Problem: Currently we can see our uploaded files as a list. Sometimes for searching a some file the mouse overheats from page scrolling. I think it would be a better solution to create the last uploaded files in the form of a gallery.
Who would benefit: All users.
Proposed solution: Create the last uploaded files in the form of a gallery
This would be more useful as a category, so that all images of a user would ba accessible to Cat-a-lot. This would e.g. be helpful when new users throw too many images in too many categories. So why not just a hidden category for every user? With the sorting feature requested before one could order them by upload date. Watchduck (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Watchduck; In this proposal, I am more concerned with the clarity of the "Uploads" page. The solution proposed by you is good, but I would consider it as a separate proposition. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overwritten images would probably be too much of a blind spot of the category approach, so I retract that. But it would be great to have Cat-a-lot support on the uploads page. Watchduck (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only Support when you can switch between views. Sometimes you want the detailed information on one page. Zanaq (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Slowking4: I'm confused by your mention of archive.org. Did you mean flickr.com? I'm assuming you're requesting a tool that lets you search flickr for images that have compatible licenses and then import them into Commons. Is that correct? Would use of this tool be restricted to license-reviewers, admins, and extended-uploaders (similar to UploadWizard's Flickr uploader)? Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no, we have a flickr tool. given the downsizing of flickr, we will need a tool that does the same thing for internet archive. we could use OAuth for access to tool. Slowking4 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: "Flickr promises it won’t delete Creative Commons photos when it limits free storage" -- excerpt: "In a blog post today, Flickr has clarified that those freely licensed photos will be safe, even under the new limits. Accounts with more than 1,000 photos or videos that are licensed with Creative Commons won’t have that content deleted. That said, Flickr will be blocking future uploads to those accounts on January 8th" -- so this isn't as dire as we all previously thought when they first announced the changes. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Slowking4: Hi, does the above info resolve the issue? (I.e. If I understand correctly, you (like the rest of us) were worried after the first announcement that came out, that we'd lose access to all the currently CC-licensed images there. Hence you were proposing that we should get prepared to have to scrape those flickr images out of IA's backups of them. However now that Flickr has promised to keep those CC images available for the forseeable future, this is no longer a major concern. If that is accurate, then (in order to reduce the 230+ wishes that we all hope all editors will read through!) I propose archiving this particular wish.) Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no, i was worried about the over-reliance on flickr. if we had tools for upload from IA, a better partner, we would be less reliant on flickr. we should get prepared to decrease barriers to working with preferred partners, with a history of archive stability. a lack of crisis is not a "do not fix" Slowking4 (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where will all those users go? Can WMF issue some press releases? Can we provide a "Copy-my-Flicker-account-and-relicense-the-non-free-licensed-images" wizard? This could be an application for the #Uploaded files visible in the gallery proposal. HLHJ (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support the creation of this IA2Commons tool. I am a Flickr user, all my Flickr images are Creative Commons (over 10,000) but I don't want to pay for the hosting service. I put effort in taking good pictures, and I release them under Creative Commons, and now am I going to have to pay? No, thanks. I think I am moving to Internet Archive, using it like my "new Flickr". So, this tool to move content from IA to Commons will help me a lot. Emijrp (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Yep, on Commons we need to put much more effort for better uploaders. Any step in this direction is good. But you should also consider that once this is done, a heavy campaign focusing on people using IAuploader must be done :-) Aktron (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Borys Kozielski: For better understanding of the actual problem to solve, an you please provide a link to a page where the player does not play audio files, plus browser and operating system information? I'm surprised to hear that it does not work for you. Thanks! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem: A 360° Photo is a photo that allow us to view more than just a snapshot of a scene . It even let us view the scene from every angle: above, below, behind and next to us & it's also a mainstream media type.
But wiki Articles can't render it & MediaViewer doesn't support it. Images are shown as on the right instead of like this , in the articles.
Who would benefit: All the Readers and editors of wikis. 360° photos are effective for showing off vistas, internal architecture and more in a dramatic fashion that replicates the experience of being there.
