Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2022/06

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Proposals

Applying the responsive design to Creative Commons license tags

 
Screenshot of current CC license tag

Current layout for Creative Commons license tags is unsuitable for narrow mobile environment. It is hard to read the license text itself because the text of license declaration is squashed into even narrower space. License tag layout should adapt to the device with narrow screen.

I'd like to suggest some improvements using the responsive web technology and TemplateStyles. I made a draft for a new design in User:Kwj2772/responsive-license. (check this page with your mobile devices) The new design will enhance the readability of the license tag in mobile screen. – Kwj2772 (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Applying the responsive design to Creative Commons license tags (Votes)

Applying the responsive design to Creative Commons license tags (Discussion)

It looks great, though if you use a mobile device on "Desktop mode" the current version actually looks readable. I'm glad that someone is trying to improve this website for mobile users as usually most updates tend to make things less usable around here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Due to no objection, I applied the new design. – Kwj2772 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: – Kwj2772 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

New Wiki Product

Hello,

I write today as I have an idea for a new Wiki service. Called "Wiki Archives" its main purpose would be preserving artifacts like Documents and Photos that others might not seen in saving. Wikimedia Commons is a great service, but I believe that some of what's in it should be split into this new product. When you search for something, you can find pictures in like old building plans and old photos which should be in an archive where they could be appreciated more. It would work like commons as people could upload things, but it would be stricter in what it lets in (e.g. New phots taken by users and other things). If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thanks! DiscoA340 (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@DiscoA340: When would be the cutoff? Which would rule in cases of filename conflicts? Is it really a good idea to split Admin attention at this time?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
For the cutoff, I would say 20 years is a good rule of thumb, but as long as it's what you expect in an archive, then it should be good. I don't think there will be an issue with filename conflicts as most documents should be different from each other. For multi-page docs, I would think people would name each "Document X (P1)" and maybe for bigger docs, they could be combined into a single filename but with multiple pages (Sorry for being vague, I don't know how to explain it other than making bigger docs into a slideshow type file." The issue about Admins is a bigger issue I don't think I could answer and be 100% accurate, though I would say that making an archive could attract more future admins who like the idea and want to help. DiscoA340 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Commons is already our document and image repository and archive, full stop. There's no benefit to splitting the collection. In fact, there are very real downsides.
Take Jeff's question about file name conflicts that you didn't answer. If Commons has a document called File:Example.pdf, and someone uploads a different document called File:Example.pdf to this archive, which document gets served to Wikisource for transcription? If Commons has a photo called File:Example.jpg and this archive gets a different photo uploaded as File:Example.jpg, which photo appears in a Wikipedia article? If this new archive restricts uploads so that file names don't conflict with Commons, then what is the point in separating it out? Essentially that would just be a subsidiary of the larger repository split under a different domain name.
That then bridges into Jeff's second unanswered question. With a limited corps of trusted volunteers, is it a good idea to create another project that needs admin supervision? Instead of admins monitoring one domain name looking for files tagged as copyright violations, they'd need to monitor two domains. Or you'd have to recruit a second set of admins for the new site. You'd have to duplicate the various core policies to another domain. You could get weird inconsistencies where a file that doesn't technically conform to one site's policies technically conforms to the other.
So that brings me back to my first statement here: Commons already is the archive. Imzadi 1979 → 18:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Global coordinates; latitude, longitude.

