Open main menu
Community portal
introduction
Help deskVillage pump
copyrightproposalstechnical
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

Shortcut: COM:VP/P· COM:VPP

Welcome to the Village pump proposals section

This page is used for proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. Recent sections with no replies for 30 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)


Please note
  • One of Wikimedia Commons’ basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  • Have you read the FAQ?

 
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Proposal to run a bot to archive every external link using the Internet Archive on Wikimedia CommonsEdit

(Prior discussion Commons:Bots/Work requests#Internet Archive preservation of external links.)

The Wayback machine already works on most major Wikimedia websites.

Dear fellow contributors,

I am proposing to let a bot run on every file on Wikimedia Commons and other relevant pages which utilise external links and archive these links using the Internet Archive for future reference in the same way it is currently done on many other Wikimedia websites. This will allow for license reviewers and re-users to have a point of reference files from external sources as linkrot may obfuscate their original licenses and make it harder to verify them.

For a good (current) example where a changed source page is affecting the license of formerly free files please see "User:Alexis Jazz/DWDD archief". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Votes (archiving external links)Edit

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support, obviously as the proposing agent. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support This seems useful. --Yann (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Good idea. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support, I hope they can handle the traffic.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support - Sounds like a great idea!, Although somewhat unrelated I run this tool all the time at EN (which can replace all dead and alive links with WebArchive) - As noted above given licences can and do change I would support this little gem. –Davey2010Talk 20:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Archive should be done within minutes. This is also useful for Iranian websites which publish content, but occasionally remove them within hours (sometimes at the behest of "censorship office"). For example see File:Pir Shalyar 20190202 06.jpg which no longer can be license-reviewed. Neither Google cache [1] nor Bing cache [2] nor Internet Archive [3] could save the work in time. File:Mahnaz Afshar 20190201 01.jpg is another example which was fortunately saved using Google cache. In this case the problem was apparently violation of dress code. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Common sense idea. This also will help prevent DRs and "no source" tagging. Abzeronow (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support This consensus helps to ensure that later housekeeping or bot maintainers can more easily handle complaints, related to what is likely to affect millions of files. Where there are specialized issues, such as "hot" websites where the quoted source is at risk of being taken down, these may need bot tasks negotiated that periodically rerun. For very large stable collections, like Geograph or the British Library, these can run relatively slowly as background maintenance, and it hardly matters whether a new upload waits to have its links added to WBM for a few months. -- (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  9. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support yes please. --Jarekt (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support and for robots sites [4] go to archive.is -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support This would be a good prevention of linkrot. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support Platonides (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support Blue Elf (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support Bj.schoenmakers I'm already using this to preserve copyright information on sites where people can adjust their own copyright on images. My upload-bot will post the url to waybackmachine/archive.org first and use the returned date in my template in the commons upload: for example {{Archive.orgTimeStamp|20190303145847|https://world.observation.org/foto/view/19508795}} —Preceding comment was added at 00:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  15. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Very good idea Vulphere 15:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  16. Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO very good Proposal -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 18:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  17. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support --oSeveno (User talk) 15:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  18. Symbol support vote.svg Support but see my comment below. Ankry (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  19. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Molgreen (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  20. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong supportGone Postal ( ) 10:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  21. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support --Hmxhmx 14:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  22. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  23. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support --神樂坂秀吉 (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (archiving external links)Edit

How should this best be implemented? Is the page "User:Fæ/Wayback" developed by a good model? Personally I propose "[EXTERNAL LINK] (ARCHIVE, retrieved: DD-MM-YYYY)". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: "{{Wayback|url=http%3A//trainpix.org/photo/122696/|date=20150316101047}}" (implemented as "archive copy at the Wayback Machine (archived on 16 March 2015)" on File:143, Sverige, Stockholm, Roslagsbanans depå (Trainpix 122696).jpg) is standardized and looks nicer, you can discuss on Template talk:Wayback if you disagree.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: indeed, that looks way better, and having a standard template for Internet Archive Wayback Machine links would also make it easier to be consistent. Face-smile.svg I honestly wasn't aware of the existence of "{{Wayback}}", this would make implementing the above proposal easier as well. Face-grin.svg --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) ill have (Articles 📚) 12:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Though some earlier wayback additions were the links only, and others like Fortepan have the WBM link added as part of a specialized collection template, the largest collection so far, the Portable Antiquities Scheme uploads are using the preexisting wayback template. See File:BUCKLE_(FindID_187883).jpg or File:Cavalry Soldiers rehearse live-fire exercises with Lithuanian partners 141118-A-QS211-838.jpg for examples of how this looks. -- (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand the proposal. Are we voting on something that will be done on the Wayback-homepage? --Schlurcher (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Schlurcher:, this proposal is so that all external links could be backed up using the Wayback Machine using a bot, this would create a snapshot of the external website which future people could use to confirm the licenses of files. For example I import a photograph from Amazingfreepictures.fr (example website) but then this website disappears a year later, a license reviewer then tries to confirm the license but can't, now this image will have to be deleted because its free license can’t be confirmed (see “COM:PCP”), now if this external website was backed up using the Internet Archive this file would not have to be deleted. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: or you could use some examples that actually happened: Commons:Village pump#License reviewers and admins help is needed ASAP (we got lucky with that one and everything could be reviewed in time), Category:Images from lasvegasvegas.com and Category:Photographs by Agencia Brasil. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is still being discussed, but Internet Archive is already doing this and we have stats that nearly all the links we have in file descriptions are already archived. Nemo 08:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the stats, or a link to where someone has confirmed that the tool is crawling Wikimedia Commons, not just Wikipedia? Seconds before I write this, this WBM link is being added to a DoD photograph uploaded in 2016, it was not on the IA until I added it today. The majority of the Commons images I am adding WBM links for are not already on the IA. You may be confusing the undocumented exercise to add all Featured Pictures to the WBM with doing it for everything else. As a quick test using a sample of 1,000 files, the ratio of 'already on IA' to 'not on IA' for the DoD project is 42%, and most have been hosted on Commons for several years; in that time quite a large number have suffered with linkrot (for non-DVIDs sources), so are already too late for the WBM. -- (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not confusing anything; also, I've never heard of this featured pictures wayback archival thing.
It's trivial to check which URLs are being archived on the fly, as shown on mw:Talk:Archived Pages, by looking up either new pages or the EventStream of new links The WARC files end up in [5], by the way, and the list of URLs (private) is in the CDX files.
The stats I mentioned in April are, I think, those I produced for you when we discussed this on 2019-01-05 (os it might have benefited from the archivals you mentioned below). I simply took all the links from the externallinks table and selected a sample of a few thousands, checked it on the wayback machine. This is a more robust method than generalising from the experience with a few domains, which may have had specific problems such as downtime or robots.txt blacklists (the management of which is evolving). Nemo 12:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: I just saw your comments, is this already true for Wikimedia Commons? Because I imported a couple of hundred files from a University which just completely changed how its URL's work and now all of the old URL's don't function anymore, would the InternetArchiveBot immediately recognise them in the Internet Archive? Or aren't these links archived yet? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

While I generally support the idea, I am a bit afraid that IA ban us when we try to archive large bunch of external webpages. Especially if a user intentionally adds a bunch of links (not necessarily related to the uploaded file) in the file description page. IMO, the better solution would be to archive the links somewhere in Wikimedia (and not necessarily make them available to the whole public). Ankry (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I created over 400,000 links on IA over a couple of weeks as part of housekeeping my Commons upload projects, if their interface is being used correctly, I doubt anyone would get access blocked. As for using Wikimedia, it was confirmed on the Wikimedia-l email list that there are no plans or strategy in place by the WMF to maintain any public archives, ever. If Wikimedia Commons went offline next month, there is zero guarantee that the WMF would give public access to an archive, while the Internet Archive explicitly guarantees it, with a strategy behind it for 100 years. -- (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
WMF is already a relatively inefficient org at doing what they do now, it's pointless to ask them to do what others are already doing well. If anything, they could donate something to the Internet Archive to compensate for the various ways we (ab)use it.
People interested in archival of Wikimedia and other wiki content can join WikiTeam's efforts at wikitech:Nova Resource:Dumps and w:en:User:Emijrp/Wikipedia_Archive. As you can see there we have already archived several tens of TB of Wikimedia Commons images over there. There are about 27 months of uploads ripe for archival, if somebody wants to help. Nemo 12:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Closing this proposal (archiving external links)Edit

As this proposal (Mobile 📱) for backing up external links on Wikimedia Commons through the Internet Archive has been open for a couple of months now and it has received a myriad of support views with no opposition. While it is unlikely to be implemented anytime soon due to the people capable of developing a bot to implement this system such as not having the time to work on it now, it wouldn't really be useful to leave the proposal open as it’s already been de facto accepted.

