Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2012/03

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

gadget for image promotion

Could we have a gadget that can be used to easily nominate images to QI, FPC, VI, etc all in one place (rather like the QI nominator gadget but for VI and FPC also.) --Gauravjuvekar (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Vote for jStore. Somehow we have to store the data you entered and this is an easy way. -- RE rillke questions? 21:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Author information on file pages must be clear and machine-readable, even with user customisation

Relevant guideline: Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy

Hi folks,

We currently welcome users to customise file descriptions pages a lot, mainly through custom templates displaying their name, showing off their cameras, etc.

As far as I am concerned, I dislike custom user templates − i18n issues, screwing-up the visual style, nest for additional ludicrous reuse conditions, unhealthy implied sense of ownership − and I strongly believe they should be strictly controlled for abuses, but well, based on previous discussions, this is not going to happen anytime soon. Fair enough.

The huge problem with having custom stuff, is that it can be a real Hell to parse license and author − two pieces of information of the uttermost importance in our free licenses world − especially for machines. There has to be a clear, machine-readable author indication, so it can be easily retrieved (let’s dream of an API...). For example, I am currently tutoring two students who are building a Wordpress plugin to embed Wikimedia Commons media with appropriate licensing information, and they struggle with that.

We tackled the license issue by enforcing that a “real” license template should always be used (no custom license template or one transcluding a standard template).

As for the author, nothing at the moment. I made a proposal a year ago which was not met with much enthusiasm, so I would like to reiterate it with the following, tentative writing:

“The author field of the {{Information}} template (or equivalent) should display the author, in text format. Users are welcome to add fancy templates, but outside of it.”

Going through some pictures of the day for examples: bad practice, good practice.

Thoughts? (feel free to amend the wording so it reads better)

Jean-Fred (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As a JavaScript hobbyist developer, who tried to make our slideshow display author and license in a compact way, who wrote the a gallery script showing license information below each image and VisualFileChange, I strongly encourage such requests. If the mess with the image description pages continues, no one will be able to reuse them automatically. And only automated credit generation is a grant for proper reuse. On my talk page, you see another user attempting to do the impossible.
Of course, if credit information would be saved in a different database table field, we could have an API which would be the best. -- RE rillke questions? (ریلکه) (里尔克) (リルケ) 15:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I definitely agree with the idea but would forcing out fancy stuff be enough to make it machine readable ? There are other things that are difficult to remove from the author field. For example indicating the particular role of each contributor of a derivative work. So should we somewhow signal that something is an author name ?--Zolo (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
By the way, {{Artwork}} display the artist as the author, and the photograph is only mentionned in the source, even when he is the only one that really needs to be credited. This confuses StockPhoto (see here for instance). Should we add a {{information}} to {{artwork}} to solve the problem. -Zolo (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
What about RDF as a machine readable format ? That's what it was built for, after all. CC even has a schema for its licences. Dublin Core is also an option.
--EdouardHue (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
A closely related but different problem. In fact, though we do not implement RDF nor DublinCore nor CC REL, we do provide some machine-readability − see Help:Machine-readable data. So the author field contents are indeed wrapped in a machine readable tag, but if the field is full of crap, this becomes useless.
As for standard format support, this has been a feature request for like forever (DC: strategy:Proposal:Dublin_Core ; CC REL: bugzilla:9666 ; or whatever.
But with the apparent near-resolution of bugzilla:33886, seems we can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. Yay! Jean-Fred (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
But you still get a lot of overhead if you actually only want the license and author -- you must use the rendered version (or let a tool do it). -- RE rillke questions? (ریلکه) (里尔克) (リルケ) 12:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, there is support so far, but clearly not enough opinion expressed. So, how shall we move forward with this? Jean-Fred (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I strongly agree with the sentiment of the proposal. Thank you for pushing these issues, Jean-Fred. I think there should be much clearer policy/guidelines on this. Isn't Commons:Licensing#License_information the policy that this proposal should be addressing? If this was reworded so that users should use one of the standard templates ({{Information}}, {{Artwork}}, {{Book}}...), and specify more strictly what the contents of fields should look like, that would help a lot. Whether the templates then use a standard metadata format is then a secondary issue (although it helps if the fields match up well?).
What I've found most confusing when working on usecommons is not that there's sometimes junk in the author field, but that there are so many fields to look for author information in. I've used the same priority order as MediaWiki:Gadget-Stockphoto.js which is:
  1. Use fileinfotpl_credit from {{credit_line}} if available (for both author and license)
  2. Use licensetpl_attr if available from any of the license templates
  3. Use licensetpl_aut if available from any of the license templates
  4. Use the creator field from the {{creator}} template, sometimes found inside other information templates
  5. Use fileinfotpl_src for attribution
  6. Use fileinfotpl_aut for attribution, cleaning the field with various heuristics.
I find this a bit of a mess... what can be done about it? /skagedaltalk 12:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

New usergroups and user right changes

Here are a few proposals. It is a collection of previous suggestions. It will be announced in a site-notice or watch list notice after a while if it turns out practicable. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 31#Suggestions for new flags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rillke (talk • contribs) 2012-01-31T17:04:13‎ (UTC)

General discussion

New group: Maintainer

New group: Deleter


Right-change: Patroller

Right-change: Image reviewers

New group: Editall

This is an alternative to the proposed "Maintainer" group.


