Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2011/07

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Move copyright discussions away from Commons talk:Licensing

Per some initial discussion at VP, I propose moving copyright discussions away from Commons talk:Licensing (currently listed in {{Discussion menu}} as the venue for "copyright questions"). I understand that discussions about copyright will very often closely refer to Commons:Licensing, but the talk page of the policy really should be reserved for discussion about the policy. The most obvious thing would be to create a new Village Pump (Commons:Village pump/Copyright). An alternative would be redirecting these issues to the Commons:Help desk. The argument against that is that Help Desk should be reserved for more general help, especially for newcomers. In terms of volume, however, using the Help Desk for copyright issues would probably work fairly well. Rd232 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've said in VP, I Symbol keep vote.svg Agree with the proposal of creating Commons:Village pump/Copyright and leaving the talk page of licensing strictly for matters dealing with what is written in that page. I disagree with moving it to Help Desk, I don't see any advantage in installing an advanced and specialized forum right into the newbies corner.--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I also agree. The current system intermingles policy discussion and copyright discussion. It wasn't a good idea to start with. – Adrignola talk 14:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree. Sounds like a good idea. We should have a clear message at the tops of "Commons talk:Licensing" and "Commons:Village pump" to point users to this new page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support The subpage might also work for issues on other copyright matters such as COM:FOP and COM:DM, two topics that seem irrelevant to that talk page. --ZooFari 16:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree Commons:Village pump/Copyright sounds good (interwiki: en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions). Help Desk does and will also get copyright questions - but should be reserved for the easy/newbie ones. --Saibo (Δ) 18:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The interwiki aspect is an interesting point; 10 Wikipedias have such a page (going by interwiki links from en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions) and I'm sure it would be helpful at times for them to have a good place to refer Commons copyright issues to (eg about potential moves to Commons where tricky copyright issues are involved). Rd232 (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
+1. sугсго 07:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Was originally my proposal, and it will be easier for interested parties (both new and established) to find the page than where it's buried now. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well this seems likely enough to be agreed that it's worth drafting what it might look like. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright and feel free to edit Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Header. Rd232 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also {{Use Village Pump (Copyright)}}, for the top of the relevant talk pages, to direct discussions to the Copyright village pump. Rd232 (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, unless some opposition or reasons for delay turn up, I'll go ahead and put it live in a day or two. Rd232 (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's already live, two brand new topics opened there. ;) --- Darwin Ahoy! 18:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tracking policy translation

I've been fiddling with {{Translated policy}} to try and introduce some parameters so that we can specify what version of the page was translated from what version. I've been testing this initially with Template:Translated policy/de, in action at Commons:Löschrichtlinien. Does this seem like a good idea? I'm thinking we could also add parameters for when the translation was last checked, and for an update being needed. (I would probably need some help implementing this.) Comments? PS In case anyone's interested, I was inspired by en:Template:Translated page. Don't hold it against me... :) Rd232 (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

On the same theme, how about internationalising {{Commons policies and guidelines}}, so that links to the translated version are displayed if available? Perhaps in the style of {{Commons policies and guidelines/de}}? Rd232 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Example:

Rd232 (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

See also {{Use local Village Pump}}. Rd232 (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Similarly, maybe a better coordination method than Commons:Help page maintenance would be a template to put on the English talk page, which lists the date that a translation was last done or checked, for each language version. (In a collapsebox, to avoid clutter.) That way the coordination is a bit closer to the action, and not tucked away somewhere else. Rd232 (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Related thought: what about creating a standard way to add redlinks into language templates, where clicking on the redlink gives an editintro with instructions on translating the policy. Rd232 (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Something in the direction of {{missing translation}}? Not sure how to do the layout though. Ideally the links would be red, but I can't seem to make that happen. Rd232 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Enable Group editnotices

I recently created Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Motd to provide a editnotice for {{Motd}} pages, only to discover that Commons doesn't have Group editnotices. I think Commons needs the guidance editnotices can provide at least as much as other Wikimedia wikis, and therefore I propose importing en:Template:Editnotice load from en.wp, to provide this functionality. NB: making it work requires adding {{Editnotice load}} into every namespace editnotice. Rd232 (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If you require any assistance, let me know. I went through the process of importing and setting up the implementation at en.wikibooks. – Adrignola talk 02:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have a general idea of what needs doing, but these things can turn out more complicated than they look. At the moment, though, I want to establish if people think this a good idea; I'm reluctant to go ahead and just do it because wider use of editnotices has some potential for disruption or annoyance. Rd232 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Group edit notices are default or something. See my learning experience here. In the meantime I've created the notice here. Might want to try to make it multilingual. Killiondude (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that works. But see w:Wikipedia:Editnotice#Technical_details as for why this system would supersede that one. – Adrignola talk 01:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
So it's cleaner and possibly more efficient? Rd232 (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and it's easier to work with. Would you know what MediaWiki:Editnotice-15 would show up under? How about Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category talk? The latter would do the same as the former. – Adrignola talk 02:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I had just created something that Rd could work with as I'm sure any such transition to a new editnotice system would be several days if not weeks away. I'm all for enwiki's system in that regard, but it's also good to know MediaWiki's default. Killiondude (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec)That is interesting - I'd no idea. Thanks! I've added a note at Commons:Editnotice. Multilingual would be good, but maybe it can be improved first; I just knocked something up to show what I was trying to achieve. Rd232 (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In the mean time, can someone (Killiondude?) echo MediaWiki:Editnotice-10-Motd to MediaWiki:Editnotice-10-Potd, with the appropriate change (I just created the parallel {{Editnotices/Group/Template:Potd}}). Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, done. Killiondude (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I brought in the templates needed for the unified editnotice system. I moved the MediaWiki namespace editnotices to the new locations under Template:Editnotices. I have not created any new editnotices. The notices are still only able to be edited by administrators as they were in the MediaWiki space. – Adrignola talk 19:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Increase multilingualism