I think that an admin can now close it as "✓ Accepted" and that it might be best to create a separate page named "Commons:Wayback Machine" that links to the proposal and smaller scale projects. This page can be used to document the deployment of the proposal and the policy surrounding it (or in this case what the Wayback Machine is, why linkrot is/was a problem, how it makes license reviewers’ lives easier, Etc.) and maybe it should also list a tip to users to also place an external link to the copyright license in case this isn’t present on the source page (for example a website which hosts many images on many pages but have it hidden away somewhere on another page that all works on the website are licensed with a Creative Commons license, although I myself prefer specialised templates for that).

Just to be clear, this page should at the time being only state that there is consensus for all external links to be backed up to the Internet Archive, not that it is currently implemented as linkrot can still affect files today and of course unreachable links won’t be able to be retrieved plus some websites disallow archiving and copyright licenses can change (despite Creative Commons licenses being irrevocable) and a more recently archived external webpage might not reflect what was written there at the time of upload, but for these cases license reviews are more reliable. And the list goes on and on, but so does the list of videos needing their licenses reviewed (12,113 videos needing review as of 11:54, 29-07-2019, Central European Time). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I like this idea. -- Tuválkin 17:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    • The long term solution would be to have User:InternetArchiveBot run here too. Either Kaldari or Cyberpower678. The behavior should probably be the same as on Wikipedia and the main difference is that the primary namespace is 6 (files) instead of 0 (articles on Wikipedia, galleries here). Not sure if either of them is planning to spend any time on this. As a short term solution someone can implement a simple bot to backup specific url's. See for example this code I've been using for a while for things I add to Wikidata. Multichill (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Multichill:, you're an admin and someone with an eloquent writing style like @Alexis Jazz: or Fæ could write the "Commons:Wayback Machine" policy/documentation page. If someone with the technical skills were to want to develop the means to archive all external links we could point them to this page and show that consensus has already been established. Most of Commons:Structured data has existed for years before any features were implemented too. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

'The above is copied from "Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/07#The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine".

Could this be implemented? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal typing aidEdit

When somebody uses e.g. the de:WP it should be well known that there are many 'search' abbreviations; as an example, H:T will make some suggested expansions, like Hilfe:Tabellen, or H:V like Hilfe:Vorlagen. That simplifies the access to many pages - not only to Help pages.
Spoiled by such comfort, I am missing a comparable service in the commons, where I am doing a lot. On busy days I type hundreds times the long namespaces Template: or Category:, wishing it would as well be possible with only T: or C:. To install such a possibility could not be a problem to the relevant people!
In the English language, many terms are pleasantly short (Help, File, User); really longs things are abbreviated (i18n); I just miss the mentioned cases - therefore I ask the community about that idea. -- sarang사랑 15:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sarang: C: is not desirable because this is the recommended interwiki code for Commons. We have COM:, templates can be linked with {{Tl}} and when using templates you don't usually need to enter Template:. See also COM:Shortcuts. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Ok, C: is not desirable, I understand that it is the wrong example. But when I want to enter a special template, or category, I always have to type the full namspace: first. I know that we have short-named templates, like {{C}}, {{F}}, {{T}}, {{U}}. But that's only for using/linking them - not for searching. -- sarang사랑 16:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support aliases T for template, CAT for category, and MOD for module. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    @4nn1l2: I think T could be risky with possible future interwiki shortcuts. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Alexis Jazz: I guess that is the problem of future, not now. In my opinion, WMF already hosts too many projects, and new projects should not be added too easily, and I guess we have not had a new project for many years (excluding Wikidata). 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the aliases mentioned by @4nn1l2, plus U for User, F for File, and T suffixes for associated talk namespaces (UT for User Talk, GT for Gallery Talk due to conflict with Template).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Why not ? I'm too lazy to write the full word. -- Eatcha (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I only support t for template and cat for category. Inclined to oppose the others. Use shorthands only for the most frequent words.--Roy17 (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulphere 10:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but with reservations, mostly because of the multilingual nature of Wikimedia Commons, we should try to support as much language as possible while trying to avoid confusion while implementing this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support CAT for categories would be very useful --Ruthven (msg) 14:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--神樂坂秀吉 (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Geograph 2?Edit

Commons has plenty of images of the British Isles thanks to imports from Geograph. As most of these uploads were done long ago, it might be worth doing another bulk upload. Jura1 (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not, unless they are significantly better than their previous standards. People standing in front of buildings does not constitute a picture of a building. Churches are not generally angled at about 5 degrees off the vertical. The British Isles has, occasionally, some daylight, so it should be possible to see the subject, and in focus. Unless we can get resolution somewhere above at least 5MP, and uploads are filtered for quality, it just makes work for us to do later. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree: better than a bulk upload, we prefer to target good quality pictures. --Ruthven (msg) 09:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe it would be worth looking at a sample category: Category:Twr Mawr Llanddwyn Lighthouse
    • The category has currently 12 images: 1 from Panoramio, 1 from the NLW, 2 direct uploads and 8 from geograph.org.uk.
    • Except maybe for 2 or 3 similar pictures, from a mere user perspective, the group together gives a good impression of the topic. If we didn't have the geograph ones, this wouldn't be so.
    • Obviously, a series of featured pictures to showcase and possibly print poster-size would enhance it further, but at least we have a good basis to illustrate the topic.
    • It's somewhat regrettable that there are no people in any of the pictures as otherwise one could get a better sense of the size of the building.
    • A non-minor problem of Category:Twr Mawr Llanddwyn Lighthouse is that the most recent picture is from 2010. One could get the impression that the lighthouse remains stuck in the last decade.
As digital photograph evolved since the last decade, I think the resolution of recent geograph images is higher. Jura1 (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I would dearly love to get more recent Geograph pictures into Commons, but I think a bulk import of the 4 million missing pictures would probably be unwise. In addition to the quality issues mentioned by Rodhullandemu (which I think will be less for newer pictures), there's the simple matter that a fair proportion even of technically good pictures will be out of scope: there are only so many pictures of oilseed rape fields in East Anglia that Commons needs. Another problem is categorisation: it's only within the last year that the last of the 2010/11 batch was categorised, and plenty still need review. On the other hand, relying on individual uploads means we miss an awful lot of worthwhile pictures: Commons users are uploading images from Geograph at a little over 1% the rate that Geograph is gaining them (60-odd over the past week vs 6000-odd). The other 99% can't all be bad. --bjh21 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe structured data could simplify if not avoid manual categorization entirely. Jura1 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a bulk upload. These are useful photos to have here, even if it would be better to have higher resolution versions. Targeting pictures to upload would miss out quite a few photos that turn out to be useful a while after they have been uploaded, and wouldn't have otherwise been spotted/used. The particularly good thing with this set of photos is that they all come with coordinates, so they can be put into the category tree by location right from the start, and then be migrated into the more specific categories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh My! "They all come with coordinates!" better, "some come with correct coordinates". You wouldn't believe some of the howlers I've seen in and around Liverpool Geograph images of late. They'd have been better sticking a pin in a map. It's not helped that {{Geogroup}} has been changed to only show the top-level, and its developer isn't talking to anyone. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
But you could tell that they were images from Liverpool? That's already a good start. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that the Geograph import has been a clear net positive for our coverage and quality, as I keep bumping into topics which would be very poorly illustrated without it. It would be nice if someone could achieve a new import, maybe with some heuristics to avoid uploading photos of areas which might already be "crowded". Nemo 19:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, bulk uploads will always be added to a maintenance category and while most images will be high quality educational images a few images will be nominated for deletion by those doing the maintenance, the benefits of hosting those images largely outweigh any negatives from them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It's been a while since I ran GeographBot. I think I uploaded (the first) 1.8 million images and they currently have over 6 million images. The categorizatin would need attention when the remaining are imported. When I did the import we didn't have Wikidata so now it should be easier. Fort the new files, we could add some structured data right away. I would first start with setting up an incremental bot that just uploads everything from Geograph, but lags behind say 3 months (to prevent junk to be instantly mirrored here). When that's working fine, it can do the bulk. What is the quality of reverse geocoding these days for the UK? The flow would be coordinate -> reverse geocoding -> Geonames or similar id -> Wikidata item -> Commons category. Multichill (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    • England, at least, now has very good Commons categories corresponding to UK parishes, matched to Wikidata. It's easy enough to get coordinate outlines for these, via their GSS code (2011) (P836) and then OSM or the ONS or the Ordnance Survey TOID (P3120), which can then be used to place image coordinates reasonably well. One can also look up on Wikidata to see if there are any point coordinates near the location, which may suggest a specific item / category. Manual review is still needed (together with addition of any further thematic categories), but one can get a long way from the coordinates. Per Mike Peel above, the usefulness of photos can sometimes be quite unexpected and unpredicable -- eg two images that I found were just what I needed for en:Mairi Hedderwick, a bio I wrote a few years ago. Jheald (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Newer images on Geograph may be of significantly higher resolution -- and many will not be identical to subjects we already have. Jheald (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Many high quality images were in my line of sight from the previous upload. If some had problems, it is better than not to have good images. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support all of the parishes (apart from 1 that doesn't have any images) have categories that are categorized by district so the bot can work out which category to put them in. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Close inactive non-English village pumpsEdit

Inactive VP are like ghost towns. Posts on those don't get answered in time. We may consequently miss out issues or lose the minority users. Therefore, I would like to make three proposals:

  1. Close inactive non-English village pumps. (As part of the process, resolve any unanswered requests or move them to major VP.)
  2. Merge all non-English help desks into their respective VP.
  3. If a certain language version were to be revived or created anew, it must receive community concensus first.

