Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2011/09

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

Legal threats

I would like to propose that COM:BLOCK be amended to state that if someone issues legal threats, they should be blocked from editing Commons until such time as the issue is resolved. This is pretty much a transwiki of WP:NLT. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  •  Support. Commons is a reuser not a host so we don't need people threatening legal action to start messing with the terms under which they claim we can use files. – Adrignola talk 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support. In case users simply move files from other wikis that turn out to be copyvios, legal threats would be very bad, as this kind of simple file move is within Wikimedia, not from outside Wikimedia. In this case, the blame should belong to the upstream uploader, like falsely claiming self work on English Wikipedia as to trick a user here to move the files in good faith. Automatic image search tool may reduce the problems.--Jusjih (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose After gathering some ideas/ thinking about it, I think leagal threats only should not become a reason to block. If these threats become disruptive, then should be blocked if there is no way to resolve the issue since blocking as only tool will not solve any legal dispute. -- RE rillke questions? 13:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Commons is mostly about copyright issues, claims of rights to ones own image, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    And that can be done politely, through process, without threats. I am not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to say they own copyright and such, but if they threaten an uploader, or anyone else, by legal means then the conversation should be done by the lawyers, and further onwiki discussion should be stopped. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    You can only be threatened if you do not know the law / do illegal things. Otherwise I prefer to ignore this. -- RE rillke questions? 18:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    A comment which just highlights, for me, the definitional problems seen in practice all too often on en.wp: what exactly is a "legal threat"? And the definitional issue has to be worse on Commons, where there is so much of an issue with copyright/licensing, which is intrinsically a legal issue. Rd232 (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, commons is not en:w:, just ignore stupid legal threats. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • NLT makes a lot less sense to me on Commons than on en.wp. In Wikipedia articles, you can have all sorts of compromise, and easily remove problematic text (typically just a small fraction of an article) temporarily for discussion, etc. Sharply discouraging legal threats as a substitute for dispute resolution makes sense, because there's so much you can do, dispute-resolution-wise. This is not true in the same way for images, which is Commons' body of work. Besides which, legal issues themselves (around licensing/copyright) arise far more frequently on Commons, and experience on en.wp is that the existence of NLT can cause problems in legitimate discussion of legal issues. So I'm not Opposing, because I'm open to a case being made that NLT is necessary here, but I don't particularly expect that case to be made. Rd232 (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Legal threats don't belong on Commons; as mentioned above, we're just a reuser and legal threats do not have a place here. ←fetchcomms 00:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Who, in that sentence, is "we"? It seems to be "Commons" (not a legal entity) or "WMF". What about legal threats against users? Should people whose legal rights have been breached by Commons users be blocked for threatening to enforce those rights? Rd232 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      Yes, because if someone is threatening legal action it means that they are being unnecessarily aggressive. If they just nominate it for deletion, or contact OTRS, it can be resolved amicably with nothing more than a {{Copyvionote}} on the uploader's talk page. If they are going to go with legal action, then they are displaying no respect for Commons and civility, and they should cease talking on Commons and instead go through the lawyers. I'm not saying people should not be able to take legal action, but if they do, or if they threaten users with said action rather than just saying "this is a copyvio, please take it down", then they should not be on Commons, or at least they should not be on commons until the dispute is resolved. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • But the situation you're describing (and it rather helps to be concrete like this, rather than totally abstract) sounds like someone who just doesn't know how Commons works. So the first response should be education, not blocking. For really persistent legal threats, after education, I can see referral to OTRS, but I don't see how blocking is going to help anyone solve a particular problem (it's not going to make a legal threat go away for instance; it's like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la"). Where a user is making legal threats in a way that is actually disruptive, they can be blocked for that (though "disruptive" isn't mentioned in COM:BLOCK; it would make more sense to import that concept from en.wp than NLT). Rd232 (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose straightforward ban, open to fine-tuning. Disputes over rights on media files are quite different from disputes over content on wikipedia. One needs to separate valid claims (that need to be resolved directly with the foundation through DMCA takedown calls) from unacceptable wikibickering. NVO (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per above. Legal threats are certainly not encouraged on Commons, but legal issues are much more common here and I don't want to risk misunderstanding - newbies may show up making legal threats and turn out to be legit copyright holders whose issues we can handle easily without making them lawyer up or bother the WMF. That said, I wouldn't hesitate to block someone if an edit war involving legal threats spills over here (as often happens e.g. with maps and disputes over territory). Dcoetzee (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Why do you think legal threats could harm the Commons? Commons is somehow more complicated to use and understand than Wikipedia and any new user might get tense and make threats, but they always have only one way, discuss and reach an outcome to dispute resolution, which doesn't always have to be a calm discussion... after discussion they can be blocked if they continue to make threats... but I don't understand how they are supposed to defend themselves if we block them instantly?! nature of Commons requires more legal discussions than any other projects and legal threats are not really important when we don't do anything illegal, we can change the general disclaimer to be more specific on these issues.  ■ MMXX  talk 21:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Commons is not a battlefield about xyr suing xe. If an image is a copyvio, delete on sight. —stay (sic)! 02:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment: This thread is not about copyvios or a copyright-violator. There is consensus to block if those users do not stop uploading them. It raised because one user did not agree that he can't change the license after 2 years or similar. -- RE rillke questions? 09:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
      And how were we supposed to know that? I do not like to have to read the policies of Wikipedia in English to understand Commons proposals, and in this case I think mind reading would have been needed. Please do use some time to make any proposal understandable and unambiguous in itself, without us having to know the background.
      About blocking for legal threats: there should be a clear description of the circumstances where threats could lead to blocking, and a rationale for each case. I do reserve the right to take legal action to defend my rights, and to warn about that before I go to court. That can be understood as a threat. Should I be blocked now?
      If the thread is about somebody changing his licence, then that is only a special case. It might equally well be about somebody changing the licence of somebody else, e.g. because this somebody thinks the licences are equivalent while the author thinks they are not. That is no reason to issue a takedown request, but might very well be a reason to warn about legal consequences. Would that be disruptive?
      --LPfi (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support As long as it is applied only to discussions between Commons-users. Anyone coming from outside to demand a copyrighted file be removed, should definitely not be blocked simply because they are threatening to sue if it isn't removed (they might not be aware that copyright violations will be removed even without having to resort to legal threats). But if an established user threatens to sue because he doesn't agree with something that was done to his files, then that should definitely not be tolerated. --Terfili (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    How do you draw the distinction? How many contributions or uploads does a user need to make to be suddenly blocked for making what somebody considers a legal threat? The situation you're talking about is too unusual to justify making a policy. Rd232 (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    I think it's pretty straightforward if common sense is used for enforcing it. If someone sees a photo he owns the copyright to, demands that Commons remove it or else he'll sue, clearly he shouldn't be blocked. But if let's say, I edit a map that I think is inaccurate, and the uploader threatens to sue me over it, then that should certainly warrant a warning and/or a block. --Terfili (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    Why should it warrant a block? If there's no basis at all for a legal action, it's just hot air and is an education/discussion issue. If there is a basis for a legal action, then there's an issue to be resolved, and actually blocking or threatening to block will not help resolve it. Basically, I accept there will be situations where it would be useful to have NLT and be able to point to it and/or block on the basis of it; but I think on Commons it will be far, far outweighed by situations where having NLT will make things worse. Even on English Wikipedia, in my experience the balance is less strongly in favour of NLT being a net positive than you might think. Rd232 (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Same as for en:WP. You can edit/upload here, or you can go through the courts, but doing both is incompatible. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose forbidding legal threats should be limited to gangster groups and abusive religious cults, where abusive behaviour is condoned. God forbid that Commons or Wikipedia communities follow that line. Wikipedia:NLT is a shame. Teofilo (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We will not stop ignorance with blocking. --Foroa (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support, per nominator. --Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Legal threats don't seem very collegial, but I'm not convinced a block is automatically the best response. I also agree that new users should probably be given more leeway than regulars. --Avenue (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Depending on the nature of the dispute a legal threat, admins should try to find if there is reason of a legal procedure or not. A legal procedure can be a way of defense for someone. If User:A does something bad (e.g. reveals personal info) for User:B and User:B threaten User:A, then would we block B while he can be a victim? Yes, admins or the community cannot be the judges but we can just ignore the fact of a legal threat if there is some valid reason for a legal procedure. A user shouting about "bring admin C at the court because he deleted a photo of his kitten and that is a violation of free speech" can be blocked for trolling. --Geraki TLG 18:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Per above and per what Andy Dingley said. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - AFAIK disruptive behaviour is enough to block sb, what includes disruptive legal threats. Wikipedia:NLT is one of the worst things on w:en (irritated newbie mentioned lawyer? Ban. Attempted to ask later? wp:SOCK, ban. Sb else attempted to ask? WP:DUCK+WP:SOCK, ban.) Bulwersator (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Clear risks with such a policy. If it is needed in some situations, those should be described and blocking confined to such cases. --LPfi (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment mettre une photo et à quelle taille (en français)

