Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Multimedia and Commons

Multimedia and Commons
29 proposals, 312 contributors

Improve support of interwiki links on Commons using Wikidata

  • Problem: While interwiki links on Wikipedias are now all handled by Wikidata, Wikidata's support for Commons interwiki links is far more patchy. Wikidata does support Commons interwiki links by a link in "other sites", however it also has commons category and gallery properties and these aren't kept in sync. In addition, Commons only allows one link to Commons, and conflicts can happen about whether this is to a gallery or a category. There are also a lot of manual interwiki links scattered across Commons that have not yet been migrated to Wikidata.
  • Who would benefit: Users and editors of Commons that want to find/use interwiki links
  • Proposed solution: Make more consistent use of Commons sitelinks by bot edits that keep the Wikidata property and site links synchronised. Finish migrating interwiki links on Commons to Wikidata via a bot. Support multiple links to Commons galleries and categories.
  • More comments: There have been some discussions on Wikidata about this, e.g. see [1], however there has been no pathway to implementing this so far.
  • Phabricator tickets:


Seems similar/the same as Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Wikidata/Stop using string datatype for linking to pages on other projects, which I had some bitching about. (Mostly, it's a community problem IMO.) --Izno (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


  •   Support This has made things a huge mess on Wikidata. Rschen7754 01:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It would be of great help if this is improved. Most of the time, Commons categories link to Wikipedia articles; in some cases, it is helpful to link them to Wikipedia categories; and in a few occasions, it is helpful to connect them to both. As it is now, it's a mess indeed, I merrily support any effort to improve this. - Darwin Ahoy! 16:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support (as proposer) Mike Peel (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 18:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Laboramus (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Gripweed (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Chico Venancio (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thomas Obermair 4 (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Hedwig in Washington (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Libcub (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, there was recently a proposal for this in the Project Chat that only had support votes, unfortunately it got archived without any solutions being implemented. Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 10:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ruthven (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Meisam (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Giovanni Alfredo Garciliano Diaz (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Supportputnik 01:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my comments on the exact same proposal that I linked in the discussion. This is a community problem, not a comm tech problem. --Izno (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in the current form. Most interwiki links are Commons categories linked to wikidata articles. We can add it, but if someone creates gallery page then that page might be given the sitelinks and galery will be left with none. I would support if we allow storing sitelinks to multiple namespaces on a single project. --Jarekt (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--L736Etell me 08:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It would be useful to be able to have several types of links to Commons in Wikidata Lionel Allorge (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Dromedar61 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ~Cybularny Speak? 12:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Tom Ja (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Emw (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yeza (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support B25es (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Joalpe (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Trim webm videos on site

  • Problem: editing a video now requires you to download the video, find a video editor that supports ogg/webm and upload them again. YouTube videos often have an outro that is distracting when there aren't other YouTube videos linked. Sometimes a video is an assembly of segments, like the short segments in RN7 news (File:RN7 Kort 7 November 2017.webm). Sometimes a part of a video's copyright status is in doubt, like c:File:Zondag met Lubach houdt de wereld voor de gek.webm, which was published under a free license by VARA but features a trailer produced by VPRO.
  • Who would benefit: Wikimedia contributors that work with
  • Proposed solution: A tool like CropTool that lets you edit a file without having to leave the project.
  • More comments:would be extra great if relevant subtitle files would also be trimmed and re-upload.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Vera (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


  • I was going to propose this but Vera beat me to it! 100% support Victorgrigas (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • We don't even have a decent video player yet, let alone an editor... P.S. anyone suggesting spending time on the player. ? I've reached my quotum for the survey. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not proposing an fully fledged video editor, I'm proposing a tool that lets you shorten a video by trimming off the beginning or end. Vera (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


Advanced filters for global usage on Commons

  • Problem: When you want to see a specific usage of a file on some project(s)/language(s) from Global Usage feature on Commons you have to scroll all the other projects and languages and their usages.
  • Who would benefit: e.g. users looking for usage on all projects in some specific language
  • Proposed solution: The list should be either collapsible or get some filters.
  • More comments: See for example the usage list for c:File:United Kingdom location map.svg.