And some technical suggestions:

  1. Remaining ones should be opted out of message delivery, unless the community agrees to opt in. The messages are more like spam that make real discussions harder to find.
  2. Archives to be done on request only (by inserting {{Section resolved}}) or automatically after no response for min. 2-3 months. Archives should be set up per year (preferably) or per 250K+ bytes. (Prompted by the Commons:Köy çeşmesi, archived automatically for 7-day-old posts and set up per month... ridiculous settings for a minor forum.)

--Roy17 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Mea culpa — I just added to my watchlist all those VPs whose languages I can contribute in adn might need a helping hand (so, not fr and es). -- Tuválkin 23:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Adding to the top, IMHO, the main VP and help desk are not reserved for English but they serve as centralised noticeboards. Only if threads in a certain language overwhelm the primarily Engish VP, should the language have its separate place. It's not the other way around, that each language automatically deserves a place, and now I am being Anglocentric and killing them. VP and HD are meant for reporting issues and solving problems but not general Internet forums.
Another reason to open a minority VP could be using it like classified ads, but I doubt how effective this is. Rather than posting here, users should take the matter to the more popular local wikis.--Roy17 (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No opinion on the matter in general, but existence of two separate Serbian boards Commons:Трг and Commons:Trg is a patent absurd; let alone both are inactive. Merge all such stuff into one Serbo-Croatian (or Croato-Serbian, if one likes it more) village pump. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The ones to keepEdit

I think the following languages can be kept: the six working languages of UN, German, Japanese, Portuguese, Italian, Dutch, Persian.

Borderline (some activity, but not all posts get answered, and some of their population is relatively small): Czech, Hungarian, Polish, Finnish, Ukrainian, Bengali, Hebrew.--Roy17 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) +Korean, Turkish.--10:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, whether a forum is active or useful, does not depend only on the number of new posts, but also on whether experienced users are present to help. If not enough native speakers monitor the forums, it's better for newbies to ask on the main help desk/VP. A solution is, interested users can sign up to monitor a forum and be listed at the top of the page. If issues are not answered in time, newbies could go directly to those users' talk pages. The Commons community also knows whether a forum is actively maintained by experienced users. (This list is redundant for languages that obviously have large active userbases, e.g. Dutch.)
Btw, there are no signs of native speakers' activity on the Greek Commons:Αγορά and the Thai Commons:สภากาแฟ, even though these languages have hugh population. Everything is bots' spam or non-Native speakers' appeal for help. I'd say Close.--Roy17 (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The Serbian forum in two scripts, if kept, should be considered for unification like how the Chinese Commons:Village pump/zh is implemented.--Roy17 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep ALL of them, there is a chance that these village pumps will become active in the future and for speakers of these languages these village pumps might be their only gateway to help, even if interaction is sparse (to put it at best). We should fight the Anglocentrism of Wikimedia Commons, not enforce it. A common problem many people have is that if they don't speak English then they won't be able to contribute here. It is better to editprotect largely inactive village pumps until a speaker requests access than to outright delete it, I just don't see the benefits of deleting any village pump. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Addendum, and as usual, the conversation regarding the fate of many non-English speaking communities is wholly conducted in English excluding the people whom this proposal concerns, this only shows the extend of the current Anglocentrism of Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
      At least Commons:Čaršija satisfies COM:CSD#G1 (nothing meaningful). 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
      When there is no native speaker (especially experienced ones) around, it makes no difference if you reply to them on their version or on the main VP in English or anything but their mother tongue, but it does make a difference for them not to be guided to a ghost town, and have their messages discovered months or years later by wandering scavengers like me. The main VP and help desk are not reserved for English either.--Roy17 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The proposal by 4nn1l2 seems reasonable. I support it. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep ALL of them per Donald, and encourage knowledgeable native speakers of languages other than English to contribute to, or at least watchlist, the village pumps of their native languages.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. If you're concerned about people posting to these pages not getting answers, put them on your watchlist and answer them. Forcing non-English speakers to negotiate the English Village Pump to get a response is backwards.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep ALL of them I agree with Donald.--Vulphere 14:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep them all, per Donald and Jeff and Prosfilaes. -- Tuválkin 14:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep ALL of them per Donald. Move the VP to the major ones? So, you think people can just move to Spanish or English VP? Most part of the world do not speak English. Better keep those VP than force people move to a VP in a language they do not understand. --Sahaquiel - Hast du eine Frage? Coat of arms of Germany.svg 22:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Questions @Donald Trung, Jeff G., Prosfilaes, Vulphere, Tuvalkin: may I ask for a confirmation that your Keep All means you support keeping Commons:Čaršija? How many of you visited this page before you said Keep All?
And how many of the 50+ VP have you visited, and checked their histories to see their activity?--Roy17 (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I saw it, while I cannot endorse it's creation in its current form I do think that such village pumps have potential, it should best be improved to match this page and some basic copy-pasting might suffice. I think that these village pumps largely suffer from a lack of communication between Wikimedia Commons and their respective Wikipedia's, there isn't that much cross-wiki communication. For example "Commons:De Kroeg" links to this page (current version) but not vice versa. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Please don't ping me on general boards like this. When you propose 50+ pages for deletion, you can't expect people to look at every one; expect responses to the general principle. I watch one of the pages you propose for deletion, and see no reason at all to deprive Esperanto speakers of a page to communicate on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I proposed Closing, not deletion. The general principle would be marking pages with {{Historical}}. And out of 50+ VP, my stand is 21 of them can be kept, so I did not propose 50+ pages for deletion. Not 50+, not deletion! I always expect thoughtful discussions.
Esperanto VP had seven threads in 10 years. Only two of them are not massive news delivery. I dont seem to see your effort at maintaining the VP either.
Could you please clarify then, whether you backtrack on Commons:Čaršija? If thst's the case, what about Commons:İniy dew?--Roy17 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The distinction between "closing" and "deleting" here is uninteresting; either way you make an interactive page unusable. The distinction between 50+ and 29+ is rarely interesting.
People who argue against the death penalty don't get into the details of what w:Bobby Joe Long did, so no, I refuse to be drawn in on a discussion of specific Village Pumps. I believe there's value in having a page where people who don't speak English can feel comfortable posting on instead of demanding they go to the Village Pump. If by thoughtful discussion you mean discussion that starts with the same assumptions as you, you're going to be oft disappointed and oft unfair.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Roy17, you may ask for a confirmation, and that is now given. Your gotcha question is noted and dismissed, as this is a matter of principle. What all these pages need is a few active Commoners who are fluent speakers of their languages to watchlist them, making sure that any enquiry is replied to. Considerations about the number of such enquiries are irrelevant (and, frankly, feels somewhat meanspirited); this is not costing anyone anything, so lets just make it work. -- Tuválkin 05:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Those were honest questions, but you answered only the first one. I am sorry that you chose to interpret them in a negative way. Commons:Čaršija is subject to speedy deletion per G1, but since some users confirm they support keeping it, a DR will be necessary. I am looking forward to your opinions in DR.--Roy17 (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am getting flashbacks to the whole Portal discussion over at en-wp. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Now two weeks after the keep all votes, what has the users enthusiastic about linguistic diversity done to help resolve the cold cases on each board? Btw, which is worse, replying on their local boards in foreign languages, or asking them to post on COM:VP in their native languages?--Roy17 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Help desksEdit

I'm splitting off the suggestion about help desks. {{Lang-HD}} is a bit misleading: most languages just redirect to their respective VP, while only English, French, Japanese, and Mirandese(nope, Mirandese redirects to the Portuguese VP) have separate Help Desk pages. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Mirandese should either have its own VP, or redirect to Asturian VP. (Just like a link to, say, a non-existent Flemish VP should redirect to Dutch VP, not to French VP.) -- Tuválkin 14:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Action planEdit

The following should be carried out step by step regardless how users above want to keep the talking shops:

  1. opt all forums out of automatic message delivery, unless speakers of that language explicitly approve of opt-in.
  2. answer all current cold cases in their languages, English, or any appropriate lingua franca.
  3. one-off archival of everything.
  4. set up automatic archiving (by year) for future posts.