J'avoue n'avoir pas trouvé les explications claires et tourne en rond pour participer à ce concours de photos sur les monuments.

Merci d'avance de votre aide et conseils.

Marie-Ange -- 07:04, 3 September 2011 User:Schlisteur Marie-Ange

Demander à Commons talk:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 ou fr:Wikipédia:Wiki Loves Monuments... AnonMoos (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
La taille: maximale, mais ne dépassant pas 10 MB. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed informational page: Child pornography policy and laws

Child pornography policy and laws COM:CHILD

  1. This is an informational page about existing policy that also lists US laws related to the issue and Wikimedia's obligations according to US law.
  2. This is actually already Wikimedia policy according to law.
  3. I want to have a page that is easy to find so people can read and know we do have these policies and explain the laws in plain English.
  4. These are all gathered from different pages that are all found on Wikimedia Commons itself and accumulated here so one can understand what constitutes as child pornography if they are suspicious about a photo or work on Commons.
  5. If not listed on Wikimedia, these are national laws in the US that all pages or files under Wikimedia must follow due to its servers being located in the state of Florida and offices in California. (Per #1)

If I am incorrect on anything please correct this.

--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  •  Comment I am afraid such a page will be written not only as pointers to and cites of relevant existing documents, but will also in itself interpret those documents, which opens a whole new can of worms.
If we are too relaxed, we may got legal problems, if we are too strict, this may open doors for censoring e.g. art and ethnographic images and making it still more difficult to compile images needed for sexuality related articles and books.
I think no Commons user in their right mind will upload child pornography here or allow it to stay. The problem is with images that somebody thinks may be interpreted as such by some law enforcing institution - or with images that somebody does not like, when that somebody uses the policy as an excuse for censorship.
--LPfi (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I now see you write "This is an informational page", and such a page would be fine. But you also call it "Proposed policy page", which is a very different thing. I hope a decision on which one this is about would be made before the discussion goes astray. --LPfi (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't sure what to put it under, so this is why I wrote it as proposed policy. You are logical to think that no person who is smart would upload child porn, but this is to inform users that there is a policy--which already exists made by Wikimedia. I'd also like to mention that while it doesn't happen often, there is at least one case of it happening--so while it might seem like an overreaction, it's more like informing people this does exist, these are the laws, and this is Wikimedia's stated policy on it. It is informational and already a policy created by legal and Wikimedia must follow the laws dictated by the United States because their servers are located in the state of Florida. I have changed it to informational page about laws and policy.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment LPfi, potential concern about interpretation is the reason that I suggested the amendment I mentioned above. It is that the proposal should quote Wikimedia legal policy verbatim in the lead section, with a link to the original page. It needs to be 100% clear that this is not a policy proposal but instead information about an existing legal policy. Rubywine (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support as it is written currently, i will attempt to fix some problems that i see a bit later. I support it only because it is a policy forced onto Wikimedia and as such it already exists, this should be made very clear for three reasons: 1) to explain why the policy did not go through the regular review 2) to stop the well intentioned people from removing the information which they believe does not constitute consensus of MW users when it is the law 3) to stop badly intentioned individuals (groups?) from adding their opinion on how things should work when it is not backed by the law. Beta M (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest the request for votes be withdrawn immediately, so that the proposal can be discussed and changed without there being confusion about what the voting is about. If there seems to be support for the suggestion and the substance matter doesn't fit in Help:Sexual content, then, after some time for fixing remaining problems with wordings etcetera, a stable version on the proposed policy (or whatever) could be offered for voting.
--LPfi (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Replacing MediaWiki:Gadget-UserMessages.js

