Commons:Village pump/Proposals

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: 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; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/09.

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?

 

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.

Limit file overwriting to users with autopatrol rights[edit]

There are many disputes on overwriting of files and also many cases of long undiscovered bad overwrites. To prevent this I would propose that file overwriting is only allowed to users with autopatrol rights. Users without autopatrol rights should remain to be able to overwrite their own files. This simple change would prevent a lot of time consuming disputes. As the requirements to get autopatrol rights are low this would not prevent users from doing useful contributions. GPSLeo (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may support this, but could we start this with an edit filter/tag to determine how widespread this activity is, and perhaps stave off some of those "undiscovered" mistakes? Elizium23 (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elizium is right, out of the blue I have no indicator how often overwrite actions by non-autopatrollers happen at all, and how often this turns out to be an undiserable action. Also, can this be tagged/filtered retro-actively?Enyavar (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checking how often this happened in the past is a bit complicated. But I create an abuse filter to monitor all cases from now on Special:AbuseFilter/290. GPSLeo (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a look at the filter hits: Since yesterday 19:00 UTC there were 74 files overwritten by users without autopatrol rights. I had a look at all these edits. 20 of the overwrites are fine. In 20 cases it could be discussed if the overwrite violates the guideline. In 34 cases there is a clear violation of the COM:OW guideline. GPSLeo (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --A.Savin 09:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I would even support if only the authors, admins, people with (a new) overwrite right or specially marked images (maps or similar) were allowed to overwrite them. --XRay 💬 10:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For this we could create a filter to mark the edits. GPSLeo (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support I agree with XRay but in any case new users don’t have any good reason to be trusted with such a powerful potential vandalism tool Dronebogus (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Question: in cases where non-autopatrolled users have legit reasons for overwriting, how do you envision they submit an overwrite request in the future? --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They should just request autopatrol rights. I do not think that there are cases where a user is trustworthy for overwriting but not for autopatrol rights. Alternatively we could create a template that can only be placed by admins/patrollers to make an exception for a file. GPSLeo (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support - A great idea. Nosferattus (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if a user is denied autopatrol but the overwrite request is justified, how are you gonna process that request?--RZuo (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak oppose. I'm not sure if this is such a good idea. It seems like it will fundamentally change editing unless you're one of a small group of editors. I have overwritten a decent number of files, for things like SVG code cleanups. I only got autopatrolled because I asked for it when I needed to upload and MP3 file. But on the other hand, the rate of misuse by well-intentioned editors seems to be high. But could making greater efforts to educate newer users of when to overwrite files be the better approach? Edit: There are also files that need to stay updated, like File:Gestational limits for elective abortion in the United States.svg, which I could not have worked on unless I was autopatrolled or someone allowed uploads by all. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment - First (1st) of all, having seen a large amount of problematic overwrites by new and sock accounts I acknowledge that this is a major problem and a common cause for edit warring. However, there are plenty of legitimate cases where users who very likely aren't eligible for autopatrol will run into problems if they cannot overwrite a file. At the Graphics Lab there are a fairly number of WikiGraphists with no user rights that upload high quality SVG files, many of these users barely have any uploads and edits in general but the few edits they have consists of taking on requests and / or cleaning up SVG source codes (something which can only be done by overwriting files). Another issue is that if non-autopatrolled users can't overwrite their own files they might upload a similar file and then request deletion for the original, minor cropping or censoring faces, license plates, Etc. for privacy reasons are common examples here. Further regarding SVG files we could see situations where users will upload nearly identical SVG or even identically looking SVG files and then nominating the original for deletion over errors in the code ("Bad code") or over minor colouring issues that could've easily been fixed by overwriting.
There are a number of unforseen consequences that I simply haven't seen anyone bring up here. Perhaps if such a filter is put in force it should exclude users overwriting their own files. We don't want a vandal replacing a highly visible picture of the Louvre with their penis or vagina, but also don't want to limit technically skilled users with barely any contributions from cleaning up SVG source code. The issue with the latter is that SVG files are the files that are most likely to be overwritten, edit warred over, and vandalised, so excluding them wouldn't make much sense either. If technically feasible we should limit new users overwriting files uploaded by others (namely users who aren't currently a part of a file's upload history), but we should also find a way to allow users without Autopatrol right to help with improving them. Sometimes non-Autopatrolled WikiGraphists overwrite a current coat of arms with a better version because the current one has a minor factual error. A look at "File:Flag of the Vatican City.svg" shows how many trusted Wikipedians without Autopatrol rights helped improve this image. Personally, I'd say that the best solution that would take the least time and introduce the least unnecessary workload would simply having a daily list of overwritten files by non-autopatrolled users showing the previous iteration of the file and the new iteration. I'm fine with a template to allow overwriting, but it would also be a lot of work to manually add them to uploads where they should be allowed. As this has already passed I'm only adding suggestions as this will affect flags and coats of arms which are commonly overwritten by Wikipedians with barely any Commonswiki edits.
Another issue is that users cannot show with which files they would like to overwrite without separately uploading them creating needless duplicates or even making overwriting the original more difficult because of duplicates. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Good idea. Yann (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Implementation problem[edit]