How is that a problem? You have to switch pages all the time. Just open another tab in your browser. --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Problem: You have a svg-file in a different language and want to use it, but you don't know how to edit SVG-Files (You can't handle SourceCode, Inkscape has to be installed,...).
  • Who would benefit: User who adds Images to articles, but are not familiar with SVG-editing



Write geographical data into image files

  • Problem: Images files can store location data as meta data inside the file. As of today image files do not provide this data. For a lot of files location data are available on commons. But they are stored separately on the description page.
  • Who would benefit: Users of Wikimedia Commons files who are interested in location data for images.
  • Proposed solution: Write location data from description page into meta data of the image file.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:


I am concerned that the geographical data is not always accurate. If geographical data is included in the file, future users of the file will think that the data in the file overrides any geographical data in the description. Downtowngal (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sebastian Wallroth: Could you describe more specifically what problem this is intended to solve? Why only include the geographical data? Why not include all the metadata? Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Ryan Kaldari (WMF): I am in the one-wish-at-a-time mode. I want to have the ability to write all metadata into the file. License, author, location data, file source, tags. This would solve the problem that files found in the wild do not contain the information for people who wish to re-use the files. --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • There are several kinds of "location data". For photographs, there is the position (and orientation of) the camera and there is the position of (if relevant) the subject of the photo. Usually the location embedded in a photo is the former and if not present, it is often very hard for someone other than the photographer to determine accurately. I am concerned, for example, that someone sets the location description of a bunch of photos of the London Eye and this is embedded into the photos, when in fact the photos were all taken from different places, some looking at and some on the London Eye. Btw, if the JPG already contains GPS location when uploaded, the image description page is taken from that. There is other meta data that one could add from the file back to the image, not just GPS. However doing this increases the risk of damaging files when users make careless or disruptive edits to pages on Commons. So I don't think this is such a commonly needed feature that it is worth the risk that someone uses VFC to insert vandalism into JPGs or worse, to "out" a user's location into their JPGs. -- Colin (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


Write license data into meta data of image files

  • Problem: Images files can store license data as meta data inside the file. As of today image files do not provide this data. For nearly all files on Wikimedia Commons license data are available on commons. But they are stored separately on the description page.
  • Who would benefit: Users of Wikimedia Commons files who want to use the file and need the license information but cannot find the corresponding Wikimedia Commons file page.
  • Proposed solution: Write license data from description page into meta data of the image file.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:


I'm surprised nobody has requested this before. It sounds like a great idea. Is there some reason this has not been done yet? Downtowngal (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not the first time I've heard this proposal. I would like to limit the scope to only the thumbnails. Original files shouldn't be touched. That would have all sorts of nasty side effects (duplicate detection broken to name one). Multichill (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

See also phab:T5361 and phab:T20871. Jean-Fred (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The common concern about this is file size overhead for small thumbnails. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


  •   Support Jcornelius (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HHill (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support TMg 16:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This may need to add the project name and even an ID for verification. YFdyh000 (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yiyi (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Greg (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Gripweed (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thomas Obermair 4 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Shizhao (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 11:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Venca24 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Patar knightchat/contributions 20:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 22:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --g (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daylen (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Dromedar61 (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sahaquiel9102 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose I see a lot of problems for bot maintainers and mass uploaders. By writing the license into the image, the file content would be changed which causes a different SHA-1 checksum of the file. This checksum is needed in lots of automatic upload processes to check if this file already exists on commons. If the file was altered this check would not be possible anymore. As a consequence this would cause a lot of redundant uploads. -- Freddy2001 talk 21:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ckoerner (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Talmoryair (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Emw (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HugoHelp (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as proposed. I'm concerned that new editors who don't understand our licensing requirements will unintentionally be embedding wrong license information into the image. This could dramatically undermine our abilities to determine the true source and license of the image. Also, one of the classic ways to begin to see a problem with an upload is whether there is metadata or not. If there isn't, chances are it hasn't come from the editor's camera, and thus any self release licenses are likely invalid. I also share Freddy2001's concerns. This should not be implemented. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think, the license info should be added before the image is uploaded to Commons. Snek01 (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Acamicamacaraca (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Nicor (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Psychoslave (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support TitiNicola (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Martin Kraft (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Textual diffs for SVGs

