Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2017/02

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

Citar página

Creo que sería conveniente activaren el menú de la deracha un enlace a Special:CiteThisPage para que sea fácilmente accesible a quienes reutilicen archivos de Commons, es decir que al pulsar el link les aparezca esto (así no hay escusa del tipo "es que no sé cómo hacerlo"). La idea me surge de este hilo del café en español. --Jcfidy (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jcfidy: En mi opinio'n, el problema no es como faci'l para usar ese util, solo si personas van a usar ese util. Supongo que personas que no se interesan dar informacio'n correcta y completa ahora, ellos no van a dar la informacio'n con citas. (Mis disculpas si my castellano es incorrecta.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jcfidy: Pero tambien, creo que la pagina es un metodo bueno. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: tal vez haya personas que no lo utilicen pero cuando se encuentra alguna imagen en otras páginas se le pede decir al dueño como tiene que hacer (pulsando en el enlace) y así,tal vez, no les de tanta pereza dar los créditos. Gracias por comentar. --Jcfidy (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

VFC

When I try to nomitate for deletion files by Hasan Sami Bolak, VFH displays files uploaded by another user (138 and 140) /St1995 20:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Make Category intersection tools more accessible to the average user

While reading some of the recent discussions about categories that are intersections of other categories, I noticed that tools like FastCCI or CatScan are somewhat hidden from the average user. The normal search results page you reach when you've searched for something (and did not end up at a specific category) prominently shows a Search by category section right at the top. However, you can only enter search terms for In all of these categories and/or In of none of these categories there. As far as I know, this only works for the exact categories you enter there and does not take sub-categories into account. Hence, I think this section should also (in some kind of way) include:

  • Dschwen's FastCCI for more fuzzy matches with sub-categories
  • Magnus' PetScan (formerly CatScan2) for advanced intersections of … basically anything

I'm not sure what would need to be done on the technical side, but in any case I'd like to know if the community deems this a good idea at all. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Cut-off date for {{PD-old}}

A proposal has been made at the Copyright Village Pump to simplify our rules for dealing with works by artists whose date of death is unknown by agreeing a cut-off date for {{PD-old}}, the intention being to improve the consistency of Deletion Requests when closed by different admins. I'm noting the proposal here for greater visibility, and because it involves a potential change of policy. Please comment and !vote there. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've also brought this to the attention of the English Wikipedia community, on the en Village Pump. The discussion and !vote on Commons will be of interest to other Wikipedias as well, and dissemination in other languages would be helpful. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should split to two cases. For unknown author and known author with unknown death of year, as Carl explained in the Village Pump proposal. -- Geagea (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Emptying "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}" categories into "Category:Photographs taken on {{date}}"

Last month, a user started making categories like "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}" and moving photos from "Category:Photographs taken on {{date}}" into there. The user explain that, since templates like like {{USA photographs taken on navbox}} existed, this was something that had to be done. I pointed out that they seemed to be the only one using said templates. I asked the user (and Pi.1415926535 joined in this request) to stop and make a proposal here on the Village Pump, since it seemed to be such a large change and ruined the "Category:Photographs taken on {{date}}"'s snapshot of the world. The user stopped, but has not added the proposal in the three weeks since. As such, I would like to propose that the files in the "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}" categories get moved back into the "Category:Photographs taken on {{date}}" categories and the country specific categories get deleted. While I do not know how to make a bot or really how to code, a bot could (theoretically) empty out all categories invoking templates like {{USA photographs taken on navbox}} to accomplish this proposal. Elisfkc (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Please respect all the categories in Category:Photographs by date by country too. And the categories can't be removed while other users creating them. --XRay talk 06:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: The discussion and voting ends on March 26th, 2017.

