Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Community Wishlist Survey 2015/Commons/pt

< Community Wishlist Survey 2015
This page is a translated version of the page Community Wishlist Survey 2015/Commons and the translation is 12% complete.
Other languages:

Modelos 3D na Wikimedia Commons

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T3790

It would be nice if Wikimedia develops its infrastructures to be able to host free 3d works, just like what Github and even thepiratebay! did while ago. Image thumbnail of a 3D model can be used on content articles also, just like PDF files and video clips. Wikimedia foundation should keep itself relevant on new ways and new interests of FOSS communities. Fortunately it is currently filed as a bug, phab:T3790 but not progressed much.

--ebrahimtalk 22:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements

Votos

  1. Support Support 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Support Hshook (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support --#Reaper (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support --Isacdaavid (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support including GIS data --YodinT 02:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support So much effort and spending put into video and full window picture zoom (aka media viewer), and yet no serious effort to add 3d model support. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support--Kippelboy (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support —Ynhockey (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support--Shizhao (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support--Geni (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support Storkk (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Support Also it would be nice the upcoming new standard for 3D, glTF would be considered (which uses JSON structure) rather than less standard formats or non-free ones. --ebrahimtalk 11:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support --Aschroet (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Support -- Victorgrigas (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Support --g (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Support Goombiis (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Support -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Support ~ Moheen (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Support --Jarekt (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Support--SucreRouge (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Support -- • • hugarheimur 18:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Support --Coentor (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Support --Marc-André Aßbrock (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Support Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Support --Wesalius (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Support Tuvalkin (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Support --Arxivist (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Support Vätte (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Support Risker (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Support Bhaskaranaidu (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Support Litlok (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Support Natuur12 (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Support  DiscantX 12:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Support --Ilya (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Support, that would be a valuable addition — NickK (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Support--AlessioMela (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Support Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Support Mike Peel (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Support Pbm (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Support Theredmonkey (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC) This is wanted badly! Although we shouldn't treat it just as an tech issue but rather think about how to back this up by community programs. See my short essay from July: Why we are lacking a 3D strategy[reply]
  44. Support Support Makes a lot of sense - SantiLak (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Support with a 3d viewer that directly opens from the article. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 16:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Support J36miles (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Support--Rafaell Russell (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Support Much needed! ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Support - I feel a little odd supporting this without knowing the technical standards and the players involved, but it's certainly worth exploring and I know there's no shortage of people knowledgeable about this already involved — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Support Mpn (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Support I remember seeing a demonstration of this at an event. Overdue. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Support --Dvdgmz (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Support Was going to propose something like this myself. Abyssal (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Support --ESM (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Support --Tgr (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Support --Davidpar (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Support Armbrust (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Support Asav (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Support-Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Support A tool based on text analysis could help suggest wikidata concepts to create/tag with Mattias Östmar (WMSE) (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Support I recently started working a bit with the 3D web language A-Frame. This Javascript library provides a convenient format to specify 3D models. I could include 2D images from Wikimedia Commons into a local file. A-Frame can include Wavefront OBJ and the MTL material files [1]. I have run into the OBJ file format before, so that may be relevant to support. It is a reasonably simple format, though perhaps not memory efficient. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Permitir categorias em Commons em todos os idiomas

Categories in Wikimedia Commons must be only in english, but Commons is a multilingual project and it should allow other languages.

This change would benefit Commons users that doesn't know english or with a poor level, I know many users of wikipedias that have a lot of problems with that, and that problem makes that many users don't use Commons. I think that the problem exists in a lot of wikipedias. Bye,