Hi,
I contributed this picture which is used in the Oberon book. The global coordinates are obviously wrong, as easily seen in Open Street Maps. Also the page for the picture has the message "There is a discrepancy of X meters between the above coordinates and the ones stored at SDC (Y). Please reconcile them." There are two problems with the location template.
(1) I haven't found documentation specifying the order of latitude and longitude in the template. Does documentation exist? If not, it should be created. In any case, a search of Help should find it.
(2) Apparently the location template accepts decimal degrees. Nevertheless coordinates are displayed as dms (degrees minutes seconds). What is achieved other than confusion? Our world is digital. Conversion is a nuisance. Display decimal degrees! In brief, my proposal is "Make location work".
Thanks for your attention, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: That file description page is using {{Location}}. The documentation is at {{Location/doc}}. Parameter 1 is Latitude, degrees North of the Equator. Parameter 2 is Longitude, degrees East of the Prime Meridian (Greenwich Observatory). Where I live, Latitude is positive and Longitude is negative, putting me in the Northern and Western Hemispheres, and I'm fine with that. The numbers in that photo's file description page when I first got to it ("49.2637|123.2461") indicate a location in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. I have a feeling "49.2637|-123.2461" in University of British Columbia Hospital, Greater Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada is more appropriate given where you live in British Columbia.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Fixed the sign of longitude in the location template, thanks. The SDC reconciliation page suggests fixing the structured data. OK but I don't know where it is and the page doesn't give a clue. =8~/ The map shows the correct location for the coordinates. If SDC doesn't agree, sorry, I'm baffled. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@PeterEasthope: On the "Structured data" tab, did you try to tap the "Edit" link next to "coordinates of the point of view" and save your changes?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Found the structured data and fixed the longitude. There the location now appears correct. The file information tab still has the complaint "There is a discrepancy of 7356007 meters ...". =8~/ What?
The entire problem can be eliminated by taking the numbers in Structured Data as authoritative and propagating automatically to File Information if necessary. Correct? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

File usage on openstreetmap.org, The following page uses this file

In addition to the listing "File usage on Commons" a listing "File usage on openstreetmap.org" would be very useful from my point of view. Especially to be able to take this into account for deletions.

  Support to enable listing of all InstantCommons uses.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not think that this is technically possible. The only way to do something like this would be a bot going through the OSM database and adding a template to the file page. --GPSLeo (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for your feedbacks. Yes, I had already thought of a bot that searches for "wikimedia_commons" in the OSM database. Then perhaps the link of the parent note (example here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3094456337#map=18/52.35720/12.69014) could be determined and the necessary link to the file (here: File:Beobachtungsturm Strengsee, Seitensicht.jpg) is also available. It would only be necessary to find someone who would have time to implement this . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molgreen (talk • contribs) 09:00, 11 June 2022‎ (UTC)
    I think having such a bot edit the file page would be disruptive: people get annoyed enough at watchlist notifications for changes to structured data; notifications for changes to the usage of a file would be even worse. But a bot could maintain a user gallery or several that contained files used in OSM, and those would appear in the list of local uses.
    However, I would then wonder why this should be limited to OSM. Other sites can use Commons images, either through InstantCommons as Jeff mentions, or by just recording URLs in a database (e.g. MusicBrainz). Do we in principle want to know about all external uses? Or maybe just ones in free-content projects? --bjh21 (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    I agree a bot scanning file links to deleted or rename files would be useful but this is nothing to discuss here this is a topic for the OSM forums. It is also a question if direct linking of the files is needed. Most objects in OSM where a photo makes sense do have a Wikidata item where the photo is linked. --GPSLeo (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    From my point of view, it would be interesting to record all uses. But that should be very controversial (I suspect)? OSM is a special project for me. I would even call it a partner project. I am meanwhile in both worlds (Wikiversum and OSM) on the way and think that with OSM similarly high quality standards apply as in the Wikiversum. --Molgreen (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    @GPSLeo: To be clear, I did not suggest a bot scanning file links to deleted or rename files. As you say, such a bot and the question of whether the wikimedia_commons key should exist at all, are both matters for the OSM community. My suggestion was of a way to implement what Molgreen proposed without spamming people's watchlist. --bjh21 (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  Comment To give an idea of scale, OSM taginfo says there are 67,390 distinct values of the wikimedia_commons key on OSM at present. --bjh21 (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello bjh21, this is very interesting. Thank you for the link! (There is still much possible . . .) --Molgreen (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
(I mean the use "wikimedia_commmons" is apparently only at the beginning. Hopefully still very much develops). --Molgreen (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  Further comment I've written a trivial script to convert data from Overpass into a gallery and created User:Bjh21/files used on OSM containing files referenced by OSM in and around London. This means that if you visit File:Halfway II Heaven, Trafalgar Square, WC2 (3614629275).jpg, for instance, that gallery appears in the list of uses of the file. I think I could fairly easily run a bot to maintain a collection of such galleries for the whole world if there were a consensus in favour of that. --bjh21 (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Bjh21: That is a very elegant solution and I can see it being very useful, both for us and for our OSM colleagues. Woudd there be some way to display the results on a map, also? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I could probably arrange to add maps, but that's a lot more complicated and not really within scope. If you want you can get the same set of objects on an interactive map by typing wikimedia_commons~"^File:" into the overpass turbo Query Wizard. --bjh21 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Bjh21: Thank you very much! A great solution from my point of view as well. The key thing here is that the usage is automatically displayed on the file page. This works great. One question: what are the chances that the solution will be implemented permanently and for all these files? --Molgreen (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Molgreen: From a technical point of view I don't think there's anything stopping me implementing this. I've tested it without the geographical restriction and the Overpass query runs in a couple of minutes, generating a 4 MB wiki page with 42,000 pictures on it. I'd probably want to carve it up into smaller subpages, but doing that and wrapping it up into a bot that runs daily or weekly would be easy. The only likely obstacles are organisational. I'd like to allow for some more opinions here so I can be confident we've got some kind of consensus. Then I'll go through the procedure for getting permission to run a bot. --bjh21 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Bjh21: It would be very nice if that would work. Either way, thanks again for your effort up to here. --Molgreen (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have requested permission to run a bot to do this: Commons:Bots/Requests/Usage Bot. --bjh21 (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I now have permission to run the bot. I've decided to start with the simple case of files used on Wikitech, so I've created Commons:Files used on Wikitech and some subpages. The bot has made its first edit bringing the galleries up to date. I think there should be a central page describing this system and with a talk page for discussing it. I'm not quite sure what it should be called, though. Maybe Commons:Tracking external file usage? --bjh21 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Files used on OpenStreetMap now exists and is populated. The bot needs a bit of fettling still, but what Molgreen suggested seven weeks ago is now in place. Thank you everyone! --bjh21 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