Voting

@Kolforn, Acabashi, and Biffabins: So, do all of you support the compromise proposal below? Elisfkc (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: If I understand it correctly, the proposal is to keep all files in the often unwieldy 'photos-by day', and copying some into a subcat within the same page, such as 'country-photos-by day', 'flora-photos-by day' etc, if anyone cares to make the effort, but leaving the same files in the same parent cat. The 'photos-by day' could well remain overfilled. However, I don't mind such a compromise. Acabashi (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: If Acabashi's conclusion of the proposal is as it has been described above, then I would also would agree with this compromise. Kolforn (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No more votes please. The voting is closed. --XRay talk 09:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I also noticed this new thing a few months back, starting with Sweden and later widened to other countries, and I agree that these categories should not be split, even those with many items (the only admissable subcategories here would be Category:Photographs taken on (date) at (event), and even so…). However, before moving these the contents of these new cats, it should be made sure that all items are already categorized at or under Category:(date-year) in (country). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As Elisfkc mentioned, I warned the user because they persisted in adding the categories even after being asked not to. I'm a big proponent of the "snapshot of the world" approach; additionally, {{Taken on}} can more-or-less automatically add the main category based on metadata, while the country-based categories would have to be manually maintained which just causes additional work for no real benefit. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The categories "Category:Photographs taken on {{date}}" have a lot of entries. A lot of people are categorizing their photographs in categories like "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}". I've started categorizing like these too, because a lot of my pictures are recategorized with the country by other users. There are hundreds of categories. Please have a look to Category:Photographs by date by country. And you should wait starting removing, not only four days. The discussion isn't finished. --XRay talk 17:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking back, I probably should have waited a little longer to start removing images from the country specific categories. However, looking at those categories on Category:Photographs by date by country, there are not that many. The categories "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}" are way too specific in my opinion. There are categories, such as Category:January 2017 in Germany and their subcategories of specific states, as well as cities, that better serve the purpose than the "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}" categories. Elisfkc (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Today it's February 14th, you started the discussion on February 12th. 2 days and you started removing the categories. I think a discussion should 2 up to 4 weeks. Other users should be involved. And please have a look Category:Photographs by date by country. 14 categories for New Zealand, 326 categories for United States, 136 categories for United Kingdon, 227 categories for Switzerland, ... You will remove all the categories? That's to much for only one person. Your information at the top is very small. Please explain more circumstances. --XRay talk 18:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Please ask an administrator for all the creators of the catogories in Category:Photographs by date by country and give them a ping for this discussion. --XRay talk 18:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Yann? Do you mind? Elisfkc (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I've ask for assistance in Commons:Forum too. My knowlegde of english language isn't best and I don't know what's the best to do. But I'm sure, a good discussion is better. --XRay talk 18:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure why I ping me, but as I said above, I don't support narrow categories. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
XRay requested that an admin (like yourself) ping the creators of all the categories in Category:Photographs by date by country. Elisfkc (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I asked. That is more a proposal than a request. An administrator has tools to look for editors. All the creators of the categories should be involved. Otherwise categories will be created while you are removing them. An endless story with useless work. --XRay talk 05:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Without these, every date would become extremely massive. With dividing into countries, it becomes easier for anyone searching for a specific country. J 1982 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
One could also just simply use the map function on to find out where images are taken (if they have GPS coordinates). Also, as I said above, this is why there are categories like Category:January 2017 in Germany, because then a location can be matched to the photos and the month they were taken. Elisfkc (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
But these (January 2017 in Germany) should be split up by towns, federated states or whatever. J 1982 (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so do that, like how there is Category:January 2017 in Florida inside of Category:January 2017 in the United States. That still isn't a reason to have categories with locations and specific days, since there are month ones available. Elisfkc (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I noticed this, too. Besides being ungrammatically named, I don't see these as helpful: it's too narrow a distinction. In addition to "Category:Photographs taken on ", I think the files should be moved to "Category:<Month> <year> in <location>". Where applicable, files could be grouped by event, subject, or something similar. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: @Elisfkc: @Yann: @Ghouston: @Tuvalkin: @Auntof6: , @J 1982: , I’ve separated voting from discussion. Additionally I’ve set an end date of the voting. After the voting we will have a decision. Elisfkc, please inform the users creating categories in Category:Photographs by date by country. Hopefully that’s OK. --XRay talk 07:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: I've forgotten: Please have a look to COM:CFD. You should respect this for Category:Photographs by date by country, Category:Photographs of Australia by date, Category:Photographs of Austria by date and so on. This discussion is not enough. It's better to explain what you'll like to do. --XRay talk 14:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Mentioned user — it's me. To avoid incorrect citations, please read my arguments: User_talk:Helgi-S#United States photographs category. I have not made any such category from the beginning of the discussion, but I was warned :-(. --Helgi-S (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think, it's Elisfkc turn now. I was frightened about the way of discussion. Nearly no discussion, started here February 12th and started deletion of categories same day. Nearly no one was informed. That's not the right way. And hundreds of categories are affected, thousands of images. IMO only one person can't remove the categories and move the files while others create this kind of categories. I wanted to prevent Elisfkc getting in trouble. May be he (or she) will stop his work if half of the work is done. Hopefully my hints will help. I'll respect the decision after finishing the discussion. --XRay talk 16:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: I did stop (at 17:53, 14 February 2017). The only things I've done since is tagging empty categories for speedy delete, as they should be. At the same time, those of you involved in this discussion should stop creating such categories or filling them with photos from the photographs taken on date categories until this discussion is done. Thank you for separating the voting from the discussion by the way. However, your idea about going through COM:CFD seems bad to me, since this page is viewed by many more people, and it is easier to hold a centralized discussion (rather than having discussions on each individual category). Regarding the idea of users continuing to create these categories after this discussion closes (if the proposal passes), this proposal can serve as a way to point back to those users that the discussion has already occurred. And, as I said in the proposal, a bot (not made by me, since I'd have no idea what I'm doing) would go through these categories, empty them into the photographs taken on date categories, and tag the now empty location photographs taken on date categories with {{SD|G1}}. Elisfkc (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: March 26th seems way too long to wait to close. If anything, this should close on March 14th, since that's 30 days from when I made the proposal originally. 