Commons talk:Project scope/Update 2013/Must be an allowable free file format

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Click on the 'Project page' tab, above to see the current policy/guideline wording that is under discussion on this page.
  • To make a specific proposal, please start a new subsection and use the code below to put it in its own box. You can sign underneath the resultant box, but for technical reasons you can't use "~~~~" within it. Please number your proposal for ease of reference.
{{divbox|amber|Proposal number and title|Introduction
*text
*more text}}
Commons-logo.svg Scope Review 2013 links:

Discuss stage 2 of this review

Translation

Background

Links to current rules

Discussion: Introductory Scope wording

Discussion: Files

Discussion: Pages, galleries and categories

Discussion: Areas of particular concern

Discussion: Identifiable people

Other proposals

Proposal 1[edit]

  • Please discuss the above proposal here


Proposal 2[edit]

  • The way we handle file formats is a significant hindrance to the spread of free media. Many creators or content-holders or archives have media in formats that Commons does not currently accept -- even though perfectly good converters exist that could convert those media into free formats. Because of the unfriendly way we currently respond to users trying to upload those files (simply rejecting them and telling them those formats are not allowed), we effectively have rejected a number of media types. So our audio, video, animation, multimedia, slideshow, and spreadsheet collections are unbelievably poor. Images and pdf's dominate. We should
    1. support all major free file formats, including those that benefit from a virus scan.
    2. change our policy to one that mandates a format conversion. We can even store, but not play back, the original for purposes of comparison (e.g., to smoke out conversion bugs).
    Examples: OpenOffice formats; SWF (supported by the free-software Gnash toolchain); any format for structured data, including CSV. --SJ+ 22:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    Wouldn't Openoffice stuff be Wikisource more than Commons? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    That depends. ODT should certainly be put on an appropriate text Wikimedia project. I could imagine ODS to be useful, even though I cannot think of an example. ODP could be a source format for some media files in Category:Presentations, and ODG can certainly be useful as an image file format. So unless there are important technical reasons not to, I'd allow ODP and ODG. darkweasel94 13:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    Would this include w:en:Keyhole Markup Language? The file structure is basically an XML file containing list of coordinates. You use it to draw a line or box (like a river, road, or political boundary) over a map. It works with WikiMiniAtlas (see the WMA globe icon at the top right corner of w:en:Des Moines, Iowa to see it in action). Currently, the files are stored at the local wiki. Opening up KML for here would allow them to be used everywhere. –Fredddie 19:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    But if Wikipedias are now, or will in the near future be, hosting kml files redundantly on each Wikipedia, then they should clearly be put either on Wikidata or on Commons. darkweasel94 07:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sj -- Part of why data formats have not been allowed in the past is that Wikimedia Commons is really for media files fixed in a particular concrete visual, audio, or audio-visual realization, while abstract data which could have many realizations doesn't really fit with this. Another way of saying this is that the data format proposal would conflict with Must be a media file... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose allowing Flash. Free Flash implementations do not support all of Flash, but people will take this to mean they can upload any .swf file, even if it doesn't display well in Gnash (isn't developing Gnash even of dubious legality?); I don't think we should start requiring people to use Gnash to participate in or decide deletion discussions (because, obviously, "doesn't play in Gnash" would then be a valid deletion reason). I cannot think of any valid reason to use Flash anyway: for mere animations we have SVG, more complex computer programs are out of scope because they are not media files. Also, would this mean we accept non-modifiable .swf files? That would be directly against our mission; if anything we'd need to accept source files. darkweasel94 18:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

aracters. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


This topic appears to be of lesser interest/priority to the community than some of the others in this review, and I propose that we should close it down now. That will allow us in part 2 of the review to focus our full attention on the most important and/or contentious issues. Please comment at Commons talk:Project scope/Update 2013/Stage 2. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 3[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer.   — C M B J   10:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, all good ideas, but perhaps topics for the help pages rather than policy? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Though a link to those help pages will certainly be useful here. darkweasel94 13:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

aracters. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


This topic appears to be of lesser interest/priority to the community than some of the others in this review, and I propose that we should close it down now. That will allow us in part 2 of the review to focus our full attention on the most important and/or contentious issues. Please comment at Commons talk:Project scope/Update 2013/Stage 2. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)