  • Proposal 1: Make all links from pages where the URL has uselang set keep the uselang value, so that users coming from non-English projects who don't have their language preferences set can actually use an interface in their language. Since there's pretty much zero change of actually getting support for this from the backend, the only way that I can think of to get this done would be a JS hack. (Something like $(function(){if(location.search.indexOf("uselang=")!=-1){$("a:not([href*=\"uselang=\"])").live("click",function(e){location.href=this.href+(this.href.indexOf("?")==-1?"?":"&")+"uselang="+location.search.split("uselang=")[1].split("&")[0];e.preventDefault()})}}) )
  • Proposal 2: Allow non-English category names to be displayed in the top header. This will also probably have to be done without backend help, so... I'm thinking something along the lines of a template with <span id="headertranslation-{{{lang}}}" style="display:none;">{{{1}}}</span> and a script with $(function(){if(location.search.indexOf("uselang=")!=-1){$("#headertranslation-"+location.search.split("uselang=")[1].split("&")[0]).each(function(s,t){$("#firstHeading").text(function(o,p){return p.replace(wgCanonicalNamespace+":"+wgTitle,$(t).text())})})}})
  • Proposal 3: Make "other languages" boxes' (such as the one at the bottom of the main page) links set uselang.

--Yair rand (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

1 and 3 make good sense to me - I actually had this thought myself, when fiddling with the Commons:Sandbox (though I did think in terms of doing it in software - are you sure this is out of the question? ideally the Javascript would be just a temporary solution until the software is revised). And it may not be particularly controversial, assuming that it works as intended and doesn't cause problems like big server load. Proposal 2, on the other hand, I'm not sure I entirely understand, but I suspect it may be controversial. Rd232 (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh my, the second one seems like a very disturbing hack in the software. Killiondude (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Prop 1. has already been active for several months, see MediaWiki:AnonymousI18N.js. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I was unaware of that as it's only for users not logged in. There seem to be glitches though; testing it logged out, it's not working for me in Firefox, and in Internet Exploder it does work, but then using the searchbox it loses &uselang (which is possibly unavoidable) and at the destination gives the entertaining invitation to "view Wikimedia Commons in null". There is a "language select" menu on the left I've not seen before (when logged in) - that seems to work. Rd232 (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hm, I didn't know about that. I find it strange that it's only available for anonymous users, and that it doesn't set one's preferences if they arrive from a non-English project or if they specifically click to go to a different language version of the page. --Yair rand (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Close VPR?

There is a discussion at Commons:Village_pump#Moving_forward on whether to keep VPR. Rd232 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Geograph.org.uk

Is it possible to integrate a filter for searches, which would exclude all images that are part of the geographic.org.uk project? It is becoming impossible to find anything in the commons because of this project, it has completely monopolised search functions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.140.21 (talk • contribs) 17.15 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How has it monopolised search? Can you give an example of what you're finding and what you wish you were finding? Rd232 (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
You can simply use -geograph in the search since most geograph files have the project name in the file title or at least somewhere on the file description. --Martin H. (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It monopolises search results, is a more apt description of what I mean. When searching for almost anything general, eg, coastal rocks. the search results [for me anyway], are 90 - 95% geographic.org project files. I find I have to go through pages and pages, to find one that isn't related to the project.

Martin H.'s solution seems to work well enough: [1] Rd232 (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin H's proposal works fine if I want to find images under the geograph project, but I want to exclude them [as there are too many of them showing up in searches]. The exclusion proposal would be great :)

It should work for exclusion. Try the link I gave you above - doesn't that work for you? Rd232 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Try Special:Search/"coastal rock" -"geograph.org.uk" for even more selective search. --Foroa (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Amend search help

To draw out a concrete proposal from this then: we could improve search help. Help:Searching is poor and not helpfully linked from the system messages MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new and MediaWiki:Searchmenu-exists. And given that those messages use a collapse-box approach, maybe we could squeeze in a line about using operators like "-" for exclusion. Rd232 (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, so this could work like this: Currently MediaWiki:Searchmenu-exists has

Categories • Other tools

, and clicking there gives you MediaWiki:Searchresulttext.

