Commons talk:CommonTasks

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

Tasks:

  • List possible tasks!
  • Write instructions! (Improve pages you refer to in an instruction, or write them in the first place.)
  • Find out how one could collect data for statistics!

Could some of the tasks be easy?[edit]

Some of us might want to pitch in but don't necessarily know as much of the ins and outs of Commons as old hands... maybe if some tasks were newbie friendly? are there such things? I looked at trying to help with the welcomebot newuser list and some of the stuff on there I'm not sure how to do myself (the "correct" way) yet. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, new user/upload patrol is probably amoung the easier tasks (if quickdelete.js works for you); see the welcome log. Another possibility for something easier is Special:Uncategorizedimages; as every image should be categorized through a license tag, there are likely a LOT of no license images there. One problem with Commons is the need to edit on dozens of wikis when orphaning...--Nilfanion 20:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you need to be an admin for quickdelete.js to work? As for editing while orpphaning, isn't that what the delinkerbot is going to address? Tat seems worth waiting for, eh? ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Delinker can't deal with dupe replacement in its current form. Quickdelete can work as a normal user (it makes nsd/nld tagging faster).--Nilfanion 20:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
There must be things that a novice can do to help - we've all been novices at some point :) There are some ideas at Commons_talk:Administrators#What_should_prospective_admins_do? but I haven't looked which of them could be Common tasks. Among many other things, I do hope that, with the instructions given, these projects offer a way for learning by doing. Therefore, we may also have to work on the instructions. -Samulili 20:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The best way to check that instructions/help pages work and can be understood is to follow them, Maybe we could encourage novices to follow some of the help pages, do what they ask. they get to learn more about commons and if an instruction doesnt flow they can highlight it by asking for assistance. The only other problem then is how do they find out about the tasks. Gnangarra 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

More suggestions[edit]

This is a great idea. Some more ideas...

  • commons:Images for cleanup
  • vote and nominate at COM:QI and COM:FPC (ridiculously easy :))
  • translation drive - multilingual editors can dive right in, but there is tons for monolingual editors too. Firstly at Commons:Help page maintenance, identifying things that need translation (I would especially emphasise user talk messages), also scouting around your local wiki and asking specific people for small, quick translations (this works a lot better than waiting for people to show up and translate). Special emphasis on the larger Wikipedias where we have poor lang coverage - eg. possibly Japanese. Also trying to identify active, helpful multilingual Commoners who would make good admin candidates.
  • identifying Unknown subject and Commons:Images missing information (plus, marking files as such in the first place) - our species coverage is quite spotty
  • adopt a category
  • possibly with adopt a category, or separately: gallery drive. create, organise and update galleries. spread links into relevant Wikipedia articles. (typically with a link like {{Commons}} or {{Commonscat}} - and you don't really need to understand the language for this)
  • new images patrol, in fact just recent changes patrol too

But these are not all equally important. For admins, deleting is the single most important thing. For non-admins... I dunno. Cleaning up and organisation is very important I think. Ah but then so is newbie stalking... hm.

It would be cool if there was some way to measure at least some of these edits. Just so we could congratulate ourselves on a job well done after a certain period. :)

--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

oh also, a good one every now and then would be

  • improve the FAQ

we have tons of places to collect Qs & As from. having a well written FAQ is useful to us even if not to anyone else (because everyone knows, they rarely get read :)) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PS where is the FAQ? :) shows how much I've read it I guess... ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Um... COM:FAQ !!! ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wanted categories[edit]

What's wanted here? The list of wanted categories is large, and some judgement presumably is needed for deciding if the fact that images (or media) are in a given category is actually reason to create the category. (if it's not, recategorization presumably is needed for the images in it to get to 0 members and have the request go away). If there IS reason to create it, what sholud be done? Is there any standard statement to make for a category? The categories I've created ([1] some are pretty shakey I must say!) I've tried to give some context to, (so far mostly amusement park related so I link to the en:wp article on the park and give geo coords). The answers to these questions could well become the genesis of the instructions to this task, so I'll undertake to smith something up based on what is said. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's about it, but then you will also have to look for typos and synonyms. In addition, German cities usually have Category:Cityname, Germany. There can of course be empty categories if the category only had copyvios or for other reasons. One could suggest that people try CommonSense, but it doesn't always give good results. -Samulili 18:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I gave it a go, see what you think! ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's good but too long. I'll try take 50 % off but if that's a bad move, just revert it. Some of the details could be in Commons:Categories. -Samulili 20:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Much better, thanks for taking a hatchet to it!. Needs to deredlink the IRC reference (is that the only way to get help? maybe a page on how to get real time help?) but other than that... good stuff. ++Lar: t/c 21:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Another task?[edit]

How about adding this to the CT list: Using Commons Helper to migrate a large chunk of imagery from another wiki to Commons? For example we could grab all of (properly sourced) enwp PD-USACE imagery sorting them correctly on Commons and nsd'ing the bad images. We could invade a different wiki each week ;)--Nilfanion 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that as more a project for those other wikis. We have enough trouble keeping our own affairs in order. Plus, encouraging masses of anonymous edits on wikis we possibly can't understand the text of, doesn't seem like a great idea to me. But I'm very much an eventualist when it comes to transferring images, I really don't see the rush. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we'll have a lot of people coming to here from other wikis (that will need to be assimilated into the "commons way", as we talked about a bit on IRC a bit ago) without bringing masses of images over. The images will come, not to worry. ++Lar: t/c 06:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Flickr review[edit]

Here's a new task, which has two components: one for all and one for admins. I've created {{Flickrreview}} as a way to verify the license status of Flickr imagery. I've restricted the verification to admins (as presumably we can be trusted). The usage is simple enough; anyone can add {{flickrreview}} to an image, which produces:

This image, which was originally posted to Flickr has not yet been reviewed by an administrator to confirm that the above license is valid.

This places it into a new maintenance category where admins can find these images, and change the tag to {{flickrreview|adminname|date}} which produces this:

This image, which was originally posted to Flickr was reviewed by the administrator Nilfanion on 2006-10-15, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the above license on that date.

This should give us a degree of certainty regarding these images, as opposed to having to delete them when the license changes due to unverifability. Anyone can add the {{Flickrreview}} but only admins are "trusted" to verify.--Nilfanion 20:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the special page listing these images [2].--Nilfanion 20:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)