30 days makes more sense than 6 weeks from the start of the proposal. Elisfkc (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The date is a proposal. IMO you can change it if recent creators of the categories you like to r delete are involved. If not you should cancel your proposal. And please do not ignore COM:CFD. IMO that's the right way to discuss and delete such categories. It's your turn, your proposal. --XRay talk 05:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: I believe that all of the recent creators are already in this discussion. And I'm sorry, but I am not listing the well over 500 categories individually on COM:CFD. If there was a way to do a mass nomination easily (like Visual File Change) then maybe I would. But, as I have said multiple times, I don't know how to code, so that would mean I would have to tag each page individually, meaning I would be spending several hours adding finding each category, adding it to the nomination, and tagging the category with {{Cfd}}. Elisfkc (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Please at least the top category and give a hint for all the subcategories. --XRay talk 05:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: What is your suggest for a hint? Elisfkc (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
My english isn't the best. May be something like IMO categories like "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}" and this category and the subcategories aren't useful, since it seemed to be such a large change and ruined the "Category:Photographs taken on {{date}}"'s snapshot of the world. Please see this discussion too.. Your words should describe it in the best way. --XRay talk 06:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment This kind of template {{Taken on}}, and likely a few others too, add automatically the image files in "Photographs by date", and this can not be modified with cat-a-lot, e.g. File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 10.jpg, I see that as an issue, because all the files with such templates will have to be editied, or will have both categories "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}". + Category:Photographs taken on {{date}}", which is an overcategorization. Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: This proposal is to stop the "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}" categories, so if this proposal takes effect, it would have no effect on {{Taken on}}. Elisfkc (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not a problem. If you wish, you can ignore discussed subcategories for your images. But let others use this categories. And if others added 'cat=no' in {{Taken on}} or avoided/removed this template — let them do it. --Helgi-S (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I understood very well the meaning of the proposal, it was just a comment. And I'm not fundamentally opposed to this subcategorization. But let others use this categories: I'm not sure to agree with that, in any case not entirely, as the purpose is to work together in a similar direction. When creating such template {{Taken on}}, the community had not foreseen any future potential sub-categorization by countries, and I see this as an issue because it's like working in two opposite directions. That's said there is in fact no issue of overcategorization with cat-a-lot because I just try to move my image from Category:Photographs taken on 2014-01-05 to one of the sub-category, and this simply don't work, and the image have not been moved. I am not opposed to use those sub-categories by country, but I don't like at all the idea that there is several systems : what to do with the image with {{Taken on}} and who have not added 'cat=no', who will edit those files? Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Who? Maybe, someone. Maybe, smart bot. Maybe, future advanced 'taken on' (or cat-a-lot?). Maybe, no one. I don't know. To move all images from 'date' category to some subcategories — it is not the goal at all. These subcategories more useful, for example, for uncategorized images. So, image will get whole set of country/time parental categories with smart navigation. --Helgi-S (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
But these images are categorized. They have categories and there are already other categories to use. Elisfkc (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I mean the images without time or place categories. Including uncategorized images. --Helgi-S (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I have always worked by the principle that, in terms of categorization (and with a few specific exceptions), the narrower the time frame is, the wider the the geographical area should be. Thus, categories by specific date should generally be global in reach. Categorizing countries by year and even month is often justifiable, but not by date. Categorizing national sub-divisions like states and provinces is rarely justifiable beyond year or decade. More specific locations should, generally, be categorized by century at most.
Exceptions can be made, of course, for locations that are very heavily photographed, but "by century" should always be created before "by decade", and "by decade" should always be created before "by date". This relies on the idea that categories should not be any narrower than is required to keep the number of files manageable, unless there is a specific wikidata item for a category.
If we don't accept that as an important principle, then anyone can categorize by the most specific schema possible, down to the minute the photograph was taken. File:Queens Boulevard at 57th Avenue.jpg could be placed in Category:Photographs taken at the corner of Queens Boulevard and 57th Avenue, New York City, on 22 March 2005 and no one would have any right to complain. We need some kind of basic rule or principle to fall back onto when someone makes that kind of category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Good: "February in the US state" (50 categories). Bad: "Day in the US" (28 categories in February). We will create new Big Rule, and we will warn and ban users who will create this category. If we will not create this Rule, we will just delete such categories. Like now, without waiting for the end of the discussion. --Helgi-S (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Helgi-S: As I'm rereading this, the comment above makes it sound like you support the proposal, rather than oppose like your vote currently is. Am I misreading that, or did you mean to change your vote? Elisfkc (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for my bad English. It was irony and sarcasm. I did not change my mind. --Helgi-S (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, I just wanted to double check. Elisfkc (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Since there are two very opposite viewpoints here, and no one seems particularly likely to convinced of anything, I'd like to float a compromise that I believe should leave everyone more or less happy:

