Commons:Village pump/Proposals

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; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/01.

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?

Start a new discussion

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved\|1=~~~~}} after 5 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Importing works of John Fielder[edit]

To stay brief, John Fielder, Celebrated Nature Photographer, Donates Life’s Work to Public Domain. Surely this should be imported into Commons, shouldn't it? Psychoslave (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like it was donated to Category:History Colorado. Anyone have any experience or want to start a connection with the museum? I imagine that would be a lot better than just grabbing the images and trying to guess when or what he was photographing. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is the evidence of a Commons-compatible release? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Improve Toolhub coverage of Commons tools by improving on-wiki tool documentation[edit]

Toolhub is a community managed catalog of software tools used in the Wikimedia movement. Technical volunteers can use Toolhub to document the tools they create or maintain. All Wikimedians can use Toolhub to search for tools to help with their workflows and to create lists of useful tools to share with others. You can read more about Toolhub in general on meta.

The Technical Engagement team is interested in talking with active contributors to Wikimedia Commons about finding more ways for the Commons community to use Toolhub. We are interested in having more tools that are helpful for workflows on Commons listed in Toolhub and for those tools to be more discoverable to folks who are contributing to Commons.

We think that updating Commons: Tools is one way to start on this problem. We are proposing a small project to build new templates and use them to make the list of tools readable by a bot.

If you are interested in discussing our proposal, or if you have your own idea to propose improving Toolhub integration with Commons, please join the conversation at Commons talk:Tools. Udehb-WMF (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Silence is approval ;) Be bold, revert where needed and discuss. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we are close to the WP:BOLD stage on this, but I would like to highlight that I have posted information on a proof of concept implementation that will be the basis of my bold edits later this week. I am still very much hoping that folks will at least tell me what they do not like about the visual designs. -- BDavis (WMF) (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At a first glance, that looks reasonable to me - but I'm sure we will find things to complain about as soon as you actually start doing things ;-) El Grafo (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, make your programs complete[edit]

When someone publishes a spoof photo on Wikimedia, the bot puts a notice on the deletion request page (delete2) and the log page (delete3), but the programming remains unfinished. Why should I go to the scammer's site to explain that you have cheated? The picture in question is here and it doesn't show a platypus. Could you complete the program so that many users do not have to do unnecessary visits? I also refer you to the request: "Also, you may want to check the Wikimedia projects that use this item, and then remove or, if possible, replace with a better item." - This was unnecessary text. Maybe you yourself are willing to replace the scams with superior pictures so that you don't leave it to others to do. Jari Rauma (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, the bot did notify the uploader of your deletion request. It's just that Rudolphous removed that message from his talk page. So I don't see how any programming on the Commons side would be incomplete. De728631 (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you are right. The program seemed to have worked correctly, but the user deleted the message. So it's pointless for me to report to him about a note, even though such a prompt is in Wikimedia's instruction, which is therefore incorrect. Jari Rauma (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not incorrect, nor is it pointless to notify them. By removing the note, they are essentially certifying that they have seen it. The system is working correctly, as far as I can tell. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello from Finland! Huntster, you Anglish-master, the computer program did a good job of sending a message to the person. But I said, "it's pointless for me to report him. Please, don't change my words and subject. What is the logic behind your refuting your own words? When you answer this, we can discuss the meaning of the word "incorrectness". Jari Rauma (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jari Rauma: What bot? 2001:2003:F659:2D00:E192:F316:55C7:8830 used the QuickDelete gadget to tag File:Ornithorhynchus anatinus (37786073842).jpg for deletion, in the process notifying the uploader. Why do you feel compelled to follow instructions that were already followed? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 07:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change UploadWizard feedback link[edit]

proposal: change the "Leave feedback" link on Special:UploadWizard from Commons:Upload Wizard feedback to Commons:Village pump.

reasons:

Commons:Upload Wizard feedback is a dead page.
the frequency of users' feedback is roughly a few times every month, so it's not expected to cause congestion on village pump. directing users to the most active public discussion page is good enough.

RZuo (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

as for why it doesnt link directly to phab: phab:T209336.--RZuo (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support = Feedback page has 261 watchers[1], VP has 3,225 watchers so not only would they recieve a reply much quicker there but they'd also recieve an actual reply as opposed to potentially being ignored (of course that could happen here too but it's highly unlikely), Makes sense, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 17:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Village Pump definitely has more eyes on it, and certainly Upload Wizard should be fixed so uploaders are properly educated about Creative Commons licenses. Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose VP is a good place for blowing off steam, but most actual problems should go either straight phabricator or to COM:VP/T. The current solution with a box explaining the different options is the better one, imho. Just remove everything else from the page so nobody thinks they're supposed to leave feedback right there. Essentially turn it into a landing page that redirects users to the right place for their problem. Also, change "Leave feedback" to "Report a problem" on Special:UploadWizard. WMF is not looking for feedback on the design of the whole thing any more, and in any case VP would be the wrong place to propose any changes. --El Grafo (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RZuo, Davey2010, Abzeronow, and El Grafo: Why should we continue to feed into the myth that WMF developers care about feedback on the Upload Wizard? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upload Wizard definitely needs some adjustments so uploaders don't put clearly public domain files as Creative Commons 4.0 files and adjustments could prevent this, and if WMF devs don't see this as a problem that needs fixes, then we should make sure feedback on that problem is in a forum with as many eyes as possible. Abzeronow (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When will we learn that most ppl dont care and understand. They have a goal and want to achieve it, they dobt care about rules. They need time to learn them. Give ppl time to learn. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jeff G. what's your point? They consider it complete and have moved from active development to maintenance. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help people with solvable problems at VP/T. That also doesn't mean that we should stop reporting bugs at phabricator. What it does mean is that the feedback page is obsolete because feature requests posted there won't be read. Feature requests made on phabricator likely won't be answered either, but at least they can't claim they didn't see them. El Grafo (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add "upload log" link to heading of mass DR on user[edit]

