Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2013/07

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.


I introduced the new file_languages function in the above module, to help linking different translations of a file. You can see a preview in my sandbox. We could use it (maybe wrapped within a template) in many image pages. --Ricordisamoa 23:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 16/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 74/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 44/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 0/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 2/40

   Expensive parser function count: 392/500

Lua time usage: 0.294s
Lua memory usage: 958 KB
Maybe it's worth to first lookup whether a file exists (using links or a prefixindex approach) and then retrieving the language name (only when required). The Expensive parser function count has its origin in -- Rillke(q?) 16:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Template or namespace to handle files appearing in books

When uploading books for Wikisource, we use the {{book}} template for the PDF or DjVu file. Many books are illustrated and need separate file upload. It would be nice if we could piggy-back off of the source file information. Example would be The Tale of Pigling Bland (see the Category for illustrations I've uploaded so far, ones which could share book information), and rather than recreating all the source, author, title, ISBN, etc., per illustration, simply transclude the file information from the PDF file. This would cut back on uploading time, give consistency to the files appearing in a work, save time if an error is made (year needs to be corrected in a book with a hundred illustrations; current practice is to update each file, whereas a template would only require updating the source.

Parameters in book to be overwritten would be description, illustrator, permission, maybe others. But the bulk stands to be streamlined. Definite benefit for Wikisource editors, and we upload a lot of stuff as I'm sure many of you know :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This sounds sensible to me. I was surprised to discover that WS illustratons *can't* be used as normal commons files. Jane023 (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
They can be used normally, we only upload some local at Wikisource; nearly all are uploaded here. If it can be handled by a template, I think that would be best, but I wonder if it must be handled like the creator: namespace.
  • Example - the file File:Frankenstein.pdf contains all relevant (and mostly identical information for the subsequent illustrations that need to uploaded) using the template {{Book}}. The plate appearing on page 7 shares all of the information, with the exception of the description in which I've specified that this illustration appears on page 7. Because the illustrator is not credited, it too is {{PD-US}}. In this example I copy and pasted the book information from the original file, which lets them look like what I'm requesting. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

For help with the creation of a template (or possible namespace) is there a more appropriate place to take this? - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a new template is necessary, but I think it would be nice to be able to either A) be able to include DjVu file pages like File:Frankenstein.pdf/7 directly in a wikipage and also to be able to rotate this for viewing, or B) "extract" the prints from the PDF, leaving a page link in the PDF. BTW, for the creator, this particular print is signed upper right, but it is unreadable at that resolution. I think the creator template should be used for the book as well as the print, though these will have a different order of importance (1=writer for book, 2=printmaker, and other way around for the prints). Jane023 (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Angaben zur geographischen Position

Enabling Help:Gadget-HotCat for all logged users ?

Minority removal of welcome images

From wikipedia The phrase "tyranny of the masses", used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots. In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalised by the majority element acting through the democratic process.

Occasionally images that are within scope and welcomed by the majority of the community can potentially cause the loss of contributors because minorities can find them deeply offensive.

To distinguish between outside interference and genuine problems effecting the retention of commons contributors, the following process is proposed.

Proposed addition to policy: In a discussion on the talkpage of the image, if over 25% of (with a minimum of 12) editors in good standing on commons, with at least 100 images and 12 months continuous contribution OR 2,000 edits and 12 months continuous contribution can merit the removal of an otherwise welcome image.

'Continuous' means about 200 or more of their contributions were made in the last 12 months.

If the '25% threshold' is too high, it would not identify minorities, if it is too low, it would be susceptible to outside interference.

Policies and guidelines related to this proposal, thanks to Jkadavoor for finding them:

abridged from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary [...] attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such [...] attacks.