It appears that the only consensus we have here is to add the abusefilter-log-detail right to the patrollers group and adding the upload_by_url right to the image reviewers group. I suggest that we file a bugzilla bug to add those, any objections? Techman224Talk 20:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I wouldn't oppose if someone wanted a more widely-advertised discussion though, so I'd wait a few days before doing it. Also, are we sure that we don't want to do anything to make it easier for techy users to contribute without having to go through RFA? My Editall proposal was the most recent approach, and I was quite surprised it didn't get more support. I imagined it as a right to be given primarily to users who are highly trusted (especially as demonstrated by track record elsewhere) but aren't going to get involved enough in Commons to do an RFA. Standards for it could easily be set pretty high (eg: current sysop on another project for easy access via COM:RFR; otherwise an election required using RFA pass/fail standards) - it would still be better than nothing. Rd232 (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Well the community decided. If they do not need more people caring about i18n and suffer from veiled paranoia, it's not my problem. I just don't understand how a new user group would create more bureaucracy. It would add flexibility. Let's go to bugzilla. Who wants? Please add a link here when done. Thanks in advance. -- RE rillke questions? 16:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • For the person on Bugzilla verifying the voting:
    • Opening: diff=66350109&oldid=66149183
    • Closing: diff=68515764&oldid=68505763
    • Watchlist announcement: diff=67394870&oldid=66353864

-- RE rillke questions? 16:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. Looking at Bugzilla: Bugzilla14919 Enable Upload by URL for admins on Commons has been "resolved duplicate" of the main "upload by URL" bug, Bugzilla20512 (Enable $wgAllowCopyUploads (upload by URL)), so maybe there's not much point filing a bug for that until 20512 is resolved.
  2. Bugzilla35545 - Grant the abusefilter-log-detail right to patrollers on Commons.

Rd232 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Full URLs in license templates

I propose that the following templates:

{{Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}}, {{Cc-by-layout}}, {{Cc-by-sa-layout}}, {{Cc-zero}}, {{FAL}}, {{GFDL}}, {{GFDL-1.2}}, {{GPL}}, {{LGPL}}

– and other templates I might not have found that set the licensetpl_link metadata field (although I've searched through all of License tags with a script) are changed as follows: The URL for the license links have http:// prepended so they become fully qualified, non-ambiguous URLs. For example, on {{GPL}}, the code

<span class="licensetpl_link" style="display:none;"></span>

is changed to:

<span class="licensetpl_link" style="display:none;"></span>

I posted about this on the village pump (read this link for more info), but alas got no response on this super-important matter of life and death! :) I'll add links to this proposal on the talk pages of these templates. Maybe I should go ahead and add {{editprotected}}? /skagedaltalk 20:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I tried to do this a while ago and it completely broke the StockPhoto tool, and I could not really figure why. So I guess we need someone to be ready to fix the script if we go with this. :) Jean-Fred (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to answer you on the VP >_>)
Oh, thanks. That's weird! I'll do some testing in User:-space and see what happens. /skagedaltalk 05:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, got it. Have done some testing on this page. Of course, if you write an URL in wikitext – like – it is automatically turned into a link (an <a> tag with lots of attributes). As we also see above here. Don't know why I didn't think of that. This confuses Stockphoto, and is not what we want for machine readability. However, MediaWiki has the <nowiki> tag that can be used for such purposes! But we can't wrap the whole span in a nowiki, since the {{cc-by-sa-layout}} stuff uses template code to build various urls, and those can't be in <nowiki>.
Therefore, my new proposal is: prepend <nowiki>http://</nowiki> to the urls. Like so:
<span class="licensetpl_link" style="display:none;"><nowiki>http://</nowiki></span>
Yes, this looks funny in wikitext, but templates do anyway, and generates the proper HTML, which is of course what is important.
You can verify that it works well with Stockphoto by testing on the me drinking coffee image page (I will restore that page back to normal after these changes go through (or not)). /skagedaltalk 19:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. Unless opposition I shall implement this soonish. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done in all nine templates mentionned above. Thanks for helping Skagedal. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Nice! Thank you! /skagedaltalk 21:29, 27 March 2012 (UT<C)

use commons to offer "information" instead of just multimedia files

There are these Templates in the englisch wikipedia:

It would be nice, if all pages what have been created with the Templates LSR and LPR could be moved to commons and then could be linked to from all wikipedias. Is this possible? en User_talk:Doors5678

Crosswiki template transclusion has to then be enabled in the Mediawiki software, and a scalable technical solution has to be implemented (unsure of the status of this?). This is tracked at Bug 4547. Whether this is a good idea was discussed on the village pump a year ago with unclear consensus. /skagedaltalk 18:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Look at this now: Wikidata – The Wikipedia data revolution – awesome! Looks like we'll have an even better solution for this problem by the end of the year! /skagedaltalk 21:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Last modified on 22 April 2012, at 19:15