  • Problem: Comparing different media versions is often difficult as the changes may not be noticeable. This stands for SVGs as well as other media formats; however, as SVG is a textual file format, its changes can be shown as textual diffs.
  • Who would benefit: Advanced users who understand the SVG source code.
  • Proposed solution: Use the existing diff used for wikitext changes also for SVG (and any other textual file format), provide a diff link in the first column of the file history like (current | diff) / (restore | diff).
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


Example SVG file used on 7.7M pages, which has 8 versions. When 9-th version is uploded it would be nice to compare source-codes to see what changed. --Jarekt (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example of an SVG file (on Wikimedia Commons etc) which got updated and when being able to view such a diff would have been helpful? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It came into my mind just after the previous year’s survey, I don’t remember specific image which I had in my mind ten months ago… But maps like Kosovo relations.svg are good examples: this file’s changes are mainly properly noted (except if the change wasn’t the one stated in the upload comment), but some versions don’t have comment while they—I suppose—are mainly consist of toggling CSS classes, so it’s easily understandable from the textual diff. Also, textual files can be changed in such a way that they are really the same pixel by pixel, but the source code is different (from changing a comment to a major cleanup). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a very limited and specific use case, that could easily be addressed with a gadget, that uses an online diff service or something to compare two files, without forcing an extra useless button upon people who won't need it. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

At least the backend should be done—why would I need to use a third-party service when we have a working diff system? Also, MediaWiki already has many links which I should call bloatware at more visible places like the “beta” link in the personal toolbar (one can easily get there from the preferences; or why don’t we have separate links for all preferences tabs?). OK, make it opt-in, but do it in PHP—it’s not easier to do client side than the sandbox link, which is not even opt-out. Please do not mark it as nonsense or useless ab ovo, just vote against it in the voting phase. It may turn out than that nobody else would need this feature. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd think a state-of-the-art visual compare tool would address a wider audience, although it wouldn't be completely equivalent. It would be more intuitive for non-nerds and it's often more important to get help spotting inconspicuous visual changes than calling attention to some purely technical rearrangement of internal data structures. I'm picturing something that shows two images on top of each other and a visibility seam between that you can grab and slide around like here, and maybe some compensation mechanism to disregard if content was just shifted around on the page.--Reseletti (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a visual diff might be more important. It’s also better because it can work for all image types (but still not for other media types: videos, sound and multipage documents like PDF and DjVu). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
This makes sense for PNGs and GIFs because they are losslessly compressed, but JPEG quantization has real potential to make visual diffs a dog's breakfast. MER-C (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The above example works also for JPEG, as it doesn’t compare the images by itself, rather makes the user easier to do so. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Reseletti, Tacsipacsi, MER-C If you are enthusiastic about an option like that, please make sure to submit it as a SEPARATE proposal. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Expanding on this: general SVG uploading via text would be very good to have too. It is a format that should and could be changed very easily, but currently we are stuck with a system that doesn’t serve its needs well enough despite it gaining traction for the usage in all kinds of graphics. stjn[ru] 21:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For years I was struck by how strange it is when people are trying to improve existing SVG files by tweaking their source-code and we have no good way of comparing before and after versions. --Jarekt (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


Flickr-like uploader

  • Problem: Although there are various uploaders available: Upload Wizzard, Commonist, Vicuna, Pattypan... what we are missing is an uploader that will have the basic functionalities of Flickr. What does that mean? A simple workflow: 1) Choose files from a folder, 2) see thumbnails in the uploading tools, add filenames, categories and descriptions (everything else can be added automatically, like usernames or licence). Put it in the browser and make it as simple as possible for people to use. The uploading is happening DURING description of the files so that time delays are minimized.
  • Who would benefit: Commons newbies, users that are not familiar with wikicode and those who can be easily distracted by complicated uploaders. People who want to do things simply.
  • Proposed solution: Description of the proposed tool according to the principles used by the Flickr browser-based uploader tool and then writing the tool.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Aktron (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