Instead of showing 15 photos we could take 1; 360° photo to encapsulate all the information we want to show.It's Also a good way to view panorama photos on mobile devices, where panoramas otherwise are real small.
Proposed solution: Add support to MediaViewer and to the renderd articles to allow to navigate inside of the image by mouse or finger gesture.
THE "panoviewer" uses the Tool Labs grid for job execution and a library for tile manufacturer; theoretically it could be made into a real extension, with the tile manufactory put onto the Services cluster. This would allow it to be deployed everywhere, not just on Commmons, and integrated into MediaViewer officially .Then we can make it as a part of mediawiki software.
Admin, Developer "dschwen" did some good work on this.
More comments: This has been a wish on the previous wishlists and only slightly missed the Top 10 twice. Proposed in the 2016 survey by Ahm masum, ranking at #15 and 2017 by TheDJ ranked #11.
It is gorgeous but slow. In the proposed deployment, what will be the effect on readers with low-bandwidth connections or older hardware? Will there be a note in the image frame saying you can drag it (an automated image-frame link to Commons annotations would also be good)? HLHJ (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent Question.I think there will be a "Fallback " like all other standard web developments.
360° photo. You can navigate
The interior of the Chapel Royal in Dublin Castle.
when a user's device have low-bandwidth or hardware/software limitation (older) they will get the unrendered version as shown above.it can also have simple alert message like the right photo . And the rendered version could have a simple "info massage" like the left photo(just assume it's a rendered version). "auto generated" message would be more practical for this purpose.
Well , you got the right idea. I have to give you that . I also think the "image annotation" gadget could be a huge help for 360° photos. it can highlight the features we want to focus. Small details, or points of interest within the 360° photo. but it's a huge work for tech team to make it possible. first, the "image annotation" gadget will have to work on 360° & rendered articles . Then these "annotations" have to be mobile friendly, cause 70% +~ wiki users use mobile/smartphone.so it's a complex tusk. Need a huge time & resources.
And we have to make it in such a way so that it can 'distinguish 180°' & 360° and render it accordingly in the article (maybe by using metadata or image recognition algorithm). and the gesture control could be similar to facebook 360. when viewing in mediaviewer it could provide some extra navigation / interaction features & controls...THANKS AGAIN, FOR YOUR QUESTION.-- Ahm masum (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very much needed. There is a need for it for future collaboration with OSM-based map apps and the content of Wikimedia projects. Subhashish Panigrahi (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support We have been approving 360º images at COM:FPC for some time now in anticipation of improved functionality for this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem: When we view a scanned book in PDF or DjVu format in Commons or Wikisource, its always single-page view. Every-time we go to the next page, we need to click on the drop down menu of pages. See this book in Commons for example. For book readers, its more like viewing images than reading books. This not only creates difficulty in reading, but also in identifying missing, duplicated pages etc. if the file needs to be corrected.
