Commons:Village pump/Proposals

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

Shortcut: COM:VP/P · COM:VPP

Community portal
Help desk
Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
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?


Host WikiWidgets at Commons[edit]

Hello, I've been working on a project called WikiWidgets for some time now. The project is about embedding interactive JavaScript widgets into Wikipedia articles, to aid the understanding of certain topics. So far the project has been deployed in the Spanish Wikipedia (my home project) and the two existing wikiwidgets can be seen live here and here. The project has reached certain maturity already, so now I'm thinking about spreading it to other wikipedias. The two existing wikiwidgets have their own git repositories at (here and here) and the latest code is regularly copied to pages under the MediaWiki namespace in the Spanish Wikipedia. The code is then loaded by a small script at MediaWiki:Common.js that fires when a template (called Template:WikiWidget) is found on an article. The two wikiwidgets are fully internationalised and localised to Spanish and English (more languages soon to come, translators needed). What I would like to request this community is that the code of the wikiwidgets is copied to the MediaWiki namespace of Commons, so that every Wikipedia that embraces the project is able to use the same code. To be perfectly precise, what I request is that the following pages are created:

Once done, I will adjust the script at MediaWiki:Common.js in the Spanish Wikipedia so that it loads the code from Commons (like the HotCat gadget here) and then move on to spread the project to other wikipedias. Thanks for reading! --LFS (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Raymond, Steinsplitter, Leyo, Ebrahim, Krinkle, Rillke and Matma Rex! As the latest editors of MediaWiki:Common.js, I think you will fully understand this project and request. What do you think? --LFS (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
My common.js edit was only maitenance, I'm not very active here at Commons. Matma Rex (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Lupo, as the main contributor to MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat, what do you think about this? --LFS (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
What has HotCat have to do with this? I'm not exactly active anymore here and I didn't follow recent developments in the scripting area. Lupo 06:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Nothing directly, it's just that I want WikiWidgets to be hosted at Commons like it's currently done with HotCat. --LFS (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that commons is the best place for this. Why not meta? Or just eswikipedia, as that's where you're active I assume. Bawolff (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Bawolff. It's really tempting for me to give up here at Commons and continue developing the project from the Spanish Wikipedia, where I can get things done much faster. However, I think that this project has a lot of long-term potential, so it's worth being patient. If we don't centralise from the beginning, the project will fall into the same chaos as gadgets, with code and efforts split around hundreds of wikis and no coherent international wikiproject uniting the efforts of so many developers, despite the fact that they all speak the same language (because all JavaScript developers speak English). What a waste! Instead, I envision a single wikiproject here at Commons, where developers from all wikipedias can collaborate in the development of the same wikiwidgets. If Meta were a more adequate place to host this project I would be glad to move the proposal there, but I think Commons is more appropriate, because I see wikiwidgets as a new kind of media, just like images or videos. In fact, if my proposal is implemented here, it would be easy to propose one of the wikiwidgets as the media of the day, and there should be no technical difficulty in adding it to the main page. --LFS (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Luis Felipe Schenone: Please elaborate what this tool is doing exactly and why do you think this is needed for commons? --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: With pleasure! Wikiwidgets are not exactly a tool, nor are they needed for commons. It's a new kind of project for Wikipedia. The idea is to be able to insert interactive JavaScript widgets into Wikipedia articles, to help explain the topics covered in the articles. The project is already deployed in the Spanish Wikipedia, you can see the two existing wikiwidgets so far here and here. Please check at least one before continuing. Technically speaking, the project works like this: a small script was added to es:MediaWiki:Common.js. This script runs for every article and checks for the existence of a specific div that can be inserted into any article using the es:Template:WikiWidget. When the div is found, the script reads the data-wikiwidget property of the div, which contains the name of the wikiwidget that should be inserted into the article. If the wikwidget is called X, then the script