This proposal seeks to provide some protection, even if it's not much. This doesn't mean commons won't host many offensive images, it just means we won't have to host EVERY offensive image in detriment to the project, and the community both on commons and outside. Penyulap 16:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

p.s. of course this isn't policy. it's against policy, every proposal is until the moment it becomes policy, please avoid logic loops. Penyulap 18:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes

  • oppose, I really think it's a bad idea, see Jmabel's comment below (Threatens to substitute the tyranny of a minority as a proposed remedy for a purported tyranny of the majority) --Isderion (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I think what would happen is we'd lose a dozen images rather than a dozen editors and that would be the end of it. I can't see it as starting an irreversible trend towards some kind of arbcom. Penyulap 20:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think that the guy whose image is deleted wouldn't be pissed and leave? --Isderion (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Hard cases make bad law. It is tempting fate to define a minority rule this way. I could easily imagine a minority interest group (like LGBT, MILHIST or English Wikipedians) canvassing within their community networks, for certain types of images, to ensure their interests were served ahead of Commons policy. Currently, gathering interest from diverse groups and other projects is mainly a good thing, particularly if it gets members of these minority groups interested in making significant contributions to Commons. Canvassing can help get all points of view expressed, so long as the discussion remains non-hostile to a balance of all views. However, if the closing administrator is no longer free to use their judgement to balance concerns against policy, and instead a count of votes forces deletions against community policy, I think this introduces strategic manipulation of deletions. I would support guidance to closing administrators to respect the potential for oppression of a minority view (under the "respect" guidelines). As an example, recent propaganda used to support a homophobic hate crime (such as leaflets encouraging attacks or death threats against suspected homosexuals) would be highly contentious, and I would personally find such hateful recent material persisting on Commons abhorrent and would argue, strongly, for deletion on the basis that it may be used to encourage hate crimes. However I am aware of educational value defined by policy, and I would expect a closing admin to adhere to policy, but carefully examine if the particular material was generally defamatory, individually disrespectful or had potential for legal problems, and consider if the way these issues were covered by policy and guidance outweighed the main educational aim of this project. A simple count of votes does none of this. -- (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hard cases make bad law, well, as no case is mentioned in this proposal it makes that a poor choice of quote for this proposal. It's like putting the horse before the. Penyulap 14:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Unfortunately this is a perfect example of good intentions leading somebody off-course. It is a good thing to attempt not to insult somebody, and we all should generally strive for a community where people are treated with dignity and respect, but the scope of commons is not "To create a forum where everybody feels welcome", but "To collect educational media that can be freely distributed". Therefore, all other policies should only be applied where they don't go against the original intentions. For example, we have an exception for the scope in the form of allowing a small number of personal images for the use on the person's user page, therefore it can be appropriate to delete such images when 25% of people see them as offensive (after all these images already are allowed only as an exception), but the educational image should never be removed, no matter how many people complain, scream, cry, demand, threaten, or anything else. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I do not agree that ...the educational image should never be removed, no matter how many people complain, scream, cry, demand, threaten, or anything else. There is always a balance to consider what the loss of not having an educational image is versus the possible disturbance inflicted on persons complaining about an image. Say, an educational photo of an identifiable homeless person taken in public, who has not given his explicit consent for publication. If the person complains about the photo, either directly, or indirectly, with the reasons that it is embarassing and disrespectful to publish, I certainly think that concerns of human decency prevails over the educational value of the photo - and it would have to go. That is, I believe also in alignment with the objectives in the WMF resoluton concerning Photographs of identifiable persons addresses. --Slaunger (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you go to a lecture where the teacher screams at you "yo' momma's a whore" every two minutes ? it kind of kills the classroom mood. I'm not entirely certain it is absolutely necessity to attack the same people we are trying to reach with the project. It's a bit like making and keeping friends, sure, you can tell them some of their major faults and flaws, but that shouldn't need to be the sole subject of every discussion, like you can skip one now and then and 'that's ok' in the grand scheme of things. Penyulap 13:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Penyulap, you lost me there (again)... Are you saying that I am attacking another user by expressing that I disagree with a statement put forth by another user? --Slaunger (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I have to say I am with Slaunger on his one. When I read Sinnamon Girl's comments I wondered to myself would she have the same opinion of a video of a rape. There are many situations I can envisage where human dignity should trump "is not censored" dogma. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose – Images shouldn't be deleted as a result of an equation. We use terms such as "!vote" for a reason. I don't believe that the project would benefit from the censorship that this proposal threatens to bring. I don't believe that photographs of portraits by Pricasso should be deleted. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Obvious potential for abuse and censorship. -- King of ♠ 04:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