Who would benefit: Commons & Wikisource editors and readers
Random-access page selection should remain possible (i.e., if I want page 234, I should not have to click 234 times to turn 234 pages). An interface allowing page turning either by scrolling or by clicking would be good, as some people find the one or the other physically difficult. Something which would aid OCR copyediting/transcription might also be nice. The phab page has some examples of interfaces. HLHJ (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Bodhisattwa. This problem is something Community Tech would love to work on. It's not clear that the proposed solution is the only or best way to fix it, however. I'd like to invite you to change the title of the proposal to focus more on the problem you want addressed than on the specific software you have in mind as a fix. This will not only make the title more accurately reflect how Community Tech would tackle this problem, it will make the proposal more appealing to the many people who've never tried the IA BookReader but who may have experienced sub-parr pdf reading. Good luck! —JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An alternative proposal would be to integrate an IIIF service for serving Commons files (phab:T187872). There are a number of different viewers out there than can present content from IIIF sources, including ones offering views quite similar to the IA viewer, and ones that can have their appearance configured using optional stylesheets. I would agree that the IA viewer interface is particularly good, and should be a recommended model for such things. Jheald (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, I've since learnt that the IA viewer itself can take an IIIF Manifest to specify its input data. So if we could get that going, it would simply be a matter of including a choice for the user to see IIIF content rendered in/by the IA viewer. Jheald (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bodhisattwa I am going to rename this proposal so the title is more generic (many people may not be familiar with the Internet Archive BookReader) and also so it gives us more room to experiment with different PDF readers in case implementing a different one is easier/better. I hope that is okay. Please do let me know if you have any concerns. Thank you for the proposal. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bodhisattwa: Here's a book reader (from hell) with double-page view: The Bird Book.djvu. It works (!) and was specifically designed to make developers wake up in the middle of the night, screaming. - Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support mainly if the plan is to do this for non-Latin scripts as well. Joalbertine (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joalbertine: If we were to use the Google OCR service, then these languages would be supported — lots of (but not all) non-latin scripts. SamWilson 06:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem: There are tens of thousands composed images, plates (and other similar images). There is need usually only certain part of such image to be viewed in encyclopedic article at Wikipedia.
Compare the following images:
image from the museum
cropped image of Rivomarginella electrum
Creating such cropped images is very time consuming. It is necessary to download the image, crop it, create new descriptive name, upload the image, add proper description, add categorization, add links to source image and add link from source file to derived file. (It is also useful to improve the quality of the images, such as remove background, remove captions, or rotate the image.)
It would be useful if it would be possible to view the certain rectangular area of the larger image from Commons on the Wikipedia directly without needing to upload the cropped image.
Who would benefit: Editors will save time. Readers will have proper encyclopedic images in more articles.
Proposed solution: Use ImageNote template commons:Template:ImageNote as a parameter of File to show rectangular part of the image.
I will edit the Wikipedia page and I will add the image
[[File:Malacologists_1914.png|thumb|Truman H. Aldrich|{{ImageNote|id=3|x=901|y=383|w=168|h=235|dimx=1782|dimy=1364|style=2}}]]
This is just an example how it should work. We can benefit from the fact, that using of the ImageNote is standard on the Commons already.
More comments: Some of such images (plates) are not needed at Commons at all, especially if they are at Internet Archive. But some of them are at commons only and are not accessible anywhere else.
The cropped image of Rivomarginella electrum is not very high quality and it will be replaced immediately when probably any other image of the same species will be uploaded to Commons. Then the cropped image will not be needed at all (and could be deleted). But the deletion process is sometimes much more consuming than uploading images. Consider that there are over 100.000 of such images of molluscs only at Commons. It is not possible to do it manually (we have not such many editors with such much time), especially when we known, that at least some of such cropped images will be certainly replaced and will became unusable.
Many images cropped from plates usually need some editing. In such cases will be this solution only temporal. This will help to save time to editors and meantime to show at least some image to readers.
But we can use it for plates forever for such plates, that does not need alteration.
This example is about molluscs only. But the usage of the solution is universal:
There are number of such details made from paintings. Usually without alterations.
Another practical application is the Wikipedia Main Page. There are usually more or less square details. There are usually larger version in Wikipedia articles, while on the Main Page there must be the same image informative and easily recognizable in 100x100 pixels.
One problem here is that this feature will depend on images to never change. For example, if someone's face was cropped from an image in wikitext like this: [[File:Foo.jpg|crop=320x240|cropoffset=50,60]] and then someone reuploaded Foo.jpg with frame removed, the offsets will change and a wrong part of the image will be cropped. MaxSem (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I just copied the reply from previous discussion. I think, that 99.9% of images will never change.