--Elisardojm (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
@Elisardojm: One potential problem with having localized category names is that different languages may organize topics differently. (See previous discussion at phabricator:T87686.) Any thoughts about how these ontological differences would be resolved? Would we need to set up different category trees for different languages or just base the category scope on the English name and include detailed clarification in the non-English names when necessary? Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan I assume that we are only talking about i18n service. So all the translated category names would show up in user's language. They could be added using user's language, using HatCat and other automatic tools. When adding them to the wikitext description page, non-english category names would be automatically changed to English ones while saving. However the category tree would remain the same in all the languages. Another approach would be to use default translations pulled from wikidata when possible. For example c:category:Warsaw would show up as "Kategoria:Warszawa" to polish users where word "Warszawa" is copied from d:Q270. --Jarekt (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.   Support Bharatiya29 (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support --#Reaper (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Imagine that we have a feature whereby non-English aliases can be added on category pages. For example, if I add [[Category:de/Vereinigten Staaten]] to an image, it puts the image into Category:United States, as long as we've placed {{category translation|de=Vereinigten Staaten|cs=Spojené státy americké|fi=Yhdysvallat|udm=Америкалэн Огазеяськем Штатъёсыз}} somewhere on the page. Just create a system by which this imaginary translation template could work, and the rest should work well. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support --YodinT 02:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support category name translation, either using Translate extension or using Wikidata. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support obvious. Casliber (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support--Shizhao (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support--Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support --Natkeeran (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support --g (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support --Xabier Cañas (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support --Gitartha.bordoloi (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support--Bramfab (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support--Nan (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Goombiis (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support I imagine a kind of layer system, where English would be the main layer and category names in other languages would be added as extra layers. The user can choose to see category names in their prefered language, and if there isn't a translation available, or no prefered language is chosen, they'll see the English category name. (In reality, this may be handled via Wikidata, but possibly with fairly the same effect.) Blue Elf (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support I agree with user Blue Elf's proposal, above. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support ~ Moheen (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support See earlier discussion --Jarekt (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support--46.225.68.244 17:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support No doubt, it must be done. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  24.   Support Strong support. I don't know how this can be accomplished but having categories only in English, really doesn't let non-english speakers to add files to their wikipedias. I edit Greek wikipedia, and I usually get the images of the correspond article in English wikipedia to add to the Greek one. Not so easy to explore commons for a non-english speaker.
  25.   Support --Coentor (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Support Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Support Rhadamante (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28.   Support, per Nyttend. Tuvalkin (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29.   Support--Arxivist (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30.   Support. This would help non-English speaking persons to categorize things as well. Eman235/talk 21:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31.   Support Trizek from FR 22:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32.   Support Definitely. Editors were forced to use Commons for their images, though many details are still available in English. Rdrozd (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33.   Support RoodyAlien (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34.   Support Bhaskaranaidu (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35.   Support Syced (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36.   Support --aokomoriuta (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37.   Support Litlok (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38.   Support Juetho (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39.   Support --Barcelona (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40.   Support, perhaps with Wikidata integration? E.g. if we have c:Category:Vienna on Commons, we should be able to automatically link all interwikis from en:Vienna with this category — NickK (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41.   Support --Renessaince (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43.   Neutral Depends on the details, how this would be done. The fact that users can create modules and fetch category names in other languages from wikidata probably makes this issue less of an priority than other issues.--Snaevar (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44.   Support and comment: If there were to be multilingual category names on Commons, these should be as closely integrated with Wikidata as possible, to avoid duplicating translation work. Ham II (sgwrs / talk) 18:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45.   Support with the same multilingual system used by Wikidata. --AlessioMela (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46.   Support HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47.   Support Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48.   Support Gap9551 (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49.   Support Rzuwig► 08:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50.   Support Pbm (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51.   Support - SantiLak (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52.   Support. We already have Wikidata, we already have great translation engines (hell, this page is available in so many languages), why not put them to good use. The same category could have more than one name, depending on the language set by the user. Halibutt (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53.   Support --Yeza (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54.   Support--Rafaell Russell (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55.   Support - ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56.   Support — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57.   Support as long as they aren't actual separate categories, but just aliases of the same category (which would show up depennding on user interface language). We already have a hugely messy system with the translated "Help" namespaces... --Waldir (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58.   Support Mpn (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59.   Support especially support what Ham II said earlier. --Joris Egger (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. {{o}} I never find pictures in categories written in Japanese, Arabic, Russian, ... Alan (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Remove my vote after explanation by Elisardojm Alan (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60.   Support--KRLS (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61.   Support petrohs (gracias) 00:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  62.   Support Euskaldunaa   (talk) - 02:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  63.   Support Matiia (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64.   Support --Oriciu (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  65.   Support --Panotxa (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  66.   Support --Beusson (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  67.   Support--Medol (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68.   Support--Lohen11 (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  69.   Support--Chamarasca (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  70.   Support -Theklan (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  71.   Support --Willtron (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  72.   Support --Zuiarra (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  73.   Support - Bcharles (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  74.   Comment - I think that container categories ("Festivals in Spain", "British painters") should have translations, but the original name should be in English. Instance categories ("2015 Rugby World Cup", "2015 Tour de France") should remain as they are, which sometimes are not in English. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  75.   Support - a system where people can add categories and search files in their language (and where this inputs match with other languages) is necessary. --Dvdgmz (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  76.   Support - this is really necessary. --Erne る Mogilevich (ノート • 投稿記録) 00:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  77.   Support → «« Man77 »» [de] 17:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  78.   Support --Tgr (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  79.   Support Obvious thing, so far internationalization of Commons is very weak. However, I think that in the end game Commons should be merged with Wikidata to solve such problems like categories or article names switched between languages.
  80.   Support --Davidpar (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  81.   Support Bidgee (Talk) 01:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow tabular datasets on Commons (or some similar central repository)

