursana (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support,but I am confused. I was assuming that the reason Wikidata Phase 2 was not activated on Commons was that it was not ready to work in Commons environment, not because nobody thought about activating it. --Jarekt (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Atlasowa (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as a necessary step towards COM:Structured data. --El Grafo (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in principle, but we should be careful about transferring data to Wikidata where they stay outside our control and can in principle be vandalized. Some mechanism should be designed which alerts the page when the local data is not the same ones as stored on Wikidata.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


The sooner we can use this for creator templates, category pages, etc, the better. Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Global deleted image review[edit]

Back in 2008, it was proposed that commons admins be able to see deleted files on other projects. There was even a vote with 80% support [1] (And most of the objections raised at that vote seem to relate to a problem with oversight which is no longer true). Fast forward to today, there is now a user right named 'viewdeletedfile', which would allow a user to just view deleted pages in the file and file talk namespaces (They would be able to view both the deleted image, and the associated deleted description page. Viewing of revdeleted things (but obviously not oversighted things) in the File namespace is also included).

So, from what I understand, if the commons admins still want this ability, what is needed is:

  1. Consensus that commons still wants this
  2. A formal request to the stewards to create global group having the viewdeletedfile right.

Thoughts everyone? Bawolff (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This would be very useful. -- King of ♠ 06:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per King of Hearts. Green Giant (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support seems very useful. --Atlasowa (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support +1 --El Grafo (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support would be great especially if there are questions regarding original license at local wiki or GFDL license migration. --Denniss (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would support his but this is a meta issue, and the project users should be involved in the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Could be helpful, like being autopatrolled/autoreviewed in the wiki if you reinstate an image into an article after undeletion at Commons. But per Ymblanter, this should be discussed directly at meta, and I don't think this will be successful. Broad viewdeleted is a big deal. --Krd 14:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful. I suggest to move this proposals to meta because it is a "crosswiki proposal". --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This only seems to check whether Commons want it. I don't think other projects (like EN) agree with this as many COM:Admins are in their black list. :) Jee 16:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Probably should be. I have no idea what the procedure is for creating new global groups. My first thought was that there would have to be local consensus that its still wanted, followed by a larger global vote of if the larger wikimedia community is ok with it (?). I don't really know. Note that wikis would still be able to opt-out on a per wiki basis for those that don't want it. Bawolff (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I started meta:Wikimedia_Forum#Implement_Global_deleted_image_review. Bawolff (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Utterly powerful and useful. Useful especially when not all information were transferred or questions arise. -- Rillke(q?) 17:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful for correcting transwikis or checking deleted uploads from Commons uploaders with previous wp copyvios. --Martin H. (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The restriction of this to the File: namespace means that this feature would add utility while avoiding many of the issues that a more general viewdeleted privilege would raise. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful. Yann (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Presumably it's only me, but I found no viewdeletedfile on mw, what are you talking about? –Be..anyone (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Take a page like m:Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/abusefilter and you'll see a right named viewdeletedfile, though it needs a MediaWiki message. @Bawolff: will you or did you already create a descriptive message? -- Rillke(q?) 08:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
      • ill look into fixing that later today (update: gerrit:168692). @Be..anyone: note the right is Wikimedia specific and not part of mediawiki. Code is about mid way through [2]. Bawolff (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for info, maybe this so far unanimous poll should be continued on meta, as it only affects other WikiMedia projects. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I like the way Bawolff is going here: Without consensus or indication of usefulness on Commons it makes no sense to bother all the other projects. Apart from that, it does not really affect these projects; viewing as in viewdeletedfile is something passive, not changing anything, not even producing a log entry. Would there be any valid reservations by other projects? Which ones? -- Rillke(q?) 14:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Dunno, that's why I suggested to ask on meta. I didn't look into the code, (and presumably wouldn't understand it), but the name of the right sounds like "any deleted file", not only "files deleted after a transfer to commons". There could be issues, IANAL. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
      • That's correct, its any (non-oversighted) deleted file or file description page. Bawolff (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, its clear there is at least still interest from the commons community in doing this, lets move the discussion over to the meta RFC I just started at meta:Requests for comment/Global deletion review. Bawolff (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)