There is a clear consensus to limit the file overwriting. I tested the implementation and ran into a problem. The limitation itself is no problem and could be turned on at any time by switching the abuse filter to blocking. But there is problem with allowing particular files. My idea was to make the template {{Allow Overwriting}} that can only be placed by users with patrol rights and the make an exception for all files with this template on the file page. The problem is that there is no way to check the wikitext of the file page when a file upload is logged. So it seems that we would need a new user right and protection level to get the ability to make exceptions of particular files. Writing all exceptions into the abuse filter is not practical.(For the low amount of test files this is no problem.) As the solution for the exceptions might take a while do we want to implement the limitation without the ability for exceptions for now? --GPSLeo (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping at @P199, Krd, Glrx, A.Savin, XRay, Dronebogus, Tuvalkin, Jeff G., Nosferattus, and C1K98V: are you fine that we wait for a response on the bug report
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T345896
. Then if the problem can not be fixed that fast we implement this despite the problem that exceptions are only possible if they are written directly into the abuse filter? GPSLeo (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes --A.Savin 09:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Thanks. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 10:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. --XRay 💬 11:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, yes. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, BTW, the bug link isn't working for me. Nosferattus (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosferattus: That was fixed by GPSLeo in this edit to reference phab:T345896.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK as long as new user can overwrite his own uploads. Glrx (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPSLeo: What would the filter rules be until phab:T345896 is resolved?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about a gadget License-a-lot similar like cat-a-lot[edit]

I have been involved licensing and noticed in some artist categories it would be really helpful to have a tool where one can add a license to multiple files. It would also be helpful for files missing a FOP license etc.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The FOP templates like {{FoP-Germany}} are just hints and no required licenses. Real license changes are very rarely and if needed Visual File Change should be sufficient for this. A tool that makes license changes very easy could also be misused. GPSLeo (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though, really, this is pretty easy with VFC. - Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't know about the VFC, good to know. But it's not so easy, I tried it right after I saw your reply, but eventually didn't hit the proceed button. I was using Vector 2022 skin and I believe the description is for the Vector 2010. Will read and try some more.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, as long as you're not on a mobile device: Maybe just do yourself a favor and switch to Vector 2010? On the topic however, I can't imagine how a lic-a-lot would work, because you can't see which licenses would be appropriate from a category page. Using VFC sounds like the best workaround even though it's less easy to use compared to cat-a-lot. --Enyavar (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Enyavar, thanks for the little push, I was a bit unsure before, but now I tried it with three smaller categories and I believe it worked. Thanks very prominently to @Jmabel. I am still practicing and will try it at a larger category later. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That the FoP licenses are just hints isn't really well known. Several series of my uploaded files (from monuments publicly accessible) were marked as derivative works some even with a FoP license from Switzerland. In the end, experience showed that if I add a FoP license to the relevant files, the files can stay. I know at least one editor who uploaded numerous files without adding a FoP license. Thats why I thought adding FoP licenses (to for example monuments in Switzerland) would be quite helpful. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The FoP templates are not licenses. They are simply statements about how copyright law works in certain countries. - Jmabel ! talk 22:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shutdown of Computer-aided tagging: Mass revert?[edit]

After the WMF team evaluated the quality of edits made through the Computer-aided tagging tool they decided to shut it down.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T339902