will load the code found at MediaWiki-WikiWidget-X.js and MediaWiki-WikiWidget-X.css. This code will replace all the contents of the div with the wikiwidget itself. What I request is that the code of the two existing wikiwidgets is added to the MediaWiki namespace here at Commons (see my first post) so that it's easier to spread to other wikipedias, and more importantly so that we may start building a central hub for the project here at Commons, to avoid splitting efforts like it happened with gadgets. I hope this makes sense, but let me know if anything is not clear. Thanks! --LFS (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Quite interesting, and it makes sense to host these script centrally. So Commons looks like the right place to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a cool idea, although I'm a bit worried about the security implications. This would make it very easy for a rouge admin to insert exploits into articles without being noticed. Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
What is a rouge admin? I like French for what it's worth. -- Rillke(q?) 00:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
See w:WP:ROUGE. --Carnildo (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. An English Wikipedia fabrication. @Kaldari: Absolutely clear to me that that your first thought about Commons.
Personally, I don't have these concerns as Meta is loading some of our code and that's the home of stewards so if Mr. or Mrs. Evil would like to do their name justice, they would probably find better targets. What I am concerned about is the real narrow scope of these scripts, right? If there is not one opposing, I am going to security review them and eventually copy them over to our MediaWiki namespace. -- Rillke(q?) 01:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Luis Felipe Schenone: Here we go. Note this comment, though. Also, please have a user page here and, as a maintainer you should not forget to watch the created pages. -- Rillke(q?) 20:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rillke! I created my userpage and added the created pages to my watchlist. I also updated the code to fix the problem you noted and I've localised the scripts to a few more languages. You may want to update the code at the created pages with the latest at the repo. Next step will be to consult the WikiProject Council to create the wikiproject. After that, I'll request an edit to MediaWiki:Common.js so that the wikiwidgets can be used here at Commons, and later I'll propose one of the wikiwidgets as the media of the day. See you around! --Felipe (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
It should be a gadget. Loading more .js via common.js is not a good idea. And it should be on a opt-in basis. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: No JavaScript is loaded by default. Only a preview image is loaded and only in the few articles with the WikiWidget template. The JavaScript of the widgets is only loaded when the user clicks on the Play button (or more precisely, on the preview image). For simplification purposes my technical description wasn't accurate on this particular point, but I take this opportunity to clarify it, as it's an important point. --Felipe (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Most likely you'll have to load them with withJS= and withCSS= URL parameter as neither I, nor someone else will add more query selectors to MediaWiki:Common.js. Your widget should understand that if they're loaded withJS, they should probably immediately start. -- Rillke(q?) 22:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: I wasn't aware of the withJS and withCSS functionality, thanks, it's a useful tool. However, it cannot be used to display the wikiwidgets as the media of the day in the main page. In order to do so, the es:Template:WikiWidget would need to be created here (that's easy, I can do it) and the following code would need to be added to MediaWiki:Common.js:
$( '.WikiWidget' ).each( function () {
	var wikiwidget = $( this ).data( 'wikiwidget' );
	var preview = $( '<img>' ).attr({
		'class': 'WikiWidgetPreview',
		'title': 'Click to load the WikiWidget',
		'src': $( this ).data( 'wikiwidget-preview' ),
		'style': 'cursor: pointer'
	}).click( function () {
		importScript( 'MediaWiki:WikiWidget-' + wikiwidget + '.js' );
		importStylesheet( 'MediaWiki:WikiWidget-' + wikiwidget + '.css' );
	$( this ).html( preview );
Is this the code that neither you nor anyone else will be willing to add? If so, then would it be too much to ask that if the Commons:WikiProject WikiWidgets gets approved, and a wikiwidget gets selected as the media of the day, the code is added temporarily to MediaWiki:Common.js so that the new project can get some exposure via the main page? After that day, when the media is archived, the code at MediaWiki:Common.js can be commented out. The wikiwidget will cease working in the archived page, but we can always replace it for a link to a URL with the withJS and withCSS parameters, so that users browsing the archive can still check it out. --Felipe (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