This feature will be applied to images, that are expected to not be altered by cropping (see examples above). I can imagine only one way how could be the original image altered: with uploading higher resolution version over the file. It may or may not be recommended, but it can happen. Then would happen the same thing, that is happenning to Image Notes. (I did not test that, but I think, that Notes will move a bit.) If the user will use the rectangular part, then the Image Note will stay in the code of the image description. Uploader of the image should be responsible enough to avoid such problems. How many times a user damaged Image Notes when he uploaded larger version of file? I think, there is not known such case. It is not probable, that it will be a problem in this feature too.
Or alternatively, just make it possible for a particular image revision to be specifiable as the source of the crop. Jheald (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm an editor on Wikisource, and, we need lots of illustrations printed in original work, especially for old galleries. I am currently thinking about developing a tool that makes a cropped image from original source on Commons. If we can instead support this proposed extension, or at least host an image cropper at Toolforge and make a log of every images uploaded via the tool, Wikisource editors will save a lot of time and readers can see more images on Wikisource.--Midleading (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One example are matching images where a small object is scaled in proportion to a big one, which leads to a margin.
I often have that with different polyhedra around the same midsphere, as seen on the right.
Another example are of course collages like the one shown on the right. An aspect that I would like to bring up is that categorizing such collages can cause confusion, because it is not clear which aspect of the collage is categorized as what. In this case I have chosen to categorize only the cuboctahedron image under cuboctahedron etc., link the collage on the crop's page, and thus consider the collage to be categorized through the crop. Maybe for collages a category could be added like an annotation, and then only the crop would be shown in the category page — maybe even with an automatically generated locator like it is common in maps. Watchduck (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A twist on this request would be the ability to define named crops of an image in the metadata in the Commons file page, and then to be able to access them using some syntax like [[File:MyPic.jpg#crop1]]
A further change to the landscape will be if/when an IIIF image service gets integrated into the Commons image-serving back-end, see phab:T187872. (There used to be a trial service piggy-backed onto the infrastucture behind the Commons Zoomviewer, but both are currently down). An IIIF service would, amongst other things, allow image crops to be requested directly from the file-server, without having to be cut down by CSS. Jheald (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jheald: "define named crops of an image in the metadata in the Commons file page" I like this idea. I think it's a better approach than most that have been suggested wrt to cropping so far. Be sure to document it in the relevant tickets. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and I note that our current image service technology (thumbor) also supports serving cropped versions of images. It's probably not enabled, because there is nothing in the stack that would be able to use it, but internally it could easily be used as a cropping service. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could we eventually retroactively turn the large number of subset details into such markup, with redirects? HLHJ (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Cropping to create new files creates many problems. Being able to display only the relevant part would be helpful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Or provide possibility to on-wiki creating new file from bigger image. JAn Dudík (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It's annoying to download and re-upload for the sake of a crop, and some editors crop JPEGS lossily; doing it in the browser would solve both HLHJ (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I think this issue, which I would agree is an important one, should be dealt with in the context of IIIF support by Wikimedia Commons. Beat Estermann (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I support for use case and problem of needing a way to easily show parts of an existing image on a page. However, in terms of implementation, I don't think we should make it a file-syntax parameter. This creates additional software complexity and infrastructure overhead. Perhaps it would be better if we make it really easy to create a cropped version of an image from different places (from the File description page, and from inside wikitext editors and VisualEditor). For example, you edit a page, search or specify the file to use, then automatically see existing crops, and with an option to create a new crop, then simply drag and adjust over the image preview, maybe give it a label, and in the background it will automatically upload, tag and insert the newly created file in the editor. Krinkle (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem: While Wikimedia has a pretty nice archive of MIDI files, they are not playable in modern browsers. Pages will have them available, but they need to be downloaded, and then played on a separate player. Said player is not even necessarily available in the user's operating system, and third party players tend to be a bit tricky to set up, requiring addtional files (soundfonts) and such.
Who would benefit: People who want to listen to our MIDI archive. People visiting several Music-related pages. People who wish to upload small files that illustrate a musical concept.
Proposed solution: Automatically convert the MIDI to Ogg Vorbis, like with other audio files. These are playable on modern browsers.