Step #1 and #2 can be begun right now.--Roy17 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Better image templateEdit

Is there such a thing as a template, easy to find, to ask that a better version of an image be uploaded, such as here, where the size is so small, hence the writing so blurred, that it's questionable whether or not such an image, of a very interesting subject, is snything more than an irritating distraction?

If not:

Proposal: Create a "better image" template as per need explained above. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: We have {{Blurry}} and {{Low quality}}, do they meet your needs?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for asking! I was thinking more in terms of a template that says something like "This image of a valuable subject should be replaced if possible with a better version". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, this is more relevant for Wikipedia than for Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Amend Commons:Categories/editintro and Commons:Categories/preloadEdit

prefil

I suggest all of these be amended to make use of {{Wikidata infobox}}:

For example, Commons:Categories/preload/people should be replaced with:

<includeonly>{{Wikidata Infobox}}
{{subst:#ifexist:Creator:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|{{Creator:{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}}}

[[Category:]]
</includeonly>

--Roy17 (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question When are these preloads used? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Commons:Requests for comment/Change pre-fill on category creation page due to Wikidata.. I still don't know. @1Veertje:? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I think that this is a good change to make now. The Creator template probably doesn't need to be included, though, since it should just duplicate what's shown in the infobox. @Alexis Jazz: They appear at, e.g., [6] - "You are creating a new category description page. To pre-fill it with some basic elements, choose: People, Ships or Museums". That can probably be reduced to just adding the infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I never even noticed that. I often make categories with HotCat. Anyway, Symbol support vote.svg Support in that case. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support yeah, it's an interface feature most experienced users are blind to. Vera (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, we should be using Wikidata more for Wikimedia Commons categories more and many novice users could benefit from this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support per Donald Trung.--Vulphere 06:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Addition to COM:OVERWRITE: no image optimizer toolsEdit

To ✓ Minor improvements, add:

✘ The same file with no change but a reduced file size using tools like PNGOUT, pngcrush, jpegoptim, etc.

I occasionally see users doing this, thinking its useful. For any thumbnail (most on-wiki use) it makes no difference so it saves little bandwidth, does cost some storage, browser compatibility (especially for SVG files) can be altered, metadata and color profiles could be lost, compression is not guaranteed to be lossless and because those users do this by hand, they could be introducing all kinds of errors. If we actually wanted it, we'd have a bot for it or even just have MediaWiki do it automatically. No user should do this by hand. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

No image optimizer tools: votesEdit

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, how is this not considered a form of vandalism? (just to be clear, I don't support ever blocking someone over this, people often do it in good faith, but if partial blocks will one day be implemented then I would support limiting WARNED repeat offenders from doing this.) Maybe when someone overwrites an existing file there should be a list of rules displayed like we have for renaming an existing file. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as reduction of file size is not good in the most cases in general --GPSLeo (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulphere 06:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That kind of "optimization" doesn't really seem to help anybody as a) it only increases the storage space used over all and b) the user gets served png thumnails that have been rendered server-side anyway. --El Grafo (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The proposal is much too general and should more specific to a global restriction. E.q. file-format, SVG, s. below or if the optimized file is 3/4 smaller (or other) -- User: Perhelion 00:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm unconvinced this is a problem that needs fixing. If you see someone doing something that you consider to be a waste of time, perhaps let them know... but I struggle to see why this is something for which we need to create a rule. Also, there are situations where a file is perversely huge for no good reason - on the other hand, maybe we should just delete them. Storkk (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

No image optimizer tools: discussionEdit

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment altering browser compatibility for SVG can be a good thing if it fixes some of the many commons issues … --El Grafo (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems most people here have no real clue about the SVG format. A general restriction is absolute senseless here. Some SVG are full of code garbage (e.q. 4 MB vs 40 KB, which can have huge performance impact and can crash the Mediawiki renderer) and that's one of the main points why SVG is not natively support here (not the compatibly issue). phab:T208578 -- User: Perhelion 00:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Perhelion: You misunderstood the proposal. Some further explaining can be added to COM:OVERWRITE though. If you overwrite some 4 MB SVG file with a 4 KB one to stop the Mediawiki renderer from crashing or browser from locking up, you have overwritten it for those reasons. Not to reduce the file size. If a 4 KB SVG is crashing the Mediawiki renderer, you'd also overwrite it. Not crashing the Mediawiki renderer is a change different from reduced file size, so you can overwrite. Removing junk that makes the file hard to edit, thus making it easier to edit, is also a change different from reduced file size. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
      • By that logic, any size reduction of (non-png) files would make them easier to edit. And that change may not be trivial if the edits are being done in bulk (for raster) or by hand (for SVG). Some common sense is always going to be necessary, no matter how many rules we create. Some people are always going to occupy themselves in ways that others think are trivial, and while it may be OK to point out to them why you think that work is trivial or useless, I can't fathom why you'd want to enshrine a prohibition in the guideline. Storkk (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Addition to COM:OVERWRITE: allow overwrites to obscure unacceptable elementsEdit

To ✘ Substantial changes or completely unrelated files, add:

✓ Blurring, cropping or otherwise obscuring unfree elements and any other unacceptable parts (like sensitive personal information) that would otherwise result in deletion or a DR, provided that the image is still useful and in scope after the offending element has been obscured.

Overwriting is generally preferable over uploading a new file and deleting the old one. It preserves the file page history, authorship information, license review, OTRS permission, and requires less on-wiki replacements. It also prevents having to link to a deleted file as the source. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Allow overwrites to obscure unacceptable elements: votesEdit

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, preserving the useful bits of a file is always good, this shouldn't just apply to copyright violations, but also to people standing prominently next to notable buildings, I've seen useful educational images which could've simply been cropped deleted as "an unused personal file" before, of course in this separate case the page history should be visibly preserved. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Definitely something that should be done over creating a new file. Revision deletion is always available for the unfree version. --Majora (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, after all that’s what has been done in many cases: Blurred book covers (example) or posters, blurred private vehicle licence places, blurred faces, and so forth. -- Tuválkin 18:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as zero-effort way to maintain attribution, categories, and other metadata, with revdel per Majora. DMacks (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GMGtalk 21:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulphere 06:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support I think this is a perfect example of how the policy should be developped, it is already a de-facto standard, and although it allows to overwrite somebody else's file with another version it is intended to actually increase the chance that the upload will remain on Commons. It is a little strange why it wasn't a policy so far. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is especially important (and existing practice) for the Wikisources, who routinely deal with several hundred to thousand page written works that include one or two illustrations that are not PD. --Xover (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Allow overwrites to obscure unacceptable elements: discussionEdit

  • I think it is not clearly worded, because the whole file is the "derivative work". Maybe say "portions of an image that represent derivative workscontent"? DMacks (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@DMacks: Thanks, adjusted. Face-smile.svg - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I generally think Commons should be more careful about the use of "image" to describe all forms of media. This particular policy applies equally (in fact perhaps even more so) to non-image media such as books, magazines, movies, and audio. I would suggest "work" or "media" as a replacement, or in a pinch "file" (too focussed on technology, so I don't prefer it for this). In all contexts where a main factor is copyright, such as here, I would suggest using "work". </soapbox> --Xover (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: I will leave it as "image" in this proposal because that's what was voted on, but after implementation the word "image" can be replaced on COM:OVERWRITE, possibly after a short discussion on its talk page. I personally prefer "file" as the page itself is rather technical. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Increase the move rate limit for autopatrolled from 8 to 32 moves per minuteEdit

These are users who actually spoke up. (and that I was able to find) Many who encounter the error likely ignore it. I propose increasing the move limit for users with autopatrol flag from 8 to 32 per minute.

Increase the move rate limit for users with autopatrol flag to 32 moves per minute: votesEdit

Increase the move rate limit for users with autopatrol flag to 32 moves per minute: discussionEdit

localize upload wizardEdit

currently, the upload wizard only shows US government in default licensee. I hope to have an option to adjust based on user's location and their interface language. So it should be easier for people from outside of the US to upload their files without the need of going through all the different licenses out there. Viztor (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Viztor: This depends on something much bigger. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New abuse filterEdit

A filter that prohibits IP and users from adding templates that require vetting, e.g. {{Quality image}} (basically some of the things from Category:Assessment templates). These groups are exempted: Autopatrollers, File movers and Rollbackers. Autoconfirmed cannot be trusted either since the threshold is so low.