for example, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Panoramio upload bot is for user:Panoramio upload bot. every heading has the format ".. (talk · contribs)".

i propose adding "upload log", that is, the format becomes ".. (talk · contribs · upload log)". the link will be [[Special:Log/upload/username]]. the link lets DR participants go straight to check a user's upload history, see how many red links there are...

to do this:

on MediaWiki:Gadget-VisualFileChange.js/core.js, insert mdUploadlogPrefix: mw.config.get( 'wgFormattedNamespaces' )[ -1 ] + ':Log/upload/', after line 1892.
on MediaWiki:Gadget-VisualFileChange.js/ui.js line 995, change '|contribs]])'; to '|contribs]] · [[' + vfc.mdUploadlogPrefix + target + '|upload log]])';.

RZuo (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Mobile app: Zusammenarbeit von Wikimedia Commons und OpenStreetMap / Wikimedia Commons and OpenStreetMap collaboration.[edit]

de:

Mit der Commons App einfach Bilder aufnehmen und automatisch mit Objekten in OSM verbinden.

Idee des Prozesses:

mit Commons App in OpenStreetMap Karte hinneinzoomen
Objekt auswählen
mit Commons App Foto aufnehmen
Das Foto wird veröffentlicht
anschließend wird im Knotenobjekt in OpenStreetMap unter Details der Schlüssel „wikimedia_commons“ mit dem Wert „File:Bildname“ hinterlegt

en:

Easily take pictures with the Commons app and automatically connect them to objects in OSM.

Idea of the process:

zoom into OpenStreetMap map with Commons app.
Select object
take a photo with Commons App
photo will be published
then the key "wikimedia_commons" with the value "File:Image name" is stored in the node object in OpenStreetMap under Details

see also: Commons:Mobile app/Feedback – Wikimedia Commons Molgreen (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Write from Commons directly into OSM dataset[edit]

Or another idea: would it be conceivable to write from Commons directly to the OSM database. Assuming you know the OSM object ID of a mapped object, you could add it like a category to the properties of the image --Molgreen (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect the better route would be through Wikidata. Each Commons picture or category for which there is a WD item should have a link to that item, and each WD item that has a corresponding OSM object ID should link to that. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, linking from Wikidata to OSM elements has one major problem: OSM's object IDs are not permanent and can change when the map is edited. El Grafo (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same problem is when you try to use OSM object id as properties of image. In any case currently proper way is to add wikidata items to Openstreetmap. (and if you need them in SPARQL then make federated queries through Sophox) However, this doesn't help if one need items in Lua or template code. -- Zache (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eqsily done, using https://wikishootme.toolforge.org/ -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caption edit box in File editor is small on mobile[edit]

Hi, on my mobile device the text box to add/edit a caption is only a few characters wide, making it difficult to work with. I wonder if it's possible to make it larger? P.s. thanks for all the great work! Facts707 (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allow user to delete botched upload[edit]

I hereby propose, that if user uploads a file and for any reason he is not happy with it, he should have 10 minutes to delete it, without needing any assistance of any other person.

Yes, he will probably just upload a new version of it, but he doesn't want to leave the old version around wasting bytes, nor does he want to waste others' time helping.

The upload form could in fact ask him "Happy?"