For the main page, we have MediaWiki:MainPages.js - It'd be okay to have the suggested code there (for a time). -- Rillke(q?) 13:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Great. I'll move on to request the WikiProject. I think this conversation can be archived now. Thanks! --Felipe (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Commons:WikiProject WikiWidgets created, I'll be improving it in the following days. Archive this discussion please. --Felipe (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@Luis Felipe Schenone: @Rillke: Oppose. It schould be a simply gadget. I wasn't able to get this working. Please only put working stuff on the mainpage. And there is no i18n as far i can see. This works only for videos or for files. Will there by a play button on a file? If yes, Why is such a button needed. The file schould be displayed directly whiteout klicking on a button. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't put anything on the main page. What did you exactly try? This isn't obvious from your contribs. About the gadget: It makes sense. OTOH, this means adding 2 more modules to the gadget registration. And they should certainly not load by default (except perhaps on the main page when the widget is displayed there). Thanks :-] -- Rillke(q?) 18:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I created the subpage Commons:WikiProject WikiWidgets/demo with instructions on how you or anyone can see a demonstration of the WikiWidgets here in Commons. I had no trouble getting it to work with the code I posted above, so I'm not sure what went wrong in your case. Can you try again? I don't understand what you mean when you say that this works only for videos or files. WikiWidgets have nothing to do with videos, can you explain? As to your comment suggesting that the script above should be made a gadget, I strongly disagree (unless the gadget is enabled by default) because then they would only be visible for those users that have the gadget enabled and visit the extremely few and rare pages (so far) that have them. In other words, nobody. Regarding your suggestion that the WikiWidgets should autoload, this has been discarded in a previous discussion, because loading a wikiwidget involves several calls to the server, which can be a pain in slow computers or slow connections. I agree however with Rillke's suggestion that the WikiWidgets should autoplay when loaded, and in fact I have already modified the code in my localhost so that they do so. I'll share the latest version with other improvements soon. Finally, regarding i18n, the two existing WikiWidgets are fully internationalised and localised to several languages. If you mean that the script above isn't internationalised, then yes, sorry, but I don't know how to do it in this case, and it's just a single line, which in fact could be erased without much loss (btw, I just translated it to English, I had left it in Spanish by mistake). --Felipe (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thinking again, moving the script above to a gadget may be a good idea. If it's moved to a gadget, the code can be hosted here at Commons (like the code of HotCat) so any changes made would propagate immediately to any Wikipedias that adopt it. Also, it would make it possible to internationalise the messages. Regarding the issue that only users with the gadget enabled would be able to see the WikiWidgets, it's just a matter of exposing the issue to each Wikipedia that adopts it, and let each one decide if it's a good idea to enable it by default or not. And for those who don't, at least users will have a chance to enable it themselves. Also, making a gadget for the project would give it a little more visibility, as it would appear in the list of gadgets, which some users check every now and then. So ok, I'll develop a gadget for it. --Felipe (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Each gadget is a module. And each module at Commons can be loaded on demand using the withModule= URL-parameter. -- Rillke(q?) 23:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@Rillke: I've been trying to test the "withModule" parameter without success. I tried things like "?withModule=edittop", "?withModule=gadget.edittop" and "?withModule=gadget-edittop" but I don't seem to hit on the right name for the module of any gadget, nor could I find any documentation on what are the names of the available gadget modules. Could you give me one, or link me to a list? Thanks! --Felipe (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rillke, Steinsplitter: I have developed the code for a WikiWidgets gadget, it can be found at my subpage User:Luis Felipe Schenone/WikiWidgets.js. There's one thing that troubles me though. WikiWidgets are not gadgets, they are meant to be a new kind of media. Therefore, it seems strange to make them depend on a gadget. Wouldn't it be better to put the code in MediaWiki:WikiWidgets.js and just call it with importScript or mw.loader.load from MediaWiki:Mainpage.js or MediaWiki:Common.js, depending on the wiki? Is there any decisive advantage to either approach? --Felipe (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Completing the JPG property "title" leads when using the Upload Wizard to English description.[edit]