A few months ago, I suggested replacing this outdated script by AxUserMsg (doc). There were no serious objections but I'd like to get more input. -- RE rillke questions? 09:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You can install and try this script by adding the following line to your common.js: importScript('User:Rillke/AxUserMsg.js');

Main benefits

User talk:Rillke/AxUserMsg.js

Voting

Support

Oppose

Suggestions

Feature Requests

put them here

Questions

Other comments

  • I have never used this gadget, so I am unable to comment. Please consider adding a link to a presentation/help page in the Gadget tab of Special:Preferences after "This semiautomagically adds many many template messages to user talk pages, and allows you to specify the language when doing so. Please be careful that you know what the template will say before using a given option, and that you do not spam user talk pages". There are many gadgets I might have already tried if they were presented in an attractive way somewhere beyond the single line of comment available in the gadget tab of Special:Preferences. Isn't the "specify the language" instruction a bit surprising? Aren't the templates using the autotranslate system ? Teofilo (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Setting up an option+translation+... without admin-rights would take me too long. -- RE rillke questions? 15:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I never used it and don't intend using it.--Havang(nl) (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've tested the script, it's useful and much better and cleaner than what we are using currently. I have some questions and suggestions, but I prefer to put them all in one section :)
    The script preloads the {{Please link images}}, I think it's better if you set the first value blank or it ask users to choose a template.
    The section edit link for the messages might cause problem, can you disable it in the preview?
    I think the script window's is unnecessary high, IMO it could have a max. height and for small templates it can be resized to fit with the template.
    IMO there should be a way for users to disable the preview, maybe a personal user script.
    The field for additional text can have few edit buttons, for example bold text, italic or for inserting line break tag, also it could be resizable.
     ■ MMXX  talk 13:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I put them on my todo list. Did you notice the custon settings? -- RE rillke questions? 15:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm not sure how should I set it to blank.  ■ MMXX  talk 17:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Currently you can't (or it will throw an error). This will require a new option. Sorry, for the confusion. I expected everything but not that someone wanted a blank form. Well, it was not intended for chatting or sending customized messages but let's see what I can do. -- RE rillke questions? 20:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Socializing the Commons

Ideas to discuss:

Bookmarks  · Easy share options  · Subscription to FP, QI and VI via email  · Commons' day / Commons' birthday  · Inviting Wikipedians to donate images to Commons using CentralNotice  · Making introductory video tutorials in different languages  · ...

Wikimedia Commons is a host for freely-licensed media files. we are very much like the Flickr and other media sharing websites. unfortunately we don't encourage people to upload their files here instead of other websites, AFAIK, Commons doesn't have any ads outside of Wikimedia projects, people who upload their files to Commons can't get proper review for their works, they can't share them easily and tell how many people like and appreciate their works. I have some ideas to socialize the Commons and make it more fun to use:

Bookmarks

In my daily work in Commons I come across many images that I like to bookmark them to use them later, everyone can bookmark contents personally, however I believe it would be more useful if users be able to make a list of their favorites contents, similar to Flickr and Youtube, the file page shows how many people added a file to their favorites. this can be similar to categories,

What it needs:

  • A new namespace, which acts similar to categories, could be named bookmarks, favorites or anything relevant, to list the media files, this gallery could be customizable, unlike the categories here users could be able to customize number of files per page, file size, sort...
  • A link/icon on file pages to add and remove favorites.
  • A label on the file page which shows how many users added the file to their favorites and a link to list those galleries or users.

Easy share

I suggest we add an easier way to share contents by adding links to different social networks and social bookmarking websites to a dropdown menu (for files and user pages and maybe commons namespace), this could be disabled or customized to add or remove some links.

Currently we only have the "Email a link" and "Use this file" shortcuts only on the file pages, we can expand "Use this file" shortcut so users could easily add files to different social network websites.