  • All photographs known to be taken on a given date should be categorized into Category:Photographs taken on XXXX-YY-ZZ, which will be used as flat categories. {{Taken on}} without the |cat=no parameter should generally be used.
  • At the discretion of users, subcategories (generally by country, occasionally by event or whatnot) may be added in addition to the flat category. This can be done either by manually adding them, or a future modification that allows {{Taken on}} to add additional categories.

As an example of how this would work: my recent File:Extant section of Southwest Corridor embankment, May 2012.jpg would, at minimum, have {{taken on|2012-05-07}} added under the date field in the information template. At the discretion of users, Category:United States photographs taken on 2012-05-07 could be additionally added, or the date field could be modified to {{taken on|2012-05-07|cat1=United States}} (with that functionality added to the template, allowing it to also add the second category).

I believe this gets everyone what they want. This preserves the "snapshot of the world" approach that I and others find so valuable, yet allows more detailed country-level categories when this is appropriate. Categorization is cheap; there's nothing lost by having both a flat category and a subcategory, as is done with several other issues. Because the flat category will never need to be removed, this allows Cat-a-lot to be used to add subcategories without breaking anything. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but two things are disturbing: It's really not possible for all photographs and I don't like visible categories added by templates. So Photographs taken on... would be always visible at the first position. --XRay talk 15:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your first objection or why you'd classify it as "disturbing" - this entire discussion focuses only on photographs with known dates. (I've added a couple words to the proposal to clarify this.) What photographs with known dates would not be possible to categorize with this proposed schema?
Your second objection seems to be aesthetic rather than actually presenting a reason why this would not work or would not work well. Yes, it would always appear first on the list - but why is that actually a problem? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
First: Sorry, forgotten. We should respect COM:OVERCAT. Second: It may be aesthetic, but we should have a look with the eyes of a user. The first category should be an important one. It should be easy to find. And IMO "Photographs taken on" isn't an important one. --XRay talk 15:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe bit off topic, I'm sorry to walk away and aslo because I was the first to talk about "the issue" COM:OVERCAT above, but I think we should have on Commons a new namespace, for the overcategorisation. I mean what is overcategorisation? this is simply like tags, and it may a very interesting way to look at images. Of course not all categories can be a tag but I think, if it is well controlled, a system of tags coupled with our category tree (tags directly given by carefully selected categories) would be nice and intuitive. And why I say a new namespace? simply because COM:OVERCAT is the best way to classify and see what is not classified and to search a very specific thing. But a tag is another thing and we should have that too on Commons. Sorry for the parenthesis. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535 and XRay: I would be fine with this, as long as the first part is followed. I don't think the order ever matters (because let's be honest, there is no order that is defined for most images). Also, COM:OVERCAT, like most policies, has exceptions. This could be one of those exceptions. Elisfkc (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: Sorry, I disagree. No overcategorization, no visible categories with templates. Compare with your proposal, your proposal is better. But this kind of categories are not very important. There are other things to do. It takes too much wasted time. As I said, you should ask all other users creating country specific categories. --XRay talk 19:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: If you have a problem with visible categories with templates, that's a separate discussion. The fact is, at the moment they exist. And as I've said before, this seems to be everyone who is making the country specific categories. If you can find anyone else, bring them in. Elisfkc (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm using cat=no with {{Taken on}} and append the category as all other categories. IMO the best way. I can use Cat-a-lot, Hotcat and other tools without problems. For other users: Please check the history of some categories in every country. --XRay talk 19:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@37.201.195.25, Benzoyl, and Roland zh: To join discussion Elisfkc (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@XRay: I just checked, this is now everyone. Also, of the 28 countries inside of Category:Photographs by date by country, only Austria (with 28 specific days), Denmark (91), Finland (81), France (68, with some empty categories), Germany (654), Italy (13), Japan (9), Norway (95), Portugal (5), Russia (84), Spain (11), Sweden (2,459), Switzerland (226), United Kingdom (134), and the United States (324). That means we are talking about 4284 categories (some of those are empty) for 15 countries, being created mostly by a maximum of 6 users out of the 33,265 active users. Most of these categories have been created within the past 3 months. That is compared to (as of when I write this post) 11,609 categories for Category:Photographs by day, that adds a new category daily by a bot that has been running for almost three years. That's just some numbers, in case anyone cares/wonders. Elisfkc (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help any more. I've no time to do this. Pickup some category creators of recent categories and ask. Ask Steinsplitter, who run's the bot. (If you see my bot, ignore it. I only created categories for my pictures. But I'd stopped categorization until end of the discussion of your proposal.) Ask the users who created the categories in February 2017 for example. I think you'll proposed to do this job with your proposal. It is really a huge job to delete all the country categories. IMO an administrator will ask you, why he should delete all the categories. Sorry, but I've to do other things for a couple of days. --XRay talk 19:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: If an administrator asks why, I can point to this proposal. Elisfkc (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't understand why this is such a big deal either way. Who else but us Wiki-nerds will even bother to access this worldwide photos-on-day cat, or sub cats per photos-by-country-by-day. Most people access our files not through WikiCommons, but via a Google image search, in which by the way, our images seem to come way down that search nowadays. And how many ordinary web image searchers (and shouldn't we primarily be making it accessible to them ?), do we think bother to wade through the labyrinth of cats found at the bottom of file pages anyway... pitifully few I imagine. I add them to the day cat, as I suspect most do, because the cat just happens to be there. I have created the country element in the past, and have with my own latest files, because others have done so, even with my files.
Some photo-by-day cats have hundreds and hundreds of files, so what is the point in anyone bothering to wade through that lot, and for what purpose ? So, if file day pages are reasonably short (150-ish?), we could keep them not sub-catted, as we do with all other cats, and if they get unwieldy, split them into countries etc, as we do with other cats, if anyone can be bothered of course.
I really can't see the problem here. Acabashi (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Strong  Oppose My vote for the compromise proposal. Sorry. No kind of compulsion and please respect COM:OVERCAT. Please remember the importance of these categories, it's very low. IMO all categories like Photographs taken on should be hidden too. --XRay talk 14:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: OK, but making that a hidden category is another discussion. Elisfkc (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: Question: If this goes through, categories like Category:Photographs taken on 2017-03-14 will still be under Category:2017-03-14, Category:March 2017 photographs, and Category:Photographs by day, right? Elisfkc (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Some thoughts on that:

I am the culprit who created the screwdriver bits category! mainly because it overloaded the date category with images. An image of screwdriver bits really have no relevance to the date they where created, a photo of a screwdriver bit photographed on the day before, the day after, or year after, has little meaning, it is still a screwdriver bit. In my opinion they need to be moved from a date category as this has no benefit to the date of when these images were created, and act as a deterrent to a casual browser who may show interest in the date category! Kolforn (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Back to our by-date problem: There are events like disasters or unrests in case of which a categorisation by exact date can be useful. But if a category Taken in (location) on (date) contains one image only depicting a building, this image would look the same if it were taken one day or one week later (except the clouds in the sky). So in my opinion this is a clear case of overcat.
  • It looks like a game. Some people have figured out how to categorise via templates, and so they created hundreds of useless templates that lead to thousands of useless categories. I don't know the lastest ranking, but I think Sendelbach and J 1982 entered the high score. Like at other games some people join it, others leave it or refrain. Even variants of this game show up like anniversaries (Category:December 17 deaths, Category:12 February births), an interesting turbo variant: one has to hurry as there is a maximum of 732 points categories.
  • By now having closed many hundreds of CfD requests I will leave that area, there are other backlogs to work on. May some others deal with an increasing number of trolls categorising around suffering from categorisitis. And finding consensus there is an illusion as we can see looking at this discussion here as well. Btw I put myself at the end of the ranking having created 1 category Category:Photographs taken in Punxsutawney on 2005-02-01 a. m..