In this scenario, if less than 50 people take an interest in the discussion and vote, then the 12 editors could remove an image. (The 12 editors would represent a contribution to commons of over 1,200 images between them.) Let's not be an oppressive tyranny, even when we are right and haven't done anything wrong. Let's just recognise minorities in a no-penalty drama-free manner. Penyulap 16:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I can think of 1 recent DR which had 50 contributors... As for the proposal, I don't see it as necessary - DRs are not votes. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
This is the place we make the policy which those not votes conform to, if the filepage discussion looks all proper, people like INC can just take a glance at the talkpage, and take it into account. If the DR people can't bother to discuss it on the talkpage, then they're not that interested. Just allows an in depth image by image considered discussion about the particular minority, the merits of the image, and the hurt it might or might not cause. Penyulap 17:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I like what you are trying to do here, but how do we protect from the Commons from a cohesive minority from co-opting the place with their own agendas? Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. We can just up the 12 to something higher so we don't have to chase them around, but we do need to see that 12 people with 1,200 donations can wipe out 10 images without it hurting us. Penyulap 17:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Tyranny of the minority is okay, but only if it's the right minority? --Carnildo (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not some arbcom, people can simply vote against them, notify the village pump, and if it happens too much, raise the number or remove the policy. Penyulap 07:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I also welcome the attempt, but would prefer to avoid any rule which depends on individual users voting each time on what they do and do not find personally acceptable, as it provide no precedent. Much better to work towards a more principle-based policy which provides a greater level of case by case consistency. Anyone who has not yet seen it may be interested in a discussion which is going on at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/Update 2013/Moral issues. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking that the file talkpage is not your average DR sausage factory, the discussions can be open-ended. I know it's not perfect, I scheduled uploading the perfect policy next month ;) this is just a stop-gap measure, we can increase the level of, erm, tyranny, from 12 if it gets out of hand. (these pesky minorities!) Penyulap 18:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per mattbuck, DRs are not votes.--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Threatens to substitute the tyranny of a minority as a proposed remedy for a purported tyranny of the majority. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I do well understand and support the underlying issue. However, I doubt a bit that it can be solved that way. May be we should try to codify that into the proposed changes/fine-tuning of the scope and pip policies, as suggested by MichaelMaggs. --Túrelio (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Provisional support I agree that this is not the way to solve anything major, but I think it's not actually bad for Commons. Any file that 25% of regular contributors hate enough to invoke this is probably causing rifts in what is supposed to be a harmonious and mellow community, and is probably not worth the angst, criticism, and lost respect. I'm not sure all the details of the proposal are optimal, hence my "provisional" support. My question to the opposers is, what specifically do you think would go wrong if this were in place? (and if the answer is "We'd lose one Pricasso painting", then I'd like to know how you weigh this against losing a contributor of ~30 FPs as a result of that file, plus the many other consequences). And Penyulap, I really like when you try to be constructive! --99of9 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I actually figure it would be used for the half dozen images mentioned in the DR and then gather dust. It's pretty hard to find a dozen people that fit the requirements as it is. Plus, we get rid of the image without anyone's head on a stick, gosh darn. What's the worst thing that can be said about it except 'it was a nice image and a few people didn't like it' (well, a dozen actually) and we're done. Penyulap 20:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Provisional support. Basically per 99of9. I am very sympathetic for the underlying objective of the proposal. I am in doubt if the policy extension as proposed would work as intended. It is really hard to predict how it would work, but I think it is worth trying. If it does not work, the policy could be reverted, or alternatively, tweaked such that it works. --Slaunger (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think we need to articulate some principle or policy under which demeaning photos of identifiable, non-public people can be removed at their request. For example: if I beat you up, and take pictures of the results, and then I decide to share those pictures on Commons, should you have to live with those pictures being offered to the public every day for the rest of your life? I do think we need something to protect people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
        • then we have to think of a new simple policy which can be pointed to, in order to calm the backlash from both inside and outside the project. I think the proposed policy should have a name that doesn't lay blame, because people can't know in advance what would offend someone, that's impossible given the variety of cultures and nations that we draw upon for contributions. Penyulap 15:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  strong oppose This is simply a way to enforce minority censorship on this project. And it is open to absolute gaming; let's say this proposal get's widespread support in the community; do we then enforce it when a group of 12 Muslim editors have images of Mohammed deleted? Or do we simply tell them what we have stood by on this project for the longest time -- we are not censored. russavia (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it would allow removal of all offensive images including those, however, to say it is gamed is to assume the numbers are set in stone when they are not, all policies are open to 'tweaking' especially on something as simple as numbers. What you don't realise is how hard it will be to come up with an alternative proposal which can't be used to lay (or at least imply) blame. Think that one through. hmm ? Penyulap 22:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hence why I strongly oppose this proposal in its entirety. Any proposal that sees censorship being proposed is enough for me to sit up and vehemently oppose it as detrimental to the core mission of this project -- to provide educational files to WMF projects and the internet at large; not just files that we like. russavia (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't change the fact that we censor things, we already do. Flickr, tumblr, allow commercial content, we censor promotional images. If the servers were in a different selection of countries we could stop worry about copyright altogether. China, Indonesia, lots of places you could just download microsoft windows and upload you advertisement to resell them. I won't go the 'think of the children', but we do that too for good reason. Commons is about education, I never heard why it has to be 'offensive education'. It is something of an oxymoron really. Offensive is about ignorance, misunderstanding and dis-interest. Learning is about mutual understanding, it's on the same spectrum as empathy. Penyulap 23:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose A bad idea, as others have said above, both in numerically defining this minority veto power, and in putting too much emphasis on avoiding offence. --Avenue (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal, removal of offensive images by majority consensus