More comments: We already have most of the necessary software. There is a SCORE tag extension that allows for Lilypond markup, and takes the rendered MIDI and converts it to OGG. And we have the workflow already setup for other conversions. The only optional new item that might be useful is an additional soundfont: the one from MuseScore might fill in gaps in the existing FluidSynth ones and is hiqg quality.
@Trlkly: There is actually an English Wikipedia template, w:en:Template:Synthlisten, which allows MIDI files to be played through the Score extension. (My proposal is somewhat similar but proposes that MusicXML/MuseScore files be uploadable and rendered by Commons/Extension:Score, which would achieve roughly the same but also allow the files to be shown as sheet music.) Jc86035 (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trlkly, could you please clarify if you mean automatically adding a Synthlisten template to each MIDI file page, making a downloadable Ogg Vorbis version available for each MIDI file, or replacing the MIDI files with Ogg Vorbis files, thus removing access to the MIDI files as MIDIs?
Comment Added the phabricator task for moving the MIDI to OGG (sound) conversion to TimedMediaHandler, which is used for videos and audio on Wikimedia. This is important so that we aren't bound to using the Score workaround, and so is the cornerstone of this proposal. Another task could be created for it to be automatized for all MIDI files in presentation. Ebe123 (Communication | Activity report) 01:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I believe this could easily be solved with the VLC API which is free to use, and open. Allowing for a forward facing player without loading extra modules!!!!Lostinlodos (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Partial support; I support automatically adding a Synthlisten template to each MIDI file page; I do not support removing access to the MIDI files as MIDIs. HLHJ (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I do not think anyone is proposing to remove access to the raw MIDI files, @HJHJ:. This would be a big improvement in musical articles with the flexibility of MIDI files with the convenience of in-browser playability. (Maintainer of the Score extension) Ebe123 (Communication | Activity report) 01:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem: When clicking on a image it is opened in the so called Media Viewer. If the resolution of an image is sufficient it viewed screen filling. SVG files are vector files and can therefore be scaled arbitrary large. But SVG-Files contain image-sizes. Media-Viewer shows SVG-files only as big as the image meta data tells the image is large. Therefore sometimes when clicking on an image to see it larger is is opened not larger but sometimes even smaller than shown in the article, even through it's a arbitrary scalable graphics.
click on me (with MediaViewer enabled)
Who would benefit: Readers
Proposed solution: If the SVG has no bitmap-image embedded show it always screen-filling.
This seems to sort of break the standard. Could we have a tool for rapidly rescaling images with ludicrous embedded scales instead? HLHJ (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, as I would prefer fixing silly SVG scales to a standard-breaking kludge. A template for tagging them would be good. HLHJ (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem: IIIF was created to allow the sharing and interoperability of high quality zoomable images both for viewing but also for annotating. Version 3 of the presentation API now also supports audio and video. This proposal is for WikiCommons to support the IIIF Presentation API by exposing IIIF manifests and coining static Canvas IDs. A IIIF Manifest is a JSON-LD metadata representation of a Book, Painting, Archive or Video that can be imported into various tools and viewers. A Manifest contains a number of Canvases, one for each page. A static Canvas ID will mean items in Wikimedia Commons can be annotated using the W3C Annotation Framework and existing IIIF tools.
Images in WikiCommons are difficult to annotate as the image URLs are not static and access is limited to a number of pre-generated sizes. The interface on WikiCommons could be improved for ‘book’ like objects.
Who would benefit: All Commons users
Proposed solution: Expose WikiCommons data using the IIIF standard and in particular mint static Canvas Ids and Manifest Ids.
More comments: This would help with the Book Reader wish as the Internet Archive Book Reader is IIIF compatible.
Tom Crane has the following proof of concept: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/D1122 which takes Wikidata items which have the P2677 relation (relative position within image) and turns them into IIIF manifests and annotation lists. These manfiests can be viewed and compared in a IIIF viewer like Mirador. This is an extension to a tool called tool-wd-image-positions written by Lucas Werkmeister and as such will only work with items that have the P2677 property.