--Achim (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Achim55: quick question: When you say flat categories, categories like Category:Photographs taken on 2017-03-14 will still be under Category:2017-03-14, Category:March 2017 photographs, and Category:Photographs by day, right? Also, my idea for a current threshold for this compromise is that the specific date must have over 200 images and the country specific category must have more than 10 images. Elisfkc (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I would not put so much effort on such a kind of category. After a decision I move all my pictures into country-specific categories or I remove all - with my bot. Hopefully this is less effort for you. So I'm waiting for end of voting. --XRay talk 20:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Elisfkc, not at all. Files of Category:Germany photographs taken on 2017-02-03 should be kept in Category:Photographs taken on 2017-02-03 as well. So the amount of files is not offered as an incentive for creating subcats. --Achim (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Achim55: right, I am saying that subcategories that fail the 200/10 threshold will be deleted. Elisfkc (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Me Thinks!! that contributor Elis"KFC", is getting a tad annoyed here! Kolforn (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully everybody will respect such an rule. I don't think so. For newer dates there will be a kind of edit war while people will create new country-specific categories and you will delete them. What an effort. I can't believe it. Please think again about such a rule. Is it really feasible? I don't think so. Special rules will never be respected. It's impossible for all the people thinking individually. --XRay talk 06:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kolforn: No, I'm just clarifying. @XRay: While that might be true, there is no way to know until it is tried. Elisfkc (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we have different ways to do the work. If something isn't disturbing, I accept it. IMO the country-specific categories aren't disturbing. There are city-specific categories too. It is acceptable. So I think I'll resume my categorization. But I do not generate manual work, it is done by a bot. This discussion takes too much time. The effort is of no use. There are much more important things to do. The categorization should be optimized in a more general way. IMO the project of structured data is good to do this. --XRay talk 19:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: It seems to be disturbing enough for me and 11 other users. You should not resume your categorization of these type of categories, as the consensus at the moment is to delete said categories (in line with this compromise). Elisfkc (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
About your threshold: My bot takes an image after another. So it may take several weeks to reach your threshold. If you do the job manual you'll see the threshold immediate. Please don't start an edit war. Please respect other ways of categorization and other methods of working. And please remember: These kind of categories are not important. --XRay talk 19:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: I don't quite understand your statement about your bot. As for the second half of your statement, this compromise will respect other ways of categorization and if "these kind of categories are not important", why do you seem to be caring so much about them? Elisfkc (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
My bot takes one of my images after another, but not all images for every run. I don't take my images day by day. So it may be that it takes 10 weeks or more to fill the country-specific categories. If there are 6 in the first month and 7 in the second month and you will remove the country-specific categories, you will remove them every month and I will create them every month. That's an edit war that should be avoided. --XRay talk 06:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: That's part of the reason this whole discussion/proposal was started. Elisfkc (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing

It is now five hours past the end of voting. For the original proposal, we have a tie of 12 to 12. However, the compromise proposal has a 14 to 10 vote in favor of it. As such, I will begin going through the country specific categories in a few hours (after I sleep) and placing those images in their "Photographs taken on " categories. For country specific ones that do not have a significant number of files in them, or their day does not have a significant number (the 200/10 threshold mentioned above is what I am currently thinking), I will empty the country specific category and add User:Elisfkc/country, which will tag the category for speedy deletion. I am also going to request on Commons:Bots/Work requests a bot go through once a month and do this automatically. If anyone has comments to this process (besides it being what you voted against), feel free to comment here in the next 10 hours or so. Elisfkc (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please, where is the "14 to 10 vote" for the compromise? Sorry, I can't see it. And IMO there wasn't a voting for the compromise. --XRay talk 06:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: I am presuming that all of those who voted in favor of the original proposal are in favor of the compromise and vice versa, unless otherwise stated, like @Kolforn: & @Acabashi: . Elisfkc (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Please don't ping me for every answer. IMO you should not "presume", you should make a voting. And as I said before, IMO you should involve all the people creating the country-specific categories of the last weeks. (It is an easy task to find editors of the last 30 days, for example User:Josve05a, User:Taivo or User:Ulkl.) --XRay talk 06:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: As the editor who opened this, you may not close it. - Reventtalk 08:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

So the formal closing of this proposal: Taking into account the fact that this day is not included, this voting is closed. There has been no majority (Tie: 12  Support, 12  Oppose) for the proposal. --XRay talk 09:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Remark: I would have closed this voting tomorrow, but I follow Elisfkc's opening of this closure. May be another voting for the compromise will follow. --XRay talk 09:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Giving OTRS members the ability view deleted files

through a request for right

I'm suggesting to give OTRS members the ability view deleted content which (all content especialy the file itself), I believe, essential for handling tickets by non-admins. They can not see the photo that they discussing about, they can not see if there is a FoP problem there, personality rights issue etc. In fact, the restoring admin (which have to be also OTRS member) have to double the work of the non-admin volunteer.