So this could become

Help • Categories • Other tools

, and MediaWiki:Searchresulttext would have something like User:Rd232/searchhelpdraft. How does that sound?

Rd232 (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Fuzzy search and boolean operators are missing. On Commons, the IW's are most probably not searched (they are on en:wiki). This is a VP discussion. --Foroa (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I deliberately left out fuzzy search and Boolean because I was trying to keep it shortish and I thought those were less relevant for Commons. I could be wrong about that, but there is a balance between too much and too little info. What are "IWs"? And by "this is a VP discussion" do you mean it should be advertised at COM:VP (no objection to that) or something else? Rd232 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand, but as a minimum you should mention it, for example: For more details, including fuzzy search, Boolean operators and keywords intitle:, incategory: and prefix:, see Search Help on English Wikipedia.
Well the reason I mentioned the keywords as part of the "more help" line was that they're fairly self-explanatory; just mentioning them is useful. On the other hand, "fuzzy search" and "Boolean operators" won't mean anything to most people, and a mere mention therefore isn't very helpful. I'm not greatly opposed to mentioning them as well, but that's why I didn't. Let's see what others think. Rd232 (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. With the help you provide, you are mainly signalling that the traditional search features are available, and hardly anyone will look further. Adding "fuzzy search" and "Boolean operators" indicates that there are more uncommon features available which might trigger curiosity and people might further look in it. --Foroa (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a real pity that commons is configured not to include interwikis (IW) in the search database: from all the Wikimedia projects, it is the one that needs it the most. This is a VP type discussion that should be resolved and disappear in the archives. This is not a real proposal. --Foroa (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
En:wiki claims that it includes interwiki's in its search database, which clearly is not done at Commons. This is very valuable as "translation engine". Further investigation (I used Fiets, the Dutch word of Bicyle, but one could use any Russian, Chinese, ... word as 聖彼得堡 that should lead to Saint Petersburg), shows that in fact the interwikis from the main article/gallery space seem to be in the search database, but not the ones from the category name space. So not sure if this is a switch/feature or just a software design decision. --Foroa (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, there is a bit at User:Rd232/searchhelpdraft which is only visible if your interface language is not English, providing an additional link to the relevant language's Wikipedia search help page, using {{Helppagelinks}}. Rd232 (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
That's actually a very nifty idea (the relevant help page on the local Wikipedia based on the reader's set language). Killiondude (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Except... I've just realised that this will never (I think...) work - certainly for those languages which have their own version of MediaWiki:Searchresulttext. (Some testing suggests not for the others either - they just use the default version of MediaWiki:Searchresulttext for that language.) Accordingly, I've taken this feature out. It does point up the need to work on the other language versions... Rd232 (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion was advertised on Commons:Village_pump#Commons:Village_pump.2FProposals.23Amend_search_help at 9.02 6 July.

OK, added "fuzzy search and Boolean operators" per Foroa, and made an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Searchresulttext. Rd232 (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone please deal to this pls

I propose that someone with image manipulation skills deal to File:Anette at Hartwall Areena 2009.jpg moriori (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with it? --Jarekt (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It looks like a black cat in a coal mine. So dark it is virtually useless. moriori (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This is really not the right page for this. This is for discussions about broader issues than any single image. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, OK. So this page headed Village pump/Proposals is not the place to put a proposal on the village pump. Right. Now, perhaps instead of telling me off for being on the wrong page, you might advise me where I should have gone. I'm not psychic. moriori (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
No need to be. The top of the page says "This page is used for making proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies. Discussions here should be of wide interest." You may be looking for Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop or the {{Underexposed}} cleanup request template. LX (talk, contribs) 07:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
And, guess what! I needed to propose something so I came here to Village pump/Proposals with a technical issue in that there is an image which needs improvement but I don't have the technical ability to do it, so I proposed that someone with technical savvy do it. I made it on this page which says "This page is used for making proposals relating to the operations, 'technical issues', and policies". Now, if this page is intended to not be for all technical issues such as I brought here, then please amend ""This page is used for making proposals relating to the operations, technical issues..." to "This page is used for making proposals relating to the operations, some technical issues....." Or, make it clear what you mean. Not every visitor to commons is au fait with its workings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
We can try and make the instructions clearer. A misplaced request is not a big deal though. LX's suggestions about Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop or the {{Underexposed}} cleanup request template would be the way to go for your image issue. Rd232 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The image quality of a single file is not really of wide interest, though. Oh well, I fixed it up anyway. Enjoy. LX (talk, contribs) 13:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Since this is not of broad interest, and appears to be resolved, can we close & archive it? - Jmabel ! talk 15:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)