Completing the JPG property "title" leads when using the Upload Wizard to English description. In mass uploads I have laboriously every description individually hand English are provided in German. That is very awkward.

What can I do?

This request in German: Das Ausfüllen der JPG-Eigenschaft "Titel" führt bei Nutzung des UploadWizard zu einer Englischen Beschreibung. Bei Massenuploads muss ich mühselig jede Beschreibung einzeln von Hand Englisch auf Deutsch gestellt werden. Dass ist sehr umständlich.

Was kann ich tun? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarify Project Scope about hosting illegal materials[edit]

I would like to propose to replace Commons:Project_scope#Scope_of_Commons section:

To be eligible for hosting on Wikimedia Commons, all files and other content must fall within the Commons scope. Anything uploaded here which falls outside this scope will be deleted.


To be eligible for hosting on Wikimedia Commons, all files and other content must comply with United States law and must fall within the Commons scope. Examples of content which does not comply with United States law include: child pornography and trade secrets. Anything uploaded here which does not meet those requirements will be deleted.

This is an attempt to synchronize our local policies with global policies and justify potential Office actions. I do not see this change as a policy change and more like clarification of current policies. --Jarekt (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There are more things illegal in the USA. Do we have to list them all? Yann (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I sympathise with the intention of providing more clarity, and I agree that although we don't explicitly say so content which very obviously would be illegal or unlawful for the WMF to host under US law is normally deleted quickly. We have to be careful with the wording, though, as "must comply with United States law" covers a huge range of issues that aren't relevant to hosting here: for example an otherwise free image from a museum that has been uploaded by a user in breach of the museum's "no photography allowed" terms of entry. In that case, contract law would apply to the uploader but not to the WMF (or anyone else on Commons). We would not want to prohibit that I think.
If the intent is to align our policies more closely with the WMF's Terms of Use (which we have to comply with whether we like it or not), I would prefer to add a new ground of deletion to COM:D, rather than change the wording of COM:PS. For example a new ground could read:
  • "Uploaded content which would clearly be unlawful for the Wikimedia Foundation to host on its Commons servers"
The rationale for including the word "clearly" is to recognise that the Commons community cannot and should not attempt to wikilawyer every conceivable situation that the WMF might in theory want to use as the basis for an Office Action. The Foundation needs no justification from the community for its Office Actions, and nor does it seek any. While it's useful for the community to act promptly to get rid of media that will very obviously expose the Foundation to legal risk, we should avoid any temptation to take over the entirety of the Foundation's legal-protection role. The Foundation has its own lawyers who are very capable of doing that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we should mentioning trade secrets at all. They've very tricky legally, and hard to know what is and is not a trade secret. Leave that completely to the Office Actions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I noticed this (what I perceive) hole in out scope policy while trying to understand out policies from the point of view of this discussion about hosting classified documents on Commons. Situation with classified documents is still not clear, but what is clear is that we do not host files which are not legal in the US. Child pornography seems to be the only clear example, but I did not want to make this to be only about child pornography, so I threw it trade secrets, which are listed as one reason office action can be triggered.
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. About Yann point, I do not think we need more examples, I like the change to be brief and to the point. I added 2 examples since they illustrate what it means in practice, I agree with Prosfilaes that trade secrets are not obvious and I never run into any, but I would prefer to have more than one. I also agree with MichaelMaggs that "must comply with US law" could cover a lot and I also would not want this addition to be misused for finding more non-copyright issues that could be reasons for deletion. My intend is to state the unspoken current norm which prevents us from hosting content like child pornography, etc. If someone would like to propose alternative wording which would fix the mentioned issues, that would be great. --Jarekt (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful background. I think the wording I've suggested above would fix the apparent hole in our deletion policies, but I'd prefer not to list out specific types of illegality. A partial list only reduces the clarity of the overall principle. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Michael. Better not to list anything because we can't be complete, or we would be too long. Let the WMF cares about the details. I hope I am clearer. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see a need in this proposed change. Nemo 07:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not see why it is needed either but if the consensus is we need the amendment I strongly suggest we run it though WMF Legal before implementing.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I have the same concerns as Michael Maggs. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Variant #1[edit]

I agree that maybe we do not need examples. But I am unsure about the "must comply with US law" section. I reread meta:Legal/Legal_Policies#Applicable_Law section and it repeats multiple times that "Projects should follow at least United States law" so I think we need to mention US law. Maybe we can replace Commons:Project_scope#Scope_of_Commons section:

To be eligible for hosting on Wikimedia Commons, all files and other content must fall within the Commons scope. Anything uploaded here which falls outside this scope will be deleted.