We had a previous discussion about a similar suggestion back in 2014. but now I am not talking about giving them the ability to restore files. Only to view. OTRS members trusted users and they already signed on stringent privacy policy.

I understand that deletedhistory rights are only allows "viewing the list of deleted history items including author and summary of each item unless they are hidden or suppressed". So we need to ask for a new group title for that. -- Geagea (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: We will creat new user right group on Commons OTRS user have to request in COM:RFR and only approved users may accept the right. -- Geagea (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Voting

  1.  Support if technically feasible. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  2.  Support Good idea. Yann (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  3.  Support This is something that will help me a lot as aN OTRS volonteer. Some times picture are selleted before we receive the OTRS permission. Hanay (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  4.  Support would be helpful in my work as an OTRS agent. Ijon (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  5.  Support The OTRS members I know in person are trustworthy and this right would help them in their work. -- 32X (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  6.  Oppose I cannot support giving editors who have not been approved by the Commons community for advanced permissions the ability to view material that the community has decided to delete. If anything, we should create a new userright on Commons, that the community can grant to OTRS members upon request at COM:RFR. Otherwise, we create the possibility of allowing editors who are OTRS members for other projects, with no access to Commons queues, and who have possibly never even edited Commons, the ability to view deleted material. - Reventtalk 10:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    I would support the proposal, as clarified by Geagea after my initial 'vote', that specific OTRS members may request that the Commons community grant them the right to view deleted files, and that a new user group be created for that purpose. - Reventtalk 07:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  7.  Support After the clarification regarding a request for rights [1], furthermore this kind of permission for really active trusted Commons users with OTRS access will be likely much more usefull for the community than this de facto right for the (large numbers of) administrators who are not really active. In summary if we give these rights to non-active administrators, I don't see the issue to give these rights to active trusted users who will use really those rights and in a good way for to help the community and the Wikimedia projects. Insofar as we keep here in Wikimedia Commons the power to allocate or take over these rights of course. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  8.  Oppose With all due respect to the proposer and his work, this proposal appears not very well prepared to me.
    • Getting an opinion on a deleted file or getting it restored to apply an OTRS ticket can always be done in several ways, not least via IRC.
    • The Commons admin giving an opinion or restoring the file doesn't have to be an OTRS agent because the OTRS part of the work is still be done by the OTRS volunteer.
    • OTRS members are not trusted users regarding to Commons point of view as they are not appointed by the Commons community.
    • I'm still uncomfortable to broaden the view to deleted material to so many more users without actual need.
    • I everything else fails or becomes unmanageable, the OTRS user can request adminship on Commons, which likely will help the community in many more places, and is the easiest solution.
    --Krd 17:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  9.  Oppose Per Krd's. In particular: OTRS members are not trusted users regarding to Commons point of view as they are not appointed by the Commons community. --Discasto talk 16:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  10.  Oppose per Krd, et al. OTRS membership is not granted by or in consultation with the Commons community; it is highly inappropriate to grant a trusted right (view deleted) to users who have not had that trust confirmed by the community in which the right will be deployed. This also opens a perverse asymmetry. For example, a Commons admin and OTRS member could not view deleted on, say, the Estonian Wikipedia; yet an Estonian OTRS member--who may or may not have ever even used the Commons--could view deleted images here. Obviously that would be true of all other projects. That is a nonsensical (and dangerous) position, as is this proposal. Эlcobbola talk 23:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  11.  Oppose as per the arguments of Revent, Krd and Elcobbola. Daphne Lantier 01:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  12.  Oppose mostly because the WMF has repeatedly stated over at enwiki that they will shut down any attempt to grant editors the ability to view deleted files unless it stems from a community process. Even if this got approved, the WMF would just shut it down. ~ Rob13Talk 02:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  13.  Support it would make COM:UDR acting on OTRS agents requests simpler. Ankry (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  14.  Weak support iff the approval process is on COM:BN, with a criteria of OTRS agents that are also active commons users, and have a similar trustworthiness requirement as an LR. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  15.  Support If the user right process will be done on COM:BN, provided that the requesting user are very active on COM:UDR (the definition of "very active" may vary, this will depend on the reviewing bureaucrat). The request will be reviewed by a bureaucrat, and will be open for 72 hours. Otherwise  Oppose, per Krd, Revent, and Elcobbola, since they are not elected by the community, hence they aren't trusted to view deleted files, which is a very sensitive privilege. --★ Poké95 11:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Changed my mind; full  Oppose regardless if there would be a user right process or not. Storkk has a point. ★Poyekhali 11:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  1.  