I propose an alternative, where, like promotional images which are CENSORED, zomg there is that word !, images which a majority of commons users find offensive and to a degree that it outweighs any educational value, could be removed.

Advertisements educate about products, but offend the sensibilities of many people who are trying to educate. They are removed, because some people (did we ever really have a poll on this?) don't believe they fit in with the objectives.

I suggest that people could decide, case by case, if the educational value of an image is so small, and the problems caused for editors, and the loss of those editors, is a down to earth common-sense enough reason to remove it, the same way we don't keep every image. We censor personal images that aren't in use.

Proposed addition to policy: In a discussion on the talkpage of the image, if over 60% of (with a minimum of 12) editors in good standing on commons, with at least 100 images and 12 months continuous contribution OR 2,000 edits and 12 months continuous contribution can merit the removal of an image where they consider the educational value of an image is outweighed by it's offensive nature, and the damage it does to the goal of the project, which is to educate.
abridged from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary [...] attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such [...] attacks.

This proposal seeks to provide some protection, even if it's not much. Penyulap 05:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Meh, why nots

[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|18px|link=]] Meh why not ~~~~
Symbol support vote.svg Meh why not. If the sky turns all purple and people are running everywhere like it's 1999, we can withdraw it just as easy. Penyulap 05:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh Noes!

[[File:Symbol oppose vote.svg|13px|link=]] No, no, no, it's still Censorship ! ~~~~


I've put some custom voting templates as a suggestion ;) with almost no subliminal messages Penyulap 05:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Autocomplete while writing wikitext

Please have a look over there: MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition#Autocomplete gadget. If you would like to test it, add the following line to your personal JavaScript:


-- Rillke(q?) 15:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Gadget for adding Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. to Special:Search menu

In Wikipedia preferences (gadgets tab in the appearance section) there is this:

  • "Add a selector to the Wikipedia search page allowing the use of external search engines". It adds search options to en:Special:Search for Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc.. Enable the preference and see what I mean. Click the dropdown menu on the left side at en:Special:Search.