I thought of this because I saw 113.172.194.60 (talk · contribs) added a lot of fake QualityImage (the +17 bytes edits). Either a bot has to check for fake ones or we should prevent insertion of these templates straightaway.--Roy17 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe templates like "{{Quality image}}" should only be added by a group called "Content judges", but then again I wouldn't want to see a whole user group created over an incident that rarely happens. I'm not sure how only stopping IP addresses would be beneficial as someone can just register an account and then do the exact same thing. But then again a lot of abuse filters are created around single incidents or single users so maybe it's not a bad idea. But having a bot automatically compare where the template is used and which images have actually been promoted would be the superior alternative, as theoretically anyone could falsely add a "{{Quality image}}" template, so the bot could alert to all false quality images and then remove the template/report on it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17, Donald Trung: Why not restrict it to bots? Do humans add those templates too? (I don't pay much attention to it, I mostly notice it when I see talk page spam from bots for QI/VI) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strategy Working Group recommendation to change licensing rulesEdit

Hi all,

The Diversity Working Group has recommended for certain changes to our licensing rules to foster diversity and address systemic biases, in pursuit of Strategy2030. This includes hosting (and using) ND and NC media. Opinions on the recommendation are welcome, (until September 15), over the corresponding t/p.

Other recommendations are located over here and feedback is appreciated on the individual t/p(s).

Regards, Winged Blades Godric 05:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to introduce Non-Commercial media on Wikimedia CommonsEdit

There is an off-Commons proposal by the Diversity Working Group (announcement on VP/C today) to change Wikimedia Commons licensing rules. Presumably this could happen by the WMF forcing a change in COM:L without a consensus with the Wikimedia Commons community.

There are consequences for hosting Non-Commercial (NC) reuse only media that appear to have not been assessed, such as Wikimedia Commons immediately ceasing to be a reliable freely reusable media collection for educators and academics to publish in study materials, academic papers and academic works. The section on negative impacts merely states "All change has negative connotations to some members of the community."Q4a

As the associated talk page on meta has turned in to a vote, and as this vote should be happening on Commons if it is to engage the Wikimedia Commons local community, I have raised this proposal as a vote with the local community. Contributors should feel to raise comments and views here rather than on meta, where most of our community never edit and different editorial policies apply for comments.

Though the recommendation includes a potential No Derivatives (ND) reuse license constraint, for simplicity of an initial vote, this proposal is to assess views about a Non-Commercial change only. Contributors may also wish to highlight issues for hosting ND media especially when these may be different to the issues for hosting NC media.

Links:

Thanks -- (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Votes (NC license)Edit

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as proposer. -- (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose NC licence is big no.--Vulphere 10:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A big NO. per Fæ and it will change Commons reliability. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 10:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Absolutely not. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose❗︎❗︎❗︎❗︎❗︎ Speechlessly, -- Tuválkin 11:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Those who recommend this ought to read The case for Free use: reasons not to use a Creative Commons -NC license and Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the re-use of biodiversity information. The problems start with not having a precise legal definition of a “commercial advantage” which is refered to in section 4b of the legal code of CC-BY-NC. This puts re-users at risk and inhibits many options naturally associated with free media like, for example, the use of these medias for books. And it conflicts with the 2007 resolution regarding licensing policy of the board of trustees. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose per AFBorchert.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose On allowing NC-only or ND-only media on Commons unless we are talking about a very small amount of Wikimedia logos. In other words if the exceptions cannot be placed on an exclusive list, then that should not be done. However, Symbol support vote.svg Support integration of NC and ND licences by CC and other popular licence creators, allowing for an easy way to allow one's own work to be distributed under other licences as long as at least one free licence is also available. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose involving politics in absolutely unrelated area like licensing. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, yes, these files should be hosted somewhere, no that place should not be here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dumb idea. Most of our files can be freely combined. A derivative work can not be created by combining a CC BY-SA and CC BY-NC work. BY-SA requires ShareAlike, and noncommercial is not Alike. BY-NC requires noncommercial, but BY-SA allows commercial. Also, the diversity rubbish emotional argument: yuck. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support professional photographers and GLAM partners could license content much easier. --Ailura (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Commons must only contain truly free content. Okki (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Don't let NC licenses get legitimized through adoption by Wikimedia. Fortunately, there is the right to fork, for the worst case. --Marsupium (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Completely contrary to our mission. --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per already mentioned rationales and per the fact that in some legislations it is even unclear what "commercial use" is and what is not. --Túrelio (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose It completely destroys our mission, which is to generate and disseminate content which can be used for any purpose free of copyright restrictions which limit commercial use, derivative works and similar restrictions. It's also the case that NC and ND licenses can never be integrated into Commons, we're 55 million files too late for this decision, we have CC licensed material which cannot be changed or re-uploaded with NC and/or ND licenses. I'm genuinely worried at the lack of experience and the woeful absence of any level of understanding demonstrated within this proposal by the WMF Diversity working group. We've indefintely blocked editors from English Wikipedia for lacking the competence needed to contribute, and genuinely, in many cases, those editors have displayed a greater competency and understanding than the Diversity working group. Nick (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Smial (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose - It is absolutely nonsense to allow NC in a project about free content. I have been talking with the CC folk about the possibility of not promoting their CC-NC licenses, as they have been acting as a cancer undermining the whole free licensing effort, and now the Strategy WG proposes to enable them here? No way. If some community is not comfortable with free licensing, there is a lot of resources other than Wikimedia Commons available to them.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Whoever had this idea clearly doesn't understand Commons. --Voyager (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose - The absolute core mission of this project is to upload and share files for anyone to use without any restriction ...... Accepting NC/ND licences would completely go against that mission, Like Nick says we're 55 million files too late. –Davey2010Talk 13:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Other than every reason above, and relatively minor issue compared to the principal, Commons is a no-brainer for those Wikimedia communities who chose not to include non-free material. Changing licensing policy is adding yet more complexity to image handling in these projects. No proper rationale has been given for the proposal. --MarioGom (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose per AFBorchert --Jack-ONeill55 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Yes I can see why professional photographers would want this as they could earn lots of money by using Wikipedia to advertise their photos and then charging for any reuse that they could convince a court was "commercial". But even this form of advertising would be toxic, and would lead to edit wars with photographers wanting to keep lucrative photos on Wikipedia articles even if we had more encyclopaedic images available. WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Anything that cannot be used in for example a Linux distribution has no place on a Wikimedia server. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Seems to be an inappropriate mission. Glrx (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The problem is that commercial is not clear defined. (Let's make capitalism history that this question gets obsolete.) --GPSLeo (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Strongest possible. This "marginalized group" nonsense is a distraction. Making the content NC/ND ensures that it will be much harder to store/publish/propagate their cultural artifacts. It is precisely because we want to preserve and publish this unique content that we cannot include such restrictions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No no no. Resolve the conflict with the 2007 board resolution (linked by AFBorchert above) first and even if it happens I am not happy with the idea - it just kills this site. — regards, Revi 11:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (NC license)Edit

I am aware that #Strategy Working Group recommendation to change licensing rules exists above, however this was not worded as a proposal, only a link to the meta recommendations and discussion. -- (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Does integrating historically marginalized groups require that the movement stakeholders rethink its Creative Commons tenets by incorporating use of “No Derivative Works (ND)“ and “No Commercial Works” (NC) licensing (as well as changes on principles of notability and definitions and usage of other sources) to facilitate “authenticity” of voices which have been historically prohibited from telling their own history?