Subscription via email

Subscription of featured, quality and valued pictures via email, similar to COM:POTD, on daily, weekly or monthly basis.

Please let me know what you think, also I like to hear some new ideas to socialize the Commons.  ■ MMXX  talk 19:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

These issues are worth exploring, but my first reaction is caution: Commons is supposed to host files useful for educational purposes (COM:SCOPE) and we don't want to end up with a massive influx of photos which should have been uploaded to Facebook. So whatever we do to encourage contributions, it needs to be careful not to encourage too much of the wrong sort of contributions. Excessive volume of useless or not-very-useful stuff makes it hard for end users to find useful things, and for active Commons editors to organise content in a way useful for end users. PS "Email a link" and "Use this file" shortcuts ... I can't find. Sounds useful though. Rd232 (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
On top of the image. / MediaWiki:Stockphoto.js -- RE rillke questions? 09:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Communication should be eased. On translatewiki, I recognized a chat-plugin. This could be really useful.
Subscription via mail could be done by User:Dschwens bots. There is an API and if we set up a list somewhere (I suggest a template to put on the userpage to categorize in a subscription cat), this should be possible. -- RE rillke questions? 09:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Why? Too many whyes, for example "why should commons compete with wikipedias for wikipedians' attention"? I'm sceptic about any "socializing" gizmos because, well, commons is not a very social place by design. There are regulars like yours truly. And there are many more casual uploaders who come to commons only because their home wikipedias discourage uploads there. All too often it's "casual squared" (the uploader's interest to wikipedia as a whole was a one-time affair, and he or she is gone for good). NVO (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
@NVO: I didn't mean to compete with other WMF projects, but to learn from websites like Flickr and Youtube...
I don't think that adding this features encourage people to upload their noneducational to Commons, although already many do this and we simply delete those files. the goal of these suggested features is to encourage professional photographers to upload their noteworthy images to Commons, and the most important, to encourage them to release their works under a free license. currently we are a consumer, the value of our project is mostly dependent on websites like Flickr and we have very few professional photographers. I believe there is nothing against socializing the Commons in our policy, we can ease the communication and facilitate the sharing of our free contents with the world. we have a mission, and that is to collect and provide free educational content and make them accessible worldwide, I think it's not right to deprive the world from what we have.  ■ MMXX  talk 11:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I have nothing against this initiative, but I think that we should address our natural allies in the first place. If on all wikipedias, there was some site notice invitation to look in (and potentially donate images to) Commons, along with a click field that launches on Commons a search for the name of the currently displayed page, we might substantially improve interactions, categorisation help and downloads. --Foroa (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is a good idea too, in upload page of some projects like enwiki, there is a notice that asks users to upload their free images to Commons, also there are two banners in enwiki (1, 2) which advertise the Commons, but none of these actually encourage people to donate their images to Commons... why don't we have a Commons day? September 7 is Commons' birthday, on that day we can use CentralNotice to advertise the Commons and invite everyone from other projects to donate images.  ■ MMXX  talk 14:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Banners seem pretty well done, but I guess that that the first step should be to state that we have more interesting stuff here and to get them walk around here. Don't ask to donate first: show first what we have to offer. Especially in the UK, there are hundreds of thousands of uncategorised images, so they could already getting the hang of it by searching and categorising images. A good first step. A commons day might be a good idea indeed. --Foroa (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I support these kinds of initiatives. --99of9 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