Sure he is supposed to plan ahead, but sometimes mistakes happen. Jidanni (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In those circumstances, {{speedydelete|G7}} would never be declined. I strongly suspect it would be very difficult to implement what Jidanni is proposing. It also would probably really complicated the process of checking new uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well OK. But on File:19940722epoplar.jpg how does one mark only the middle crooked version for deletion? All there is is a revert button. There is no handy mark for deletion button. Also your template says "This template is to mark pages that can be speedy deleted." I bet I will end up getting the whole page deleted! Jidanni (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You save no bytes by "deleting" a file or file version on Commons, as the only thing deleting does is hide them from public view. Admins can delete a version ("revisiondelete") of the file, but that should be done only in the case of legal or privacy problems, not because it was "botched" like this. No problem having it in the history. And as Jmabel says, allowing a normal user to do this is convoluted: you need to assign such a right ("delete" or "deleterevision") to a process running on the user's behalf, and it is very easy to do some mistake in the coding such that the feature can be used for unintended effects. –LPfi (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please somebody delete just this version: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3e/20230304033700%2119940722epoplar.jpg Jidanni (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you see it was simply 90° off and just a big mistake so no point in leaving it sitting around. Yeah I know the next time I could just ask them to rotate it for me but never mind that... I'lI already rotated it myself. Thanks. Jidanni (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing is that such mistakes are supposed to be left in the history, like, you don't revision delete Wikipedia pages because of a spelling error that got fixed in the next version. The page or file will remain on WMF's hard disks, so you won't save any space, deletion is just an extra hassle. –LPfi (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an example of a deletion that wouldn't even be granted by an admin, so certainly not one where someone should be allowed to circumvent process. - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose There is zero ability to give people any sort of temporary deletion right so the proposal is dead on its face. I don't know why it would be so difficult for someone in the small chance that they uploaded something and changed their mind to ask for people to help them. The fact that one editor uploaded an image incorrectly and is annoyed that they didn't look at the preview of their upload and now has to ask for help is not a reason to make a major change to the function of this website. Further, the last thing people need is vandals being able to upload files, post them and then delete them with no one able to know what is going on unless an admin looks at the deleted revisions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - A) Depending on circumstance we do allow recent uploads to be either speedy deleted or DR'd (Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G7)

B) The file in question (File:19940722epoplar.jpg) was uploaded in 2007 so therefore cannot be speedy deleted and even if this proposal passed the file still couldn't be deleted anyway as it's not a recent upload so I'm confused by this proposal?

If we're talking about revision deleting then no unless there's an actual reason (gratuitous, privacy etc etc) then no we don't revdel/suppress the history/files.

This proposal achieves nothing and as noted above we shouldn't change the functionality all for one person. –Davey2010^Talk 12:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was talking about the 90 degree tilted middle version. It was only current for a couple minutes before I straightened it and uploaded again. Anyway one day someone is going to upload something so embarrassing by accident, too embarrassing to even leave for a minute, or ask and admin, that a final last chance should be given once they see what they did. Jidanni (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People do that all the time and they don't always figure it out within 10 minutes. We don't allow for universal self-deletion and I don't think it is technically possible anyways. Why is it so embarrassing to ask an admin? I mean you can email many of the admins if you want it to be (semi) anonymous. You are asking for a major change to the website's functionality for a completely abstract hypothetical. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add Like Button[edit]

All other websites on the planet it seems have Like buttons next to each picture. In fact they even have a choice of six emotions. So it seems Commons should get on the bandwagon, even if it is the road to ruin. Yup: simple logic: keep up with trends.

Sure, there are various contests. But under my proposal even the lowliest photo of a #3 wrench set would have a Like button people could press.

So what will people do with their "Likes"? I don't know. That's for the next generation to decide.

And what if I liked version 1 but then the user uploaded version 2? I'll leave that to the tech team.

Well then not only Commons, but Wikipedia articles too need Like buttons? OK, sure.

Jidanni (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a "Fave" button you can enable in your settings (section Interface: Files and categories). Stores your favorite files in a personal gallery at Special:MyPage/Favorites. Regarding the proposal: your only argument is "keep up with trends". Why should we? El Grafo (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The commercial websites have those buttons as a means to maximise advertising revenue, and their effects is one of the reasons why social media and smartphones are seen as a social problem. Unless you want to keep some people's attention on this site more than what is healthy, you need to explain what you are trying to accomplish and how the adverse effects could be avoided. –LPfi (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose if WMF thought there was anything to be gained from it, they'd have shoehorned some buttons into Commons a decade ago. But we're not a "social" platform like Youtube, Instagram, etc. where the users are the product and "engagement" is more important than content. El Grafo (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@El Grafo To be fair Commons would certainly be bottom on a very long list, I sometimes wonder if WMF actually realises they're hosting Commons at all!.

As for the proposal - there's no need to keep up with trends as we're not a social networking site, That's my 2p anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 15:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, there was a time when they were pushing all kinds of features in order to engage more "casual" users. Remember the mobile uploads debacle? Or the whole drama around Flow? Early MediaViewer and UploadWizard? Oh, the outrage ... good times ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should have a simple rating feature for photos as the QI process does not scale for the amount of files uploaded every day. GPSLeo (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a thank button for edits that are appreciated. I don't know what publicly happens with them but I think it's more important that we focus on edits than mere media. We have discussions where people put in their likes. It seems like you just want to do it with single button for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what publicly happens with them

Special:Log/thanks tracks the thanks that have been given. See mw:Extension:Thanks and w:en:Help:Notifications/Thanks for more about the feature. -- BDavis (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I see that it doesn't identify the specific edit. That could be a sort of like. If someone got twenty "thanks" for the upload edit of an image, isn't that the same as twenty "likes" for the image itself? I get thanks for edits all the time which are appreciated. I don't do a lot of amazing uploads so I can't compare it to what Jidanni is looking for. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about no. We are not a social media site. If you enjoy an image there is a favorites tool which I believe notifies the uploader. We do not need to turn WMC into a popularity contest. Dronebogus (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]