It would be good to have somewhere central that tabular datasets could be uploaded to -- eg the data to be plotted by the graphs extension.

The data should be uploadable and exportable in a variety of standard formats -- eg CSV, TSV, JSON, XML -- and stored in a format-neutral way.

Wikidata is great for single values, or values to be scattered across multiple items, but it's not so good for data in a systematic 1-dimensional or 2-dimensional form.

Jheald (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements

Votes

  1.   Comment I do think we need something for this, but I think this proposal still need a lot of thought and wide exposure. Tabular data from original sources (chemical tables for example) should go to Wikisource. But if we want to make it easily discoverable we need some kind of connection to Wikidata. Possibly a new datatype. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Tabular data in Wikisource would not be systematically extractable. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Hshook (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose. The Wikidata developers would be the ideal team to implement this, given that tabular data would be better suited to Wikidata and the developers' more specific technological knowledge. As such, this should not be a Community Tech project. MER-C (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose Adding support to Wikidata is IMO desirable, but not a high priority. Wikidata quality is its biggest weakness now, and adding tabular data will only mean more (and duplicated) low quality data added by the many poorly written Wikidata bots and people who contribute to Wikidata as if they are bots. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Do not make it unnecessarily complicated. Just allow to upload .csv and similar files which are used elsewhere. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Oppose --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support allowing uploads of KML, XML, CSV and other files we might not be able to display. We would have to decide what to do if someone calls [[File:foo.csv|test]] from wikipedia. I would propose to do nothing. It would be nice to be able to be able to compare changes between different versions of the same file, the way we do with other text. --Jarekt (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Neutral: I see a need for this, but do not believe that Commons is the correct place to host these files. Maybe Wikidata or Wikisource? Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support Thémistocle (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Neutral I think wikidata is the place for this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Comment This has been discussed many times in the archives of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:File_types and elsewhere on Commons. As currently set up, Commons is basically for media files that have a fixed visual, audio, or audio-visual form, but not really for abstract data that could be processed or visualized in many different ways. AnonMoos (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Copyvio tools for Commons

Copyright on Commons is a topic that is at times, subject to abuse. Some images are left for long periods of time because people are afraid to tag them, and other times images are subject to the copyright whims of admins. It would be helpful if there were tools to both help detect possible violations (there are perhaps databases we can match things up against?) and a better method for screening images once detected.