  • Basically sounds like making some improvements to Upload Wizard. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It't the kind of "improvement" that might end up rewriting the whole thing :)--Strainu (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


Allow video uploading from mobile

  • Problem: Currently there's not a straightforward way of uploading video to Commons from a mobile phone, and we must rely on other tools to convert it to webm or ogv. This makes video uploading very far from user friendly.
  • Who would benefit: Video creators, Commons users and, lastly, Wikipedia readers, who could find more relevant videos on articles.
  • Proposed solution: Maybe merging the video2commons system into file uploading.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:



Variable size of Commons categories

  • Problem: Currently there is a strict restriction of 200 images per page of a commons category. For working, especially for housekeeping, but also for worling on articles etc. it would be very helpfull, if users could change the limitation of images.
  • Who would benefit: Every user who works a lot on Commons. Scrolling through 200 image pages of very large categories is time consuming and unnerving. In both cases, maintenance and looking for images.
  • Proposed solution: There are in my eyes two possibilities for logged in users: 1st is a mask, where users can free write the number of images they would like to see on one Category page. So I could say, I want to see 40, 50, 100, 120, 200, 250, 500, 788 or 1000 images in one page. Or, 2nd possibility: Commons set some standard numbers as button f.e. 50, 100, 250,, 500, 1000. Best would be in my eyes a combination of both.
  • More comments:


  • This is basically phab:T13281. Anomie (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    I made this request already two times - but it's still an ongoing request. For my work this is so much needed and deserved. And to wait until maybe sometimes somebody came, is hopefully not the way, that is needed to go. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Since this is a wishlist: Infinite scroll would be cool, too :-) -- Christallkeks (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


Support 360 photo viewing

  • Problem: As last year: 360 and panorama photos is a mainstream media type. Articles & MediaViewer do not support it unless we direct users to toolsforge.
  • Who would benefit: readers and editors of wikis/Wikipedia technical articles, architecture and nature related articles would benefit. Also a good way to view panorama photos on mobile devices, where panoramas otherwise are real small
  • Proposed solution: Add support for Mediawiki to record the perspective of an image, either by reading the exif information, or by using a magic word. Add support in the front end to use panellum (example category).
  • More comments: Proposed in the 2016 survey by Ahm masum, ranking at #15 overall with 58 support votes.


  • this request is pretty urgent, not only because of the mainstream panorama movement, but also because environments can be seen and appreciated much better when viewed in 180° or 360°. a current example is the educational VR documentary about chernobyl. in the app you are in the abandoned buildings, you see the dimensions exactly. all the abstract art of photography with its selective angle and focus is trivialized by surround photography. it tells the truth. excellent for an encyclopedia. [from what i heard, wiki loves monuments has something like that in the pipeline.] Maximilian Schönherr (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I support it. This type of media are more popular for new generation, which we need to hit also. More over it helps to study some object.--Juandev (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • anyone care to adopt this proposal ? I have too many, so I need to drop this one. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 22:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    I'll adopt :) — MusikAnimal talk 17:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    Handing this off to Ahm masum who made the same proposal last year. I've removed my signature from the "Proposer" line. Ahm masum: all you need to do is sign. Best — MusikAnimal talk 20:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Considero que es un formato cada vez mas utilizado, un gran modo de documentar, y tiene mucho mas llegada en su formato de visualización esférica que desplegada. TitiNicola (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • see also: ↂ Turn Stereoskopie into a MediaWiki Extension ⇄ --𝔊 (Gradzeichen DiſkTalk) 10:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • wondering what kind of projection the 360° tool above needs. it seems to swallow all kinds of images, but for example this one is not displayed properly. Maximilian Schönherr (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comply with TheDJ. Marzipano is a FREE licensed (apache 2.0) 360° media viewer for the modern web.We can Add support in the front end to use marzipano. And we know, Most 360 cameras and panorama-generation tools include "Photo Sphere metadata" when it save the photo. Personally I think, "Reading the exif information" would be appropriate for wiki environment. We can Add support for Mediawiki to record the perspective of an image. By hosting a "Exif Editor" at "WMCS" similar to "" (also free (GPL 1+ Artistic License)). To make upload process easy ,the upload wizard should have Exif metadata "tag detection" (the way Facebook do). -- Ahm masum (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Nice but not a priority right now. This is a project one can do when all other important tasks are done. I don't see the need to rush this now, there aren't many people that have good panoramic cameras AND are able to use them AND license their work freely. Why cater to a small fraction of potential users? --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually you don't need a panoramic camera, though a panoramic tripod head is required for indoor 360. We have several featured pictures on Commons in 360 and enabling wiki support for this will definitely encourage more. It is a great way to experience the interior of a building. -- Colin (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I support it because it will show much better when viewed in 180° or 360°. Mohammed Galib Hasan (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea! I support it. -Hasivetalk • 11:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a note to whoever will be working on this, there now is a property on Wikidata for photosphere images. Ainali (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