While we are at it, do we have some professional introductory video tutorials? (Nice voice, making curious, simple "how-to-do"s ...) I tried to create one myself but it would more likely chase away new comers. I think one of our main benefits is that we have users from all over the world while Wikipedia is used by a specific group. -- RE rillke questions? 16:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
@Rillke: I don't think we have any video tutorial. it would be useful, we can put it somewhere in the mane page.
@Foroa: I agree, but currently we don't have a useful page to use as target, a page that explain the available works on Commons (it should be translated too), IMO currently we can use Commons:Welcome or the main page as target.
As stated, we could, through a link, just send a wikipedia user to a commons search page that displays the result of a search using the name of the page/subject he is looking at. That might better trigger the curiosity than a standard page (which I always skip anyway). Moreover, it would help editors to trigger searching for the pages that they are working on. After all, we have to make people "walk" through Commons. --Foroa (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Concerning advertising the Commons, I don't think that only once a year on Commons' birthday would be enough, so we should choose some certain dates to run the CentralNotice. meanwhile, we can run the CentralNotice for next week on September 7, we should decide about it's message and target page.  ■ MMXX  talk
Would be nice to have a click counter to measure the effect. --Foroa (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about a "create-a-profile-wizard" which helps creating a userpage with babel-templates and uploads and transcludes a "profile-image"? At least every social network has something like that. This will help to find the right words and the right language. -- RE rillke questions? 15:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 Support. Good idea, though for languages and this kind of stuff, we could dream of a global wizard related to the global account.--Zolo (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
FWIW  Support. Commons needs better tools not only for contributors, but for users as well. However, I am afraid that without support of WMF this initiative will be stuck forever. Trycatch (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

biological resources management

Commons have many photos of animal and plants, sometimes of high quality. Yet, the way they are managed is not very well fully standardized and I think some improvements would be easy to do. Data about biological species are plentiful on Wikipedia and Wikispecies and it should be easy for a bot to import them on Commons in a machine readable format. I think that something similar to {{Creator}} could be useful both for contributors and users. I have tried a very coarse version of it at template:Taxon. See Taxon:Gorilla, Taxon:Gorilla beringei and File:Gorilla Eating.jpg for possible implementations]].

In a way, this very similar to what is already on Wikispecies and may seem redundant. But interwiki transclusion are still not active, and the longer we wait the harder it will become to convert exisintg files to the new format. Additionnaly Wikispecies pages could only be used in the way I propose after substantial syntax modification, so I think it is simpler for now to have our own template on Commons to cater to our own needs. Any thoughts about that ?--Zolo (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I see multiple problems with your idea:
  1. The source wikispecies is not really appreciated here. They never provide their source or the classification they follow (For example, go to a botanic article and try to determine if they follow APGII, APGIII or stomething else).
  2. For each taxon, (we have arround 100.000) you would create an article :Taxon:XXX:
    • That would be expensive in term of database storage.
    • That would be a lot of work (as wikispecies cannot be our source)
    • We might loose all our previous work.
  3. We don't really need to describe the species in each file (for example, in File:Gorilla.jpg we don't need the description of Gorilla beringei, we just need to have a link to Category:Gorilla beringei that would contain all the information.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
A few thoughts:
We could create the taxon pages giving precedence to info from Commons over info from Species so that nothing would be lost.
Once the transition is completed -and I think a bot can do most of the job- this should not be more work than the current system. I imagined it would be useful to have additional information in the taxon namespace but if this is too complicated, we can do without it.
I agree that we don't necessarily need information about Gorialla berginei in File:Gorilla.jpg but I don't think the template adds anything bothering. If it does, the template layout can be changed. Most of the informaton the templates adds in files are collapsed by default so they should not be obtrusive. I think the few that are visible can be useful (vernacular name in the user's language, link to Wikispecies though we could imagine a link to Wikipedia instead). The whole thing is very similar to the creator system that seems to be appreciated for artworks (We don't really need info about Leonardo in a picture of Mona Lisa either but there is no harm in having it in File:Mona_Lisa,_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg).
I don't know about database expensiveness. Given that Commons welcome hundreds of thousand of high resolution image, I don't think hundreds of thousands of short texts would have a high impacet but true using templates increases computational complexity.--Zolo (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
No reasons to complicate things when all information is in its category. It is not like creators and museums that are crossreferenced in many different places and categories. --Foroa (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Any increase in the content on our pages is additional content we need to maintain over time, repair errors, etc. We should avoid bearing this burden, and instead link to more information on sister projects. The information is also redundant from the perspective of people who click through from the sister site to get here. An alternative is to automatically embed their content in our page, which would be acceptable, but would require technical changes, as you note. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes transclusion across projects would be certainly be better. It just does not seem to happen... Actually most information is already present in Commons categories (translation of the name, synonyms, taxonomic classification, links to relevant databases). So a simpler alternative to my proposal could be a template storing all these information so that it looks less messy. --Zolo (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2011/09&oldid=298467022"