Earlier discussion and endorsements
I wondering if using google image search at the time of upload would be useful for creating an autodetection method? We would also need to build a whitelist to reduce false positives. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorsed I agree. I think a good first step would be use perceptual hashing to see if a similar image was previously deleted. I imagine lots of copyvios are uploaded again and again. Bawolff (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a Phabricator task for this request. I think it would be useful to have one, if someone wants to create it (#Possible-Tech-Projects?).--Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed We could add new filters to c:Special:NewFiles tool so Commons users can browse for new uploads that are:
  • from new users (we already have newbie-upload tool),
  • from users with a lot of recent deletions,
  • do not have EXIF data,
  • are small,
  • known to google image search,
  • were deleted before
  • do or do not claim {{own}} ("own work")
  • do or do not use c:template:Custom license
etc. All those factors increase a chance that an image is a Copyvio and it would be nice if we could add and remove those filters in any combination. --Jarekt (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.   Support Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Ldorfman (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support - be even better if it notified the uploader on the Global account home wiki as well Gnangarra (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support --Isacdaavid (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support. –Davey2010Talk 02:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support John Vandenberg (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support Casliber (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support--Shizhao (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Strong support --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support --Arnd (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support Natuur12 (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support Goombiis (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Blue Elf (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support ~ Moheen (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support --SucreRouge (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support --Wesalius (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support with the details I outlined in "Earlier discussion and endorsements" section above. --Jarekt (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support Tuvalkin (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support Vätte (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support Matiia (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support Bhaskaranaidu (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support Masur (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Support, automated copyvio detection would be helpful, as we have hunderds of thousands of files that were never subject to any human review. This must be intelligent however as many images from Commons are used on external websites as well — NickK (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28.   Support – Ham II (sgwrs / talk) 19:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29.   Support - Wojciech Pędzich Talk 20:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30.   Support Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31.   Support SteveStrummer (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32.   Support SantiLak (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33.   Support--Rafaell Russell (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34.   Support - ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35.   Support --Gunnex (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36.   Support Would help thin the huge backlog of potentially deletable images on Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37.   Support Yes please. THis is so long overdue. Josve05a (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38.   Support -- AshLin (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39.   Support Armbrust (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dark archive

Everyday thousands of pictures get deleted from Commons because they are not public domain yet (any picture of recent architecture in France, for instance). Most of these pictures are probably lost forever, as the contributors are unlikely to store them safely and try again 30 years later.

Instead of deleting them, these pictures should be put in a "dark archive" with a reconsideration date. Picture of the dark archive can not be seen by anyone (except probably a few trusted Wikimedia employees), only metadata can be seen (description, categories, copyright status, reconsideration date, file size), some of this metadata can be edited. In some cases a low-quality thumbnail might be legal.