Tom also has the following project: wikipedia-to-iiif which works with any content in Wikimedia Commons and creates a IIIF manifest. This uses the Wikimedia API to create manifests using static images provided by Wikimedia Commons. The benefit of taking this work and embedding it into the core Wikimedia Commons code is that it would give static URIs for manifests and canvas ids allowing annotation. This is further discussed in a gist.
It's important to note that implementation of the IIIF Presentation API is not dependent on implementation of the IIIF Image API. You can share, annotate and remix images without the tiled deep zoom provided by an image server. Implementing the IIIF Presentation API could also mean that, as well as their current formats, Wikidata query results could be available as IIIF Collections. I could attempt a POC for this too if it would be useful. As an example, this IIIF Collection: Pencil works, Wellcome Library is available for visual re-use, such as here: http://tomcrane.github.io/wellcome-today/today.html?collection=https://wellcomelibrary.org/service/collections/genres/Pencil%20works/
By exposing result sets as IIIF Collections, those result sets can be consumed by IIIF-aware applications, such as a crowdsourcing tool or an image analysis project; IIIF removes the need for a bespoke mapping, and new data generated by those clients addresses the digital object in a standard format, W3C Web Annotations.
Problem: Tabular datasets in Commons cannot contain non-CC0 information because the interface doesn't support the correct attribution
Who would benefit: Wikipedians could move the data tables from the article text, and generate dynamic tables or graphs from it through the Graph and Maps extensions
If this data were in a table, would I have to license it under CC0? How could I claim copyright over basic physical properties of the universe? "Quark masses, copyright User:HLHJ" is absurd.
Support. If the blocking technical requirements are those listed at phab:T154071#4323571, they don't look they would require too much to fix, and should be well within the capabilities of the Community Tech team. Shapefiles that are licensed ODBL, eg from OSM, could be of huge usefulness in connection with WDQS queries. Jheald (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, perhaps if needed, we could consolidate it --Sabas88 (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've already taken data published under another CC license in a scientific paper and made it into a datagraphic which I uploaded to Commons. It's vector-format, so re-extracting the original dataset would be fairly simple. If I've understood, the status quo means that that was OK, but if I put the data in a table and then made a graph I'd be unable to do so legally due to interface limitations. One might argue that scientific data is not copyrightable (I sort of assumed that, and I was following longstanding academic convention), but that's not the same as a CC-0 license. I'd feel stupid placing an unoriginal table of properties of the universe under CC0. And my original work in making a graphic, is that my copyright that I must license? Can I license it differently from the data? Are recently-invented standard statistical visualization techniques copyrighted? I'm confused. I have no idea how to license data correctly, and excluding scientific data from Wikipedia is clearly not the answer.
RStallman (WMF), could you please give some informal guidance as to what license options we might need in the interface? HLHJ (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support; we need more guidance on this, and the existing option is not adequate, as some data is not copyrightable and some is under copyleft database licenses. HLHJ (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The interior of the Chapel Royal in Dublin Castle.
_(14593986718).jpg)
_-_Marginellidae_-_Mollusc_shell.jpeg)
_-_Louvre_779.jpg)
_-_Louvre_779_-_Detail_(eyes).jpg)
_-_Louvre_779_-_Detail_(hands).jpg)
Oppose I think this issue, which I would agree is an important one, should be dealt with in the context of IIIF support by Wikimedia Commons. Beat Estermann (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment Added the phabricator task for moving the MIDI to OGG (sound) conversion to TimedMediaHandler, which is used for videos and audio on Wikimedia. This is important so that we aren't bound to using the Score workaround, and so is the cornerstone of this proposal. Another task could be created for it to be automatized for all MIDI files in presentation. Ebe123 (Communication | Activity report) 01:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Partial support; I support automatically adding a Synthlisten template to each MIDI file page; I do not support removing access to the MIDI files as MIDIs. HLHJ (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