Use native audio/video player

  • Problem: Current audio/video player is very outdated, additionally the audio player is designed for video playback only. It looks horrible on modern high resolution displays. The player also includes an advert of "KALTURA".
  • Who would benefit: Readers (user experience) and editors (having better looking and more functional pages) alike.
  • Proposed solution: Use native HTML 5 <audio>/<video> controls.
  • More comments: roughly 5% of users' browsers don't support native audio/video[2][3]. We can serve them the old player, or - in the worst case - we can sacrifice being able to play audio/video for them for the sake of vastly improved experience for the rest 95%.
  • Phabricator tickets:


Issue since at least 2010:

Geni (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The presence of Kaltura ads looks like a very serious issue, but it can be solved easily on the short-term via local Common.css (as en.wp has already done), and on the longer-term, it looks like the Kaltura player is planned to be replaced by Video.js: phab:T100106. --Yair rand (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Borys Kozielski:, I've merged my proposal here because the current player is the same for both audio and video, so it will have to be worked on at the same time. Hope you don't mind. Max Semenik (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

From the merged in proposal:

I don’t know what HTML5 is capable of, but a link to the file description page is needed for copyright reasons, subtitles have no point if they can’t be used, and the quality selection is also useful. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tacsipacsi:, definitely. The native controls will have to be augmented with copyright information etc and that would still look and feel a billion times better than now. Max Semenik (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I’d like to have a definite “yes” from someone before we start to vote for it, though. Or modify the proposal to use native HTML5 player if it’s feasible, otherwise fork the Firefox/Chrome player (which?). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Native HTML5 does support subtitles. --Tgr (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
And the other two (attribution link and manual quality selection)? —Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Sounds reasonable for video files, but for audio files, I'd still prefer some kind of waveform/spectrogram visualization thingy like does it, at least for the file description pages (phab:T103527). --El Grafo (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


Fix problems that FlaggedRevs wikis have with Commons

  • Problem: The common problem for all Wikimedia wikis that currently use FlaggedRevs extension (there are currently 45 of them) is that almost every change at Commons at any scope (even a page edit) brings more work to reviewers across the projects that use files from Commons: Холодный Яр − the page after an edit at Commons immediately deems itself unstable and the only way to fix this is to waste time of editors by rereviewing it again manually. It is because FlaggedRevs does, justly, think that any transclusion that is not in a reviewable namespace makes a page unstable, but it is not right to neglect the fact that images from Commons are currently used in thousands upon thousands of pages in 45 Wikimedia projects. Given that this problem persists almost for 10 years in some cases, I propose that we should find a solution already that would satisfy both wikis with and without FlaggedRevs extension enabled.
  • Who would benefit: Reviewers and readers at wikis that have FlaggedRevs extension enabled
  • Proposed solution: Fix the problem of cross-wiki transclusion or enable FlaggedRevs at Commons for all users, if the latter would help (the solution can be technical and all edits can be reviewed automatically for all users).
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: stjn[ru] 11:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)