To be eligible for hosting on Wikimedia Commons, all files and other content must be legal to be hosted in the United States and must fall within the Commons scope. Anything uploaded here which does not meet those requirements will be deleted.

I do not believe we currently host any content which is not legal to host in the US, so the change should not affect any current files. With such changes we can have some thing to help us explain which policy we follow if we delete child pornography. Also questions like shall we host classified documents can be quickly resolved by checking if it it is illegal in the US to host classified documents (short answer: no). --Jarekt (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  • To be honest, i don't see a need to change the project scope. Legal stuff is covered yet by the terms of use. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I don't think this is a matter for COM:PS but if anything for COM:D. I also feel the phraseology " ... must be legal to be hosted ... " less than straightforward. So, I'd prefer either the wording I suggested above, or no change. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this wording. It is sufficiently succinct, and of course only a clarification of what is already the case. --Sebari (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Uploading files under CC BY SA 4.0[edit]

Special Page: Upload your own work doesn't support uploading under CC BY SA 4.0, only 3.0. Could '3.0' be changed to '4.0' in the licence selection dropdown, please, or a separate 4.0 option added? We ought to be encouraging uploaders to use 4.0 --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I assume you're talking about MediaWiki:Licenses/ownwork (and /??ownwork translations under Special:PrefixIndex/MediaWiki:Licenses/). I don't see a problem with that. I'd prefer to keep the list short, so replacing rather than adding. The multi-licensing option should be changed from cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 to cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0. LX (talk, contribs) 13:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been away, so I don't know - have we generally switched to using 4.0? If so, replacement certainly seems like a better idea than addition; otherwise addition would be preferred. The reason I'm wondering if we've switched to 4.0 is that MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning still uses 3.0. So ... was that one missed or was there some reason not to switch to the new licenses? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
4.0 is default for new uploads through the Upload Wizard. Text contributions are still 3.0 according to the notice at the bottom of all pages. LX (talk, contribs) 02:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Right. Is there a reason that text contributions are defaulting to 3.0 while image contributions are defaulting to 4.0 or should the text entry be updated as well? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if it's been discussed and rejected, or if it just hasn't been brought up. I can't find any past discussions, though, apart from an early discussion at meta:Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2013-12#Creative Commons 4.0 licenses. LX (talk, contribs) 14:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Following links around shows several discussions here and on en.wikipedia. I'm not up to searching archives on de.wikipedia, but they are still using 3.0 as well. I've not found many arguments against adoption, so I may make a proposal to switch in a few days, depending on what the archives turn up. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I see no issue in adding or replacing to 4.0 in upload tools' defaults as people concerned can still use 3.0 explicitly by adding license tags. The license of text is a different matter, and I think former legal staff (LVilla (WMF)) commented somewhere that it was in the consideration of the team and need studies on compatibility issues. Time passed and people changed; I don't know the current status. Jee 02:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Add Editable Petitions To The Commons Family[edit]

I have a proposal called a Wikipetitions site for the Wikimedia Commons family of sites! I suggest making a Wikipetitions site that hosts editable petitions, along with a way to forward the petition to lawmakers in their respective countries, or even their respective Administrative Divisions. I do realize that this is completely and highly experimental, but I know this will work when given the chance!

Even if it doesn't work out in the end, it will change the outcome and dialog of today's interactive content online, the way we communicate with elected officials, and maybe something better will come out. But who knows, maybe Wikipetitions will work out and become popular!