It would be nice if that gadget were in Commons preferences too, except the searches would be set to image searches. An additional entry for Google images SafeSearch could also be added (in addition to the non-censored Google image search entry in the selector dropdown menu). Both of the following searches are set to search Commons images:

See this discussion for the reasoning:

There is already a Google search preference on the Commons in the gadgets tab (section on "maintenance tools"). See Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets: "GoogleImages tab: On File pages, adds a new tab to easily search for similar images on the Internet using Google Images." It is only for doing reverse image searches. See documentation at Help:Image searching. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's add unaltered Wikipedia gadget here for adding external search engines

Instead of altering the Wikipedia gadget with SafeSearch, etc.. let us at least offer this gadget option as it is. I think it would be a very useful search tool for the Commons that many would use over time. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, the search links would have to be image searches instead of page searches. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

RFCs for user conduct

In November 2011, it was suggested to open user conduct cases as RFCs. According to the proposal this was to be tested for six months. After some support was given, the discussion was closed in January 2012 and implemented. Since then not a single useful user conduct case has been opened. (The only exception was Commons:Requests for comment/chelsiehadden which however was never pursued nor linked to after the initial edit in August 2012.) Hence, I suggest to remove the user conduct section from COM:RFC and to continue to handle user conduct cases at COM:AN/U as it is still practice. My rationale is that we should aim at simplicity and not provide multiple boards or areas to handle the same kind of problems. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support as proposed. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Prior to the "implementation", it wasn't handled at AN/U, look at the previous edit to the page, it went to the more public venue of Commons:Requests and votes#Requests for comment which still exists and still is in use. This proposal does not seek to reverse the situation, you're putting through a new proposal and using a failed proposal to do so. Your proposal seeks to implement a straw man proposal.

I like the examples that page gives, they're quite funny and that's surprising for

  • A: Sunny days are good.
  • B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death.
  • C: We should give children ice cream after every school day.
  • D: That would be rather bad for their health.
  • C: Do you want our children to starve?

I should think the proposal should be in two separate parts, do we reverse the idea to open user conduct cases as RFCs, as one idea, and then you make a new proposal that they are all handled at the AN/U rather than Commons:Requests and votes#Requests for comment where they used to be, as the second idea. Penyulap 09:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at the header of Commons:Requests and votes. This is not a place to open user conduct cases nor was it one before. The only place was and is at COM:AN/U. This changed due to the referenced proposal but was subsequently not used for a considerable time (nearly one and a half year). --AFBorchert (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm just saying your proposal is a new proposal, dressed up as overturning the old redirect. The header says everyone can vote and edit and so on, whereas at AN/U it doesn't say anyone can have a say, it's never said that has it ? and what is the venue for anyhow, isn't it to ban people and so forth ? if that is the case, do you want everyone to vote or not ? If not everyone is welcome to vote, it smells a lot like's arbcom don't you think {sudden enthusiasm} and gee-willikers doesn't everyone love arbcom. Seriously, they banned someone for using cut-n-paste on one edit. Penyulap 10:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Nope, I simply want to undo an unsuccessful proposal whose testing period expired long ago. Nothing more and nothing less. To clarify: At COM:AN/U everyone is free to add a comment to a case that constructively helps to resolve it. We have never been very restrictive in this regard and this is good. Moderation is possible, though, if comments are off-topic or not really helpful. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
No worries, it's just that you brought up the subject, saying "Look at the header of Commons:Requests and votes.", so I just point out look at the header of AN/U, it does not, and never has said, what you point out. I know of many occasions when people have been made to feel unwelcome because they are not admins, I can give examples if you like. Penyulap 11:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
By default, every editor should be welcome here on all boards. If you feel that your contribution is not welcomed despite being on-topic and constructive, ask others for an opinion like, for example, some admin of your trust. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
That makes even less sense. If someone wants to be a d**k, the solution isn't to ask one person to comment, it's to let everyone comment. Like if you think some user is being a d**k constantly, the solution isn't to ask a minority of grumpy admins, it's to ask everyone. Especially with bans and so on, they need wide community consensus rather than a limited consensus. The smaller the group, the more tyrannical and dictatorial it becomes, has Arbcom taught us nothing ? Penyulap 11:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
You have misunderstood me, please read again. You and everyone else is welcome to comment at COM:AN/U and other administrative boards because, as pointed out by you, we need community consensus. If, however, you contribute to such a thread and an admin A gives you the impression to be unwelcome and if you want to play it safe, you can go to uninvolved admin of your trust B, asking for an independent opinion regarding your participation in the thread. B can then either defend you or give an advise how to contribute more constructively. I just wanted to give you this advise as you stated above that occasionally people have been made unwelcome. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)