To me, this makes no sense at all. How the hell restrictive licensing can help communities who typically lack access to sophisticated legal advice and whose interests are represented in the global arena by NGOs, often against for-profit entities? This reeks of pork! -- Tuválkin 12:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the idea is that some communities (I have particularly heard this about Native American communities but I understand it's broader) don't share their heritage outside of their community, because they don't want that heritage (which is figuratively or literally sacred to them) made available for commercial exploitation [particularly not commercial exploitation by people who colonised their countries, stole their land, etc]. Saying "anything in the Wikimedia movement is available indefinitely for all purposes" makes us a very unattractive partner for them, for this reason. If we really want to record their heritage, then we probably won't be able to do it without in a 'free as in speech' way. Of course, it's a valid point of view to say that we shouldn't attempt to do this, or shouldn't attempt to do it on projects that currently exist, or that if we try to do it it's unlikely to work (including e.g. because -NC -Nd licenses might not be defended in practice). But that's the rationale, as I understand it. The Land (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The Land, we have always known that not everyone will be willing to release their work under a free license. If they are the copyright holder, that is of course absolutely their choice to make. If they'd prefer not to do that, we will refrain from using it on Wikimedia. If such restrictions are needed, perhaps a non-Wikimedia project could be started to accommodate that, but Wikimedia projects are fundamentally about providing "free as in speech" educational content to the public. Seraphimblade (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The Land, This isn't really about whether NC and ND licences are likely to be defended, more that if the concern is cultural appropriation NC and ND don't seek to stop that. Worse, copyright is only for a limited period such as life plus 70 years. That isn't likely to be a concern for a living professional photographer, but for someone concerned about the permanent protection of the cultural legacy of generations long dead, uploading files under a CC-BY-SA-NC-ND licence means agreeing that those files will eventually become public domain with no restrictions. WereSpielChequers (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gone Postal: I think by integration other licenses, you are suggesting we do something we already can do. Normally alternative licenses which are not allowed as the sole license per COM:L are added as comments to the permissions parameter, and are fine to display, so long as suitable free licenses are displayed. As an example File:Industry during the First World War Q28320.jpg explains it was released on a NC license at source, but is verifiably expired Crown Copyright. In theory we can "templatize" these redundant licenses, so long as it is done in a way that does not start getting flagged as a rationale for copyvio templates. -- (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, there has been a proposal open to create a special Wikimedia wiki specifically for hosting non-free media files to allow for fair use items to be shared between Wikipedia's and as many Wikipedia's and other Wikimedia wiki's are solely dependent on Wikimedia Commons for their media files this solution wouldn't be a bad one, using The Commons for hosting non-free files on the other hand is completely absurd. Ever notice how the Wikimedia Foundation never seem to list their proposals here, it's clear that they ignore the community and don't want its feedback. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    • This is not a proposal from the Wikimedia Foundation. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
      • sorry Whatamidoing (WMF) but the WMF ran a strategy process that wound up with a bunch of perennial proposals being rehashed, without people seeming to have even read the reasons why the community has previously rejected such ideas. When Newbies come up with such proposals it is easy to refer them to past discussions and suggest that they read them and at lest consider past objections. If the WMF has run the idea gathering stage of a brainstorming exercise without such a reality check it would be unfair on the editors involved to simply throw them and their ideas at the community. The WMF needs to run the reality check stage of its brainstorming, and give people the opportunity to amend or withdraw their proposals in light of past community objections. Think of it as a sort of safe space. It may be that some of these ideas should still be discussed, but hopefully with their proponents in a position to say we think for x and y reasons it is time for the community to change its mind on this. WereSpielChequers (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
        • WereSpielChequers, I'm not quite sure how to respond to this (and similar comments from a couple of other people).
          • On the one hand, we have a handful of volunteers saying that a change might be good for a particular goal (diversity, in this case). The Strategy team apparently thought "transparency!" and published whatever the volunteers were talking about.
          • On the other hand, we have a couple of volunteers asking why the WMF didn't keep all of those volunteers' ideas secret from everyone else, or at least only publish the parts that the WMF agreed with.
            Let's ignore the question of whether or not any of these ideas are (or could become) good ideas. My question is only this: Do you really want the WMF to keep you from discovering what's going on? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
            • I really want the WMF to avoid publishing proposals under its byline that don't fit with what it's planning to do. Your question is quite stacked; choosing not to publish things that aren't consistent with your goals is not censorship.
            • My question is only this: Are you happy with WMF not being trusted by the volunteers working on its projects?--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
              1. The WMF didn't write those recommendations, and Commons is the community that I think best understands the difference between "user who uploaded" and "author". The attribution is given in the edit summaries. There is now a note at the top of each page to help less experienced people figure it out.
              2. I don't think that telling one group of volunteers that they're not allowed to share their ideas with other volunteers is a path that builds trust in either group of volunteers. And my experience with Commons in particular is that Commons is always best served by knowing what other groups are doing that might affect us here, even if – especially if – those ideas might cause problems here. Do I always get what I want for Commons from the WMF? No. For example, there's no automagic screening of uploads for prior publication. (I'm still nagging reminding people about it.) But overall I tend to think that talking to you about what could affect Commons or what we need here builds more trust that springing someone's secret plans on you at the last second. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
                1. The WMF is the publisher, as I said. The WMF publishing this is quite a bit different from uploading something to Commons.
                2. There are groups out there that want your head on a spear, because of your nationality, your race, or your religion. When should your newspaper devote space to their recent statements? If they do it too much, the community is going to have a lot of stress. The WMF publishing stuff like this puts stress on Commons.
                3. Sometime before you started posting to this thread, user The Land said that responding to this was overkill. If responding to this is overkill, then the WMF should not have posted it. That's the context in which these arguments happened.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
            • Hi Whatamidoing (WMF) my suggestion is not to think of this in terms of secrecy, not to even raise the idea of secrecy, I didn't mention secrecy and if others did it is a distraction. When I said " When Newbies come up with such proposals it is easy to refer them to past discussions and suggest that they read them and at least consider past objections." I was spelling out how we normally handle such suggestions. My criticism of the strategy process is nothing to do with secrecy and everything to do with process. Uncritically throwing out a bunch of ideas in not brainstorming, it is just the first stage of a brainstorming exercise. You also need a phase for reality checks, to ask questions such as "will this work?" and "why we have not done this already when it was previously suggested?". By omitting this phase or not doing it as rigorously as was needed the WMF has given the impression that they are ignoring "the question of whether or not any of these ideas are (or could become) good ideas". My criticism and the criticism of many I agree with is that this process should have happened during the strategy process, and before the strategy process produced a draft for general community discussion. WereSpielChequers (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
              • AFAICT, the current phase – the one in which thousands of volunteers get to look at what that small group of volunteers was talking about and tell them what their fellow volunteers think – is exactly the "phase for reality checks, to ask questions" that you wanted to see. The same questions are being asked of volunteers and staff alike: Will these ideas work? Are these good ideas?
                Do you think that you and the other volunteers should have been excluded from that process, and just let staff decide which ideas you get to hear about? I'm willing to take yes for an answer, but I'd like to make sure that "don't tell me what's going on until decisions have already been made" is really your answer. If I'd been asked just a few days ago, I would not have assumed that any regular contributor here would have been so willing to trust anyone to understand this community's unique needs. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
                • Hi Whatamidoing (WMF) I don't recall mentioning staff, I think a few experienced Wikimedians was what was needed. I'm happy to have a process where drafts were exposed to an audience of thousands of wikimedians, Its just that this lot weren't ready for that stage and that size of audience. I occasionally spend time at the village pump handling perennial suggestions from new and newish editors who need to be signposted to previous iterations of their idea. I think it must be a much less stressful process for someone reviving a long rejected idea to have a person or small group of people pointing out the reasons why that idea has been rejected before than to be thrown into the deep end like this with thousands of editors alarmed that the WMF seems to be proposing this. WereSpielChequers (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
                  • What makes you think that these people aren't "experienced Wikimedians"?  Were you thrown off because they didn't link their usernames in the membership list? The first name in their list has 90K edits across all wikis, and 87,000 are right here at Commons.  She probably knows more about Commons than I do.  The next person has 100K edits, including more than 1,000 here at Commons.  The next name has almost 7K edits, including more than 1,000 here at Commons.  The fourth person in the members list has 46K edits, including more than 12,000 here at Commons.  I could probably go on and get similar results for the whole list, but I think it should be clear that these draft recommendations come from people who are "us", not from a bunch of outsiders who have no idea how a wiki works.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
                    • Hi Whatamidoing, well yes maybe it would have been better if they had linked usernames rather than real names. Or if they had listed Wikimedia Commons, GLAM or Wikipedia under the "Organization / project" heading. I do recognise a couple of those names, and note I wasn't saying they were outsiders or lacked knowledge of how a wiki works. I was pointing out that these were newbie mistakes not outsider ones. Of course we are all liable to make newbie mistakes when moving into a new part of the wiki, and it is possible to have been very active in one or more areas of commons without having been involved in past discussions about either NC or cultural appropriation. But I'd be surprised if any of those people had a history of being involved in image release discussions with cultural institutions that have material where cultural misappropriation is a concern. Suggesting a licence that in at most a century will expire and drop the file into public domain is not an appropriate response to someone who has such concerns. WereSpielChequers (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
                      • I suspect that part of the cause is that their remit is a fairly narrow focus. Something could be a plausible idea for promoting diversity (or whatever good thing interests you) without being a good idea overall, or a good idea for Commons. As for the limits of licensees, even full copyright protection expires eventually. Someone might grouse that an -NC or -ND license is only a baby step in our preferred direction, compared to full copyright protection, but it does seem to be moving in the right direction. And if, say, -ND were really wanted by potential contributors at a separate oral-history wiki (mightn't some potential interviewees be worried about unauthorized remixes changing the meaning of what they said?), then why not let that (hypothetical) community consider whether they wanted that as an option? I don't think it's a necessarily mistake to consider whether the educational benefits could, in some scenario, outweigh the costs. I think the mistake was in assuming that any of this needed to affect Commons. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @: No, you have misunderstood me a little bit. I am not saying that it is currently impossible to do, but that it is not integrated into Commons. Let's say I would like to search for media that is also available under a Non-Commercial licence (perhaps I am integrating that media with something else that is already under NC licence). I could try looking at {{GFDL-CC-triple}}, but it is ugly, outdated, and does not categorise media under NC licence's category. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cc-non-compliant gives you something, but trying to figure out from that list where is ND, where is NC, and where is your specific version is impossible. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments (NC license)Edit

I don't believe it's accurate to interpret this draft recommendation as a requirement for a wide-reaching change to Commons licensing policy, and for this reason, this is a premature thing to be voting against.