I am a high-functioning autistic individual named Joseph D. Smith, and I hope that my intellectual insight has proved useful. I love to use my intellect in creative-endeavors, and I fully support the Wikimedia Foundation, and I hope it continues to serve the general public! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyjds (talk • contribs) 03:58, 14 January 2016‎ (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood what Commons is. It's not a family of sites. It is one site: a repository of free, educational media files used by Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, and others. You may be looking for meta:Proposals for new projects. LX (talk, contribs) 11:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket #2016011910020161 and My template for official documents from the Government of Chile[edit]

According to this Undeletion request, I want to merge the OTRS permission tag into the template, to set the OTRS permission to all the files that uses the template. Is enough to move the {{PermissionOTRS}} into that template? Can I made that edition or it should be done by an admin (considering that the template uses Autotranslate)?

Thanks in advance. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ticket:2016011910020161 Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Document appeals process for blocks[edit]

Please comment at Commons talk:Blocking policy. LX (talk, contribs) 10:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Make {{User:Amitie_10g/Sandbox/Infobox Chile Law/tag}} an official template[edit]

I've created this PD tag in conjuction with {{User:Amitie_10g/Sandbox/Infobox Chile Law}} according to the email received from the BCN and confirmed via OTRS with Ticket #2016011910020161. A good name could be {{PD-Chile-doc}} (where doc means State document) Any opinions? --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Model release - medical photos and more - legal review - WMF grant proposal[edit]

I am seeking comments and hopefully endorsements on a draft request to the Wikimedia Foundation for grant funds. Opposition and statements of doubt are also useful. If you like, please comment at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Legal review and templates for model release.

For some time I have been collecting examples in Wikimedia projects in which there is some disagreement about whether an image violates personality rights and would require a model release to host in Wikimedia Commons. See examples in the discussion sections at meta:Grants_talk:PEG/Wikimedia_New_York_City/Development_of_a_model_release_process_for_photos_and_video.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A bot that will accept and perform find and replace and category copy commands[edit]

How about if we will have a bot that will accept and perform find & replace and category copy commands, like what CommonsDelinker (except it accept image replacements and category moves) doing now? I have no problem if CommonsDelinker will get these two new tasks, but I think it is enough for CommonsDelinker for a new function/task. Actually, CommonsDelinker was intended to remove links of deleted images on Commons (hence its name), but it now has category move commands and image replacements.

I think we need a bot that will accept and perform find and replace and category copy commands because VisualFileChange and Cat-a-lot edits too quickly, faster than a bot (which is 6 edits per minute). Due to that, the recent changes and users' watchlists will be flooded with VFC and Cat-a-lot edits. If we have a flagged bot doing this, this won't flood the RC and watchlists.

If I have consensus for this, I will run BulbaBot by using AWB in automatic mode. If you have concerns, feel free to say it here. Thanks, Poké95 10:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

For future questions that I will expect, the user must request a find and replace command for a user or category, and for category copy commands, to determine what are the pages to be processed for category copys, the user or category and category to be copied to each page must be stated, or the request may be declined. Poké95 01:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Uhm, we might as well add a throttle to VFC. Btw. is your username referring to the Hawaiian fish salad? --Dschwen (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope, it is a Pokémon (Bulbasaur). See its Q/A on its user page. ;) Poké95 01:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
CommonsDelinker and Category-bot already do categories, and in terms of find and replace, many bots have open ended approval for find and replacement if its cleanup or corrections. If you're looking for consensus for the a bot task, I believe the normal VP is more appropriate. Riley Huntley (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Riley, I am not saying category moves. It is category copys. And I think Category-bot seems to stop working at 2013. Pinging Docu, the operator, if s/he still wants to operate his/her bot. And for the find-and-replace thing, they will come from other users, not just from the operator.
Also, I have been thinking if the user name of my bot would be suitable for that task... Maybe, when my task became popular as CommonsDelinker, I will create another bot account, and BulbaBot's task will be moved to the new account. Poké95 02:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Then I'll admit I have no idea what category copies are (or perhaps i'm too sleep deprived to think logically? both?) I suggest picking a name you like instead of a name relevant to the task considering most bots run multiple tasks. Riley Huntley (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
"Category copies" (disregard my grammar mistake above, I am not a native English speaker) are just like adding categories. For example, if user A requests all files in Category:Butter to be added also to the category Category:Cheese, then that is a category copy command. I should have specified it earlier.... *sigh* Poké95 03:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)