A very good solution from my point of view. Many thanks to bjh21 --Molgreen (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Would a backlink also be conceivable?

Hi bjh21, would it be conceivable that there would also be a backlink: from the single image in the list (Commons:Files used on OpenStreetMap) to the node in OSM that uses that particular image. --Molgreen (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Molgreen There is indirectly: click on the link on the gallery page saying "~1 use(s)". That takes you to Taginfo, where the "overpass turbo" link (top right) takes you to an Overpass query that returns the relevant feature, and then click on the feature on the map and you'll get a link to the main OSM site. I could possibly have a link directly to overpass turbo, but adding one extra link will make the page about 30% bigger, so I'd prefer not to. --bjh21 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@bjh21 yes, thank you, this is what I was looking for. A direct link would be nicer of course, but I can understand that you don't want that. Many thanks and greetings --Molgreen (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
PS: Maybe you could add a sentence in the description:
"Images in this gallery are referenced by the wikimedia_commons key on OpenStreetMap. The list was last updated on 31 July 2022 by Usage Bot. The link below each file leads to a page on OpenStreetMap Taginfo for the particular value of wikimedia_commons. That page in turn has links to other OSM sites including overpass turbo for generating maps and Level0 for editing features. There you can also see where the images are used. This page contains information from OpenStreetMap, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL)." --Molgreen (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@Molgreen: The header is transcluded from Commons:Files used on OpenStreetMap/header so you can edit it yourself. Be bold! --bjh21 (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@bjh21 Thanks and sorry: I wanted to be "bold" :-) but if I change that, I would be the editor of the list. That would be a "presumptuous" :-) --Molgreen (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@Molgreen: Are you worried about the {{REVISIONUSER}} in the header? That gets expanded based on the top-level page, so even if you edit the header, the lists will all continue to say "Usage Bot" at the top. --bjh21 (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@bjh21 Thanks. I was "bold" :-) --Molgreen (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Should we track image=* as well?

Since this topic hasn't been archived yet, I'll raise this here: Commons:Files used on OpenStreetMap currently tracks usage in wikimedia_commons=*. But references to Commons files can also appear in the image=* key. Lots of MapComplete themes render pictures from image=*. I've coded an extension to the Usage Bot to support reading multiple keys, and it finds over 85,000 more files to add to the galleries, taking the total number of galleries to 133. Since the galleries are in the Commons namespace, I'd like to get consensus before I enable tracking of image=*. So should I enable it? --bjh21 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been two weeks and no-one's complained, so I'm enabling tracking of image=*. --bjh21 (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2022/06&oldid=690865043"