Commons:Village pump/Proposals

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Community portal
Help desk Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

Shortcut: COM:VP/P · COM:VPP

Welcome to the Village pump proposals section

This page is used for proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. Recent sections with no replies for 30 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Commons discussion pages (index)

Please note
  • One of Wikimedia Commons’ basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  • Have you read the FAQ?


Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality[edit]

I'm wondering whether Commons should adopt a guideline comparable to en:Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. We certainly have enough of the sort of problem it was intended to address, particularly for gender. - Jmabel ! talk 15:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Such a guideline would greatly help in case of disagreement. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support .   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose without modification. We don’t have the concept of “non-diffusing“ categories here and I, for one, would oppose its introduction—at least not without separate discussion, and COM:OVERCAT would need modification to accommodate it. Users’ wanting to put things in parent-&-child cats is already a fairly common cause of conflict. On that question in general, I think a solution more natural to the way we usually solve the ‘burial problem’ is instead to have (Topic) by (secondary property) cats, which keep the over-categorization at arm’s length.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
    • “non-diffusing“ categories is exactly why we need this policy. Yann (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Please write a specific proposal based on past cases on this project. -- (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, here's a draft. Would anyone like to help hammer it into shape? (Since it is my proposal, currently in my user space, I retain the right to revert what I might consider hostile edits, but help with getting it to be a more appropriate proposal for Commons would be greatly appreciated.) - Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Maybe better to live with the mess for a little longer and hope (I think it should) COM:Structured data will solve some of these issues. This proposal would probably lead to less (specific) categorization which might hurt structured data in the long term. - Alexis Jazz 05:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose the draft is not helpful since it is based on the english encyclopedia section that is about writing an article. In commons we discuss media, it does not make sense to request reliable sources to use a category since sources are not used in commons. --Neozoon (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)