The wording of the proposal is nuanced, and worth reading in full, but both the purpose and proposed scope are worth bearing in mind:

"Present licensing for both text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial use and no derivative works, if those will improve the ability of the project to better reflect diverse knowledge on a global scale, such as by including videos, allowing culturally significant text or photos to remain intact without misappropriation, etc. Such misappropriation for a variety of reasons has created distrust from marginalized and underrepresented communities with open knowledge movements."
"...photographs, which are marked ND (No derivative works) or NC (No commercial works) could be made available for use with proper attributions/licensing notices. This would allow distribution of educational videos or materials often licensed only as NC, or culturally significant works marked ND which might suffer from misappropriation. (If this cannot be applied across the board, we need to evaluate project specific use for multimedia, such as the “fair use” policy on English Wikipedia.)"

So this is a proposal for the Wikimedia movement as a whole to consider some ways of supporting some material with a NC- or ND- license. It is not necessarily Commons should change its policies to accept -NC or -ND material in general, let alone anyone forcing this through without further deliberation. And indeed I read it to say that the working group have explicitly identified that there are probably ways to effect this recommendation without individual projects (e.g. Commons perhaps?) being involved at all.

So, please, hold off with the pile-on oppose votes for the minute! The Land (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This vote is about a potential license change on Commons. It does not matter whether everyone who votes here has read a document on meta or not, what is being voted on is any hypothetical future change to allow NC licenses on Commons.
If the Working Group wishes to exempt Commons from these radical license changes, then they are free to make that clarification. This proposal is a documented consensus that can support any discussion about Commons policies. If the Working Group wants to, for some reason, either ignore it, or claim it is invalid, we can run a later RfC that does the same thing and can be specifically based on whatever the Working Group states is their final recommendation.
If the Working Group wants to improve its engagement with the Wikimedia Commons community, that would be great. Right now Q4a in the recommendations illustrates perfectly well that the Working Group have a very low regard for anyone that might not 100% agree with whatever changes the Working Group thinks are smart. Feel free to change those words if they do not correctly represent the Working Group, it is their publication.
Could you please declare your relationship with this Working Group. I see no reason as to why that should be made opaque for everyone else, especially if the Commons community is to judge whether your comments here represent the Working Group in any official way, or whether you have special inside knowledge about what the plan for publication of these recommendations is, as this is not declared on meta anywhere as far as my searches can tell.
Thanks -- (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
There's two ways this conversation can go, we can either end up with a long list of people who are opposed to your personal interpretation of what you think this proposal means, or people can engage with the actual recommendation and the thinking behind it. Either's good. The Land (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Please declare your relationship with this Working Group. I see no reason as to why that should be made opaque for everyone else, especially if the Commons community is to judge whether your comments here represent the Working Group in any official way.
This is a Wikimedia Commons community vote. The vote and comments are not my "personal interpretation", nor have I made any "long list" of enemies. It would be simply super if you could put aside any motivation you may have to make further personal attacks in this discussion which is aimed at establishing consensus, not an excuse to play petty personal politics.
Thanks for supporting transparency and openness, part of our Wikimedia family shared values. -- (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I am happy to clarify that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Diversity Strategy Working Group. In no way shape or form did I discuss, review, read, or otherwise contribute to, the recommendations of the Diversity Working Group. I may never in fact have spoken to any member of the Diversity Working Group. If nominated, I shall not run and if elected I shall not serve. I am however a member of the Roles and Responsibilities working group and very happy to engage in discussion of actual recommendations coming out of the strategy process :) The Land (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You have more patience than I would have, The Land, for this sort of dramamongering. Edit: To clarify what I meant, this is a recommendation by a working group, not a complete proposal or something actually happening at this point. I don't think that starting a discussion in three places is a proportionate response to it. Ajraddatz (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a draft recommendation that the community strongly opposes. That's why the pile-on. There is a feeling that if things are let to get to the point where it's an actual recommendation, we'll simply have it forced upon us, where as if we complain loudly now, at least WMF can't claim that there was no objection.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
NC
As the NC name already suggests, non-commericial. The Commons main page already said that "freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute" which is roughly translated to being commercial.
ND
This is an unneccesary load on admins, patrollers & reveiwers. Minor changes such as cropping already violates this and what happens if a user uploads the file with a totally different name?

If other platform allows this, it is their own problem but we should keep everything on commons free. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why nd is a load. Derivates of ND are forbidden, same as copies of protected content or copies of CC-BY-Files without attribution. What happens if a user lies then? --Ailura (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Commons has no systemic tools to confirm that a hosted file has not been changed before upload. Frequently uploads have been subject to autocorrect, changes in resolution, low saturation images or grey toned images changed to black and white, or adjustment for monitor viewing from an original photograph, it is incredibly rare for these to even be spotted as variations. It becomes impossible to make any sort of verification of authenticity if the source is taken offline, never was online, or the sourcelinks die, which happens to all source websites, even those given as permalinks. -- (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The No Derivative licence restricts some of the changes and adaptations that users here and downstream re-users want or need to make to successfully make use of material - it can prohibit the small changes that Fae has indicated - potentially if a file is uploaded flipped or rotated, we would be unable to rotate the file and use it. It would also prevent updating of graphs, charts, maps, flowcharts and the like, which routinely need changes to incorporate new datasets, changes to borders or boundaries etc. That's the basic issues we face, but No Derivative licenses generate further problems. The 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 licenses prohibit any derivative works, the 4.0 license prohibits derivative works for public purposes but permits for private usage, which is an added level of complexity for our downstream re-users, most significantly though, is the way in which No Derivative works on Commons could limit the creation of independent but visually similar material - i.e the risk that our own users, generating new material, are going to accidentally violate the copyright of ND files already extant on Commons, with the risk that it may not be possible to update some material. Nick (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
While I am against allowing ND-only files on Commons, but ND licence is unable to stop somebody from rotating an image, because that would not be seen as a derivative work in any country I am aware of. Updating of a chart is, however, a big problem. Because when it comes to copyright enfringement you need two things: access and similarity. If I were to make a chart of post office sizes and it would end up looking similar to some other chart that somebody on the internet has put up, I could easily say that I did not copy the file and demand that the other party prove that I had accessed their chart. But if there is an ND chart on Commons, I would be forced to thread very carefully to make sure that my chart is not substantially similar to theirs (to copyrightable elements of their chart) simply because I am already on the site where we have this file, and thus access is much easier to show in court. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 17:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

WTF WMFEdit

I thought this was just a proposal from a loony some silly sod. It was shared with us here by Winged Blades of Godric, who appears to be a regular editor. But Nick pointed out above this actually originated from the WMF, so I had to look again. m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9 was created by SGrabarczuk (WMF)..? SGrabarczuk (WMF), are you a loony some silly sod or just very poorly informed about the mission of your employer? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: The recommendation wasn't created by the WMF. It was created by a working group which consisted mostly of community members from various chapters and affiliate groups. You should direct your criticism towards them, not the liaison who posted the recommendation to meta (who had nothing to do with creating it). As the proposal page says in huge type at the top "Working Group draft recommendations are not proposals from the Wikimedia Foundation." Kaldari (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kaldari: I find that a bit of a weak excuse not to do a basic sanity check. If this proposal is 100% community driven, why wasn't it posted by a community member? What did they need SGrabarczuk (WMF) for? Anyone can create new pages on meta. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
It *was* posted by a community member, User:Fæ. Note the "Oppose as proposer" in the very first vote. The WMF has nothing to do with the proposal here. It was proposed to gauge community reaction to the possibility voiced in the recommendation, presumably so the WMF will know the community opinion here before they make any decisions based on the recommendation. SGrabarczuk (WMF) has not (at least yet) posted a message here at all. All that person did was post the text of the recommendations to meta, which was obviously a necessary step in that process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I meant the working group diversity recommendation (recommendation, proposal, tomayto, tomahto) page on meta. That page was created by SGrabarczuk (WMF). If that was merely a copy-paste, why didn't the working group create that page themselves? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: From discussion, I believe that user is the liaison for that group, or maybe just is the person on meta who gets to put up pages like that for the WMF. The working group reported back to WMF, and the WMF is just publishing their recommendations. Criticize the content of the recommendations themselves all you want, but I don't think the WMF has taken any action on them other than just posting the text as they got it back. It's fair to question the process the WMF used, given that the recommendations include such fundamental changes of making the "free encyclopedia" no longer free, and the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" not true anymore, both with absolutely no justification other than a vague "some users will complain about any change" statement when evaluating any negative consequences. Anyways, this page is just discussing Fae's proposal specifically. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz, right, I'm even both a loony and a silly sod, and eat children for appetizer. Questions? Thanks, pleasure.
...
Did you think I could take your words seriously? :D I'm a Wikipedia admin, I've been through worse.
Please, have a look at the documentation on Meta-Wiki. I confirm almost everything Clindberg wrote. In the the edit summary, I wrote: "authors: WG members". WG means Working Group. They didn't post themselves, because they spend enough time on writing these documents, and delegate simple taks (like posting, wikifying, designing pages) to others.
This isn't a proposal nor a recommendation, it's a draft recommendation, disclosed early so that you could be confused, so that Wikimania participants could explain to WG members how things are according to them, and so that the WG members could rewrite the draft and make a difference between drafts and final versions.
I'm not WMF staff member. I wrote that on my user page. That's my basic me. Currently, I work with the Core Team (which leader is Nicole Ebber, she's from WMDE, not WMF). SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

"I'm not WMF staff member."