Syced (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
To my knowledge, all images that are deleted are recoverable by administrator, including the description page that are previously there. Kenrick95 (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, however, there is no way of searching deleted images. I suppose that is the problem that is wanting to be solved here. This, that and the other (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What admins can delete, they can undelete, see e.g. c:Category:Undelete in 2016. There's nothing that needs to be done here. MER-C (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed There is a user-based system, see for example commons:Category:Licensing-related deletion requests. But it has unclear structure, and is not always implemented. The point is to categorize all Commons deletion templates, with an automated restore function, ex. this image should be automatically restored on 1st January 2024, etc. --Piotrus (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed. Sound idea. --Jfblanc (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed Bright idea! Lots of files are capable to be undeleted after a reasonable amount of time e.g. 10 years from now on. I'm sure Wikipedia will still be alive 10 years later! 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed This would be ingenious. Had that idea, too. Probably simply mark the deletion page with an template? (+categories etc.) Automatic undeletion could result in a problem, because law could and would change in decades. --#Reaper (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed Actually it would be nice if instead of deletion, the thumbnail goes down to something tiny and almost unreadable. This would make it so much easier for editors to track their own undeletions! I have seen so many licensing situations where the original file was deleted without an undeletion date and the user just uploaded a new image a few years later. If there were more eyes than just the admins this would not happen. I think we have lots of double uploads because of this in art-related categories year-over-year. --Jane023 (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.   Support 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Comment Seems pointless to me, admins can already see deleted images. Jenks24 (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Hshook (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support --MGChecker (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support --#Reaper (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Voll (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support as a priority given various treaties in final stages that will force some mass deletions Gnangarra (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support --Isacdaavid (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support --YodinT 02:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support. –Davey2010Talk 02:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support John Vandenberg (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support Casliber (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support--Kippelboy (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support —Ynhockey (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Erik Zachte (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support --Arnd (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support--KRLS (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support--Bramfab (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support Sadads (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support Papuass (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support Goombiis (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Support --AgrisR (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Comment I like the idea, but it does seem to open the door for potentially serious copyright issues. I don' know about the actual legality of a "dark archive", but some content-creators may not like the idea of their files being reproduced anywhere, in any form. It would have to be handled very carefully.
    Even after deletion, files are never actually totally removed, if I understand correctly. So legally it would not be different from the current situation. Syced (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. The way I'm reading this proposal is to separate the deletion of a file from the deletion of the image description page. Would that be correct?   Oppose anything more than this due to copyvio concerns. MER-C (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the description page would still be there, but at the place where the image usually is you would see "this image will become public domain in 3 years" or similar. Syced (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Neutral to splitting deletion of files and their description pages.   Oppose the second half of your comment, because you can do that already on the metadata page with templates. MER-C (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29.   Support --Coentor (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30.   Support, strongest possible. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31.   Support --Wesalius (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32.   Support Tuvalkin (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33.   Support Artem.komisarenko (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34.   Neutral I do not understand it well but it sounds like the proposal is making metadata of deleted files available to non-admin users. The treatment of the files themselves sounds like would be similar to as it is now ("Picture of the dark archive can not be seen by anyone (except probably a few trusted Wikimedia employees)" sounds like current state there it is visible to admins). I support the idea of better visibility to metadata of some deleted files, as it might help with future undeletions. It could also help with attribution to edits of images transferred from wikipedia to Commons. Now the local files are deleted and not accessible, so you can not look up editors of the file before the transfer. I also think that it might be good to change deletion tools to more easily tag images that could be undeleted in the future. I do not think we should allow changes of the metadata other than categorization in "Dark archive" categories. I do not think we should allow thumbnails. --Jarekt (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35.   Support--Arxivist (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36.   Support-- Akela (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37.   Support Trizek from FR 22:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38.   Support Rdrozd (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39.   Support We've lost many good images due to copyright paranoia, some of them totally unjustifiable: mere "suspicion of copyright", for instance, is enough to delete without any supporting evidence whatever. This will ensure they can be restored and reconsidered with much greater ease if their status changes, either in the U.S. or the home country. --Katangais (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40.   Support --Rosiestep (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41.   Support Syced (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42.   Support Alkamid (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43.   Support Litlok (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44.   Oppose per Jarekt. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45.   Support Masur (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46.   Support --Ilya (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47.   Comment Seems pointless as deleted files already match this description. Improve (automatise) handling of "Undelete in 20xx" instead — NickK (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49.   Oppose "Undelete in x " categories on commons, like c:Category:Undelete in 2016, are enough for me. Also this proposal has issues with foundation:Licensing policy.--Snaevar (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50.   Neutral A good idea but potentially has problems. Might be more effective and easier to investigate (semi-)automatic undeletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51.   Support Mike Peel (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52.   Support a fair use archive would be useful and avoid image deletion thrashing. Slowking4 (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53.   Support - tucoxn\talk 14:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54.   Support SantiLak (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55.   Support already supported in the start-up phase, so not sure if this is a double vote --Jane023 (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56.   Support, but not only for Commons. This would be useful for all Wikipedias. Also consider that deleting and restoring is in the scope of admins, so the archive should be visible for them. Bináris tell me 18:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57.   Support Goldzahn (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58.   Neutral A great idea but the Foundation could potentially have licensing problems storing copyrighted images. ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59.   Support Surely we can do better than categories to undelete in 115 years... Courcelles 08:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60.   Neutral The (semi?-) automated undeletion approach is worth investigating further. - Pointillist (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61.   Support --Edgars2007 (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  62.   Neutral I support investigation into this issue, but I'm not convinced the specific suggestion identified is the best option. At a minimum we need input from legal to make sure that we are not in violation of copyright laws whichever option we choose.--Sphilbrick (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  63.   Support --ESM (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64.   It is doubtful .... Like several others have mentioned, I would seriously want bulletproof legal advice on this subject. If we implement this, pretty soon there will be people uploading *all* photos from everywhere on the internet, knowingly violating copyright by distributing material they don't have the rights to distribute, with the goal of helping flesh out Wikipedia's newfangled Dark Archive. "Hey, this front-page NYT photo is copyrighted, but I'll upload it to wikipedia anyways, since with luck it will slip past the copyvio sentinels and if not, it will be available for my grandkids in 70 years." In some ways that sounds good: who wants to deprive the grandkids of the photo, right? But in most ways it sounds like a legal minefield. NYT headline a couple years later: "Wikipedia loses court battle, judge rules they incited copyright violation on a massive scale." Not good. Imagine if we had a dark-archive of en:WP:BLP violations, where every attack page that was uploaded, was available forever? Uh... hmmm... we do have that, actually. But we don't encourage it, and indeed, we go to special lengths to oversight the worst of it. Partly for legal reasons, but mostly because it is The Right Thing To Do. Is it the right thing to do, to create a Dark Archive of photos? Maybe, but it makes me more than a bit uneasy. Suggest we look before we leap into this proposal. 75.108.94.227 17:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean. Perhaps a "solution" could be, that it's only allowed to upload self created content which couldn't be published on WP yet. But this would limit the howl dark archive to photos of buildings/streets where currently no freedom of panorama is available and photos of newer art (including games and similar). Or maybe we should let decide the community (or an dedicated group of them, due to law) for each upload (or mass upload) individually. Maybe. --#Reaper (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Support KML files in Commons