With this there is also the question if we want to revert all edits made through the tool. This would affect one and a half million edits made through the tool. We could except edits made by users with autopatrol rights from the revert to reduce the amount of potential good edits getting lost in the revert. GPSLeo (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I come across these mistakes very frequently. And the bot tags are completely inaccurate. When I look at the file's history, no one but the bot has edited it. What the solution is, I do not know, but I belief is that the Commons has been massively harmed by bot tagging. Krok6kola (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The WMF classed 73.4% of such values as "bad". Absent an alternative proposal, I think this is inevitable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we mass revert, then the bot should leave an edit summary that encourages anyone watching the file to check to see if what it has reverted should be restored. After all, 26.6% of 1.5 million is not small. If they are right in their count, we would be having a bot revert about 400,000 good edits to get rid of 1.1 million bad ones. (BTW, I think the numbers are a bit misleading, because thousands of these edits were things like two people edit warring over the depicts on a file.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you refer to the ISA tool disaster? These edits are not marked as done with Computer-aided tagging. We should only include edits with the "computer-aided-tagging" tag, the ones with "computer-aided-tagging-manual" tag should also not be included. GPSLeo (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt that any such edit wars were tagged as being by the Computer-aided tagging tool, so they won't be included in the figure given. Do you have any examples to the contrary? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support bulk revert. Up to a simple bulk deletion of everything, if we have no better way to separate out the trash. Yes, it's that bad. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I don't see any other way. Of course, the bot reverting the tags should leave a proper entry in the history. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment - It would be worth of save the added values to file or something before bulk reverting them so if somebody would like try to filter out useful ones (using machine vision for example) I think something like open_clip could work for finding useful tags and I could could do a practical test if the idea works at october. --Zache (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support bulk revert.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment has anyone asked the tech team to share the list of what they determined to be "good" edits so we can assay whether it looks like there would be a fair amount worth keeping? But I wouldn't object to just deleting it all. One ham-handed mass edit deserves another.
Edit summary should make clear that this is "without prejudice" and if you think the item was correct you should feel free to re-add. - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The criteria are detailed in the linked Phabricator ticket. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support (with an appropriate edit summary that encourages people to re-revert bad reverts) El Grafo (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filter for files used on Wikimedia sites[edit]

I hope all well. Would it be possible to add a filter that allows you to see all images you've uploaded that are currently used on other Wikimedia sites/pages? Unlike the "File usage on Commons" section, it would show every file used (which could be further filtered to only include specific Wikimedia sites). Apologies if this already exists, but I was unable to find it. Have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DiscoA340: Hi, and welcome. GLAMorous should help you get started with finding uses of your uploads on WMF projects. It contains various checkboxes for use in refining your research.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G. Many thanks! I thought something like that should exist but I couldn't find it. Thanks and have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DiscoA340: You're welcome!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unified license for government websites of Ukraine[edit]

Recently, when visiting government websites of Ukraine, almost everywhere at the bottom of the pages you can find the following description: All site materials are available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, unless otherwise noted. Is Wikimedia Commons required to have a single template for sites with the gov.ua domain, while the list of resources will be clearly monitored by administrators? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Increase of file size limit on Commons for future-proof purposes[edit]

Hey folks!

The current file size limit is 4 GiB (approx. 4.3 Gigabytes), see COM:MAXSIZE. I want to propose a increased file size limit. The limit was increased in April 2016 from 2 to 4 GiB.

Since then, the sizes of files increased over time due to larger video resolutions.

I want to give some examples when files exceed the 4 GiB threshold:

  • 4K YouTube videos after 25-35 minutes
  • FHD DSLR/DSLM videos 8-15 minutes
  • 4K DSLR/DSLM videos after 2.5-8 minutes
  • 8K DSLR/DSLM videos after 1.25-4 minutes

Videos for example exceed the size limit of 4 GiB quite fast, but also high-resolution scans of 3D objects from organizations like the Smithsonian Institution may offer files that are larger than the limit (and where file splitting is very problematic). I have a large aerial image of Munich that is also too large right now, but offers many details. Over time, more and more files will come into conflict with this limit, as cameras etc. will become more capable. I would like to propose an increase to 32 or 64 GiB if possible. When colored meshes on Commons will be available, a higher file size limit would also be very appreciated.

What do you think?

Greetings and thank you a lot, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has already been requested multiple times, but till now the WMF team did not work on a solution for the current technical limitations.
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T191802
GPSLeo (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for mentioning, I hope this issue will be served soon :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leonore Template ?[edit]

Hello, I quite often use the Gallica Template to source my uploads. Is there anything like that for the Léonore Database? If not, could this be done? Thanks in advance. William C. Minor (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals&oldid=811969044"