I think you need a new username. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, please contact the Core Team. I don't have wikimedia.org e-mail, access to their wikis etc., so go ahead. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Nicole Ebber (WMDE), KVaidla (WMF), BPatel (WMF), JMcMurray (WMF), MPourzaki (WMF), THasan (WMF), DSsebaggala (WMF), KStineRowe (WMF). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@SGrabarczuk (WMF):I regret the use of the term 'loony' which has negative mental health connotations, and I believe it would be best for Alexis Jazz to redact the phrasing. I am, however, shocked by the profound lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of the Diversity working group with regards to understanding the Wikimedia core mission, and in respect of copyright and intellectual property legislation. They appear to be users who have none of the necessary understanding needed to be drawing up and presenting copyright and intellectual property proposals to the community, and should not be doing so. I'm also shocked and disappointed that WMF has done no due-diligence on the part of the group members, and has allowed members who lack the necessary copyright and IP knowledge to be making detailed but highly problematic and technically impossible copyright policy proposals. The terms defined for the Working Group at Wikimania 2018 are nothing short of scandalous, no experts on intellectual property and no community representatives from Commons being involved in the development of new copyright proposals.
I'm genuinely disappointed and really angry at how badly wrong WMF has allowed this exercise to get, straight away. I would urge the WMF to immediately implement a plan which sees a "copyright and intellectual property" working group which includes the WMF legal counsel, our experienced legal volunteers and a significant number of users who have been involved in the maintenance and administration of media on Commons and fair-use enabled projects to oversee all of proposals with a copyright or intellectual property interaction coming from all the other working groups.
Copyright and intellectual property is one area where the community does NOT get to decide fully on either WMF-wide and/or project specific policies, we are forced to comply with, at the very minimum, the United States copyright and intellectual property legislation and that will always be our starting point; that legislation essentially prevents a number of perennial proposals, such as hosting fair-use material on Commons and makes others, such as the use of non-commercial and no-derivative licences incredibly difficult to manage. We simply should not have any working group, be it the Diversity working group or any other, being permitted to make proposals which could potentially contravene US legislation if they were implemented in part or in full.
I am, on a personal note, deeply saddened that the proposal to allow NC and ND Creative Commons licences has been made ahead of proposals that we double and treble our efforts to persuade media repositories to release their works under the existing fully free licences. I understand and am sensitive to concerns about cultural misappropriation and marginalisation but I fully believe the best way to deal with cultural misappropriation and marginalisation is to disseminate such material as far and as wide as it can be spread, to send out the message from Wikimedia that it's more acceptable to limit important cultural material to non commercial purposes, or to prevent derivative works would be regressive. Nick (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Nick, there was some candidate review process, I don't know if that could be compared to due-diligence. On Meta, you can read why, who and how appointed the WG members, and that it wasn't the WMF. I personally took no part in that.
I informed the Core Team about your concerns. Please, copy and paste it as a separate section to discuss on Meta-Wiki, maybe there? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Nick: "(informal) An insane or very foolish person." I see no reason to be offended. This was very foolish, wasn't it? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
<sarcasm>I'm glad you think there's nothing wrong with being insane.</sarcasm> Kaldari (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kaldari: Definition of "or": Connects at least two alternative words, phrases, clauses, sentences, etc. each of which could make a passage true. It is different from "and", which requires both words, phrases, clauses, sentences, etc. to be true. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz, so smart! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Nick: The WMF has not made any proposals. It was one of the recommendations of the working group, but was not a proposal by WMF itself. The recommendation allows that putting them on Commons may not be feasible, and instead could be interpreted as wanting to change EDP scope on individual projects to allow such works locally in some circumstances. The proposal here is independently made by a community member, presumably to gauge reaction on the Commons possibility itself and possibly guide future decisions. Agreed that the misunderstandings of copyright by that working group are rather disturbing -- especially when talking about using "invariant sections" of GFDL, where they both misunderstand the current Terms of Use (Wikipedia text must be licensed CC-BY-SA *and* GFDL; it is not "and/or" which is a huge difference -- the "and/or" refers to further re-users), and also misunderstand the use of "invariant sections" (which by definition must have nothing to do with the subject matter of the main document). Those sections were allowed in order for the GNU Manifesto to be included but not allow alterations to it, but the license expressly requires that any such section discuss nothing relating to the main subject matter, since that must always be modifiable. And the current Terms of Use forbid the use of invariant sections for contributed text anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Yes, I'm aware these aren't WMF proposals, rather, they're proposals made by members of the wider Wikimedia community as part of a WMF orchestrated and managed Wikimedia 2030 project. WMF have, predictably and sadly, failed to manage this process adequately and have allowed users without the necessary experience or competency to make suggestions which are diametrically opposed to the underlying goals we've built the project on for the last two decades, which may well run contrary to US legislation itself and which could potentially open WMF, editors and re-users open to legal action or civil damage claims. Nick (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe that's why it's a draft proposal seeking wider community input. Kaldari (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Wrong sourceEdit

There is a Template:Wrong license, which is good, but I miss a Template:Wrong source. It seems as there are a lot of files where the users claim that it is "own work" where it clearly is not, such as certain logos etc. Can someone create a template which works exactly like Template:Wrong license, but with the source? Thanks!Jonteemil (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

In practice, in years gone by, people would just use the "no source" template for that purpose, although the creation of a "wrong source" would be good. You could probably just copy the wrong lincense template and make adjustments as needed. Killiondude (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Maps of Fujian ProvinceEdit

In the File:Shannan mcp.png map and File:Nyingchi mcp.png map, we can clearly see what areas are claimed by the People's Republic of China. Those files are used on English Wikipedia's en:Shannan, Tibet and en:Nyingchi pages. That's an ethical and a fair way to represent a dispute/claim.

There are four maps of the territories of the People's Republic of China that don't show this kind of 'claimed' or 'disputed' status, namely File:Administrative Division Zhangzhou prfc map.png, File:Administrative Division Putian prfc map.png, File:Administrative Division Fuzhou prfc map.png, and File:Administrative Division Quanzhou 3.png. I would like to request that some new but similar maps be created that would indicate more clearly what areas are in the Republic of China (Taiwan). The original maps should be used in the Wikiworld for the purpose of understanding the claims made by the PRC, but the new maps I propose would be used for displaying the situation as it is. I am not skilled enough to make these maps well. I think using something like the methodology used on the maps for Shannan and Nyingchi would work great.

I recently encountered a similar type of problem on the File:Taiwan relief location map.jpg page.

Thanks for any help or suggestions. @ASDFGH, Chk2011, NordNordWest, Uwe Dedering: --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC) (modified)

You can ask at Commons:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop for help with a new map. This seems far from the place for the discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I have made this request on that page. [7] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Allow file movers to suppress redirectsEdit

Give file movers the suppressredirect right and adjust MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js to let them use it to suppress redirects while moving files, to avoid the situation described at COM:AN#Image name swap request.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Obviously, given my comments at AN. As I said there, that this is not available on Commons currently almost seems via technicality, as we have no page mover right, and therefore no user right with suppressredirect un-bundled from the sysop toolkit, while other large projects do. I understand that we don't normally want to suppress redirects at all, and this would, I imagine, mostly be used in the case of round-robin moves (a to c, b to a, c to b). In these cases it seems simple enough just to have some template saying that a redirect was suppressed/the file renamed and replaced. Guidance may need to be updated in that respect, although the current guidance (These redirects should almost never be deleted.) seems fairly straightforward. Even so, we have seven times more file movers than we have sysops, and it seems that someone who is experienced enough to understand the comparatively complex criteria for moving files should be competent enough to know whether suppression is necessary. GMGtalk 14:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but I'd suggest having a new user right like "extended file mover" or something on the line just to be safe. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)