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T28059

KML files are used in en.wikipedia to display route maps (eg roads, train lines, and other linear features) via w:en:Template:Attached KML (see d:Q6690822 for the equivilent on other wikis). Currently this is achieved by storing the KML files as text in subpages of the template (transclusion count for en.wikipedia), which is sub-optimal for multiple reasons:

  1. There is no associated {{information}} template, for description, author, date, licence, information source, etc.
  2. The licence is restricted to the standard licence for a wikitext page, rather than being able to choose a different licence such as CC0 or CC-BY
  3. Categorisation is difficult, as including [[Category: ]] links at the end of the page breaks the KML file.
  4. The KML files serve only one wiki – they cannot be shared with other wikis, nor associated with the relevant Wikidata item.

Being able to upload KML files to Commons would fix these issues; Commons has previously been suggested as the better place for the files (see w:en:Template talk:Attached KML). See also technical discussion at phab:T28059 "Add support for KML/KMZ filetype".

- Evad37 (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
I wonder whether mw:Extension:Graph/Demo has the same problem with only being available on each wiki individually. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting thought. I search in phab:tag/graph/ and mw:Requests_for_comment/Graph but could not find any mention to Graph + Commons. Should be create a task to start the discussion?--Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yurik talked about it briefly during his tech talk (in the form of interwiki transclusion). Interwiki transclusion is kind of a big thing. Allowing vega json files to be uploaded to commons would be a simpler approach but has its own pros/cons. Bawolff (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Attached KML" scheme as it stands presents puzzles to unlucky readers of articles offering them. If the "KML file" option is clicked on, no actual .kml file results, instead a file index.php is presented for download. Such a file type is simply ignored by Google Earth, unless it is renamed to index.kml for example. Via Firefox's interface, there is no option to rename this file before downloading. Further, windows systems are often set to not show the file's "type" (and installation policy choices may prevent a user changing that setting), so users of IE8 (which does offer a file rename if the file is to be saved) may still be stuck. As .kmz files are much more compact, the same convenience would apply. Some browser/server exchanges can agree to engage in file compression, but having the source file definitely compressed would be more direct. NickyMcLean (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add some numbers, the Attched KML templates across the various language versions of wikipedia have over 9800 transclusions combined, the largest of which are en.wikipedia (8341 transclusions, and template-protected as a high-risk template) and cs.wikipedia (1062 transclusions). - Evad37 (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T57549
See also phab:T57549 for a possible alternative approach using wikidata - Evad37 (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T92963

Votes

  1.   Support --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Hshook (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support I like this idea but there will be bugs to work out. KML files are more sweat-of-the-brow and less original work than Commons files generally are; it may be necessary to restrict them to a single license type to avoid issues. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Gnangarra (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support John Vandenberg (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support --Arnd (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support - Romaine (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support Goombiis (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support --Wesalius (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support --Usien6 (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Tuvalkin (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support KML not KMZ since KMZ could have zipped in files which might be hard to see. --Jarekt (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Alkamid (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support Imzadi 1979 → 14:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support --AlessioMela (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support Mule hollandaise (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support SantiLak (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support --Rschen7754 00:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support - ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support Courcelles 08:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support We're using these more and more; they should be kept at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Support --Sphilbrick (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Support --Tgr (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28.   Support Armbrust (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2015/Commons/pt&oldid=27477059"