Support – the level of trust required for deletedhistory certainly shouldn't be any higher than the one required for permission verifications. If "OTRS members are not trusted users regarding to Commons point of view", how can Commons trust their copyright status assessment? FDMS 4 12:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  2.  Support Natuur12 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  3.  Support, maybe call it a viewdeleted right.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  4.  Neutral - I'm on the fence here. On one hand, giving OTRS the right to view deleted files is a good thing. On the other hand, currently OTRS is understaffed and backlogged, and I'm unsure whether its volunteers are skilled enough and trusted to be granted with such. --George Ho (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  5.  Neutral absolutely sensible. But I've to much respect to the opinion of very experienced admins here, so I made my vote neutral. -- User: Perhelion 23:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  6.  Support Agree. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  7.  Oppose, per Krd. Érico (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  8.  Oppose purely because the Commons community does not choose its OTRS members. It is entirely a Meta process, and while Commons members are welcome to comment on requests for OTRS access on Meta, the rights granting and revoking process remains one that the Commons community has no direct access to. Last time I looked, there was no process that I could find to recall or remove an OTRS member. And I did have to go looking for the recall process, more than once. Storkk (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  9.  Oppose Per Storkk & if a competent OTRS volunteer with access to the Commons queue wants to examine deleted files, they can go through RFA, it's supposed to be no big deal. --Fæ (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  10.  Support if technically feasible. While I can respect the stance that they are not elected, we *are* trusting them already to make the call that a file is validly licensed, so not trusting them to simply view deleted files does not make much sense to me. The ability to see a file would often help in making their determination, I'm sure. From the sounds of it, the ability would not let them actually modify anything at Commons, which is the point where I would prefer to have a community-approved member. There is a substantial OTRS backlog, so OTRS volunteer time is relatively scarce and quite valuable, and anything reasonable we can do to speed up their work would be extremely helpful. To me, this seems like a very reasonable proposal along those lines. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry Carl, it is more correct to say that "we" have no control over who has access to the Commons queue, so literally "we" do not trust whoever has access as the Commons community no longer is any direct part of that decision. If the Commons community had an open and transparent way to decide who we trust to have access to the Commons queue, effectively acting for the community when they correspond about cases, then my viewpoint would be completely different.
    Reading above, Krd put it more simply than me, "OTRS members are not trusted users regarding to Commons point of view as they are not appointed by the Commons community." --Fæ (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    Right -- I just don't see the ability to view deleted files as requiring that level of trust. They can't actually undelete the files, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    It's possible to over simplify the things that can go wrong. The trust being required is that unelected OTRS volunteers, using identities that may be both secret and separate from any Commons identity, will be able to examine (and copy) deleted files of any type. They will then make decisions about whether the image should remain deleted or not, based on information that may remain secret, without any reference to a Commons administrator. For a file to be undeleted, we should then in theory have an UNDEL request that says "trust me, I'm from OTRS", without necessarily having any other information that the OTRS volunteer saying it's okay to undelete a file. For a file that remains deleted, no Commons administrator may ever know about the secret correspondence that was rejected.
    Now, Commons administrators are publicly accountable to the Commons community for their actions and have been elected. This proposed change significantly chips away at that trusted status by devolving access to deleted material to appointed but unelected OTRS volunteers that pass no specific competency test. Unlike some other trusted roles outside of Commons, OTRS volunteers have had a difficult history, including some globally banned users having been OTRS volunteers with access to the Commons queue, yet there may never be any retrospective public accountability for their OTRS decisions, especially for material where there was no visible public action on Commons. I could provide more detail and scenarios, to question how serious the "level of trust" is for these Commons rights, but this feels like it's becoming too much of a tangent. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    You mean exactly the way they have access to the OTRS-sent information now but Commons admins don't, and they request undeletion now on that basis, and we are supposed to trust them (and do)? Generally in the undeletion requests, if the identity/licensing of the owner was the only thing in doubt, our admins trust the OTRS folks based on that information they can't see. But if there is some aspect the admin is concerned about that wasn't addressed, they can question the OTRS person in that discussion. Giving them the ability to see the deleted files doesn't stop that process at all -- it just gives the OTRS folks some (needed) information. In fact, admins and OTRS could discuss elements of the image on the undeletion discussion this way without it needing to be (temporarily) undeleted for everyone else as well. It's possible the OTRS member setup/vetting in the first place may not be the best -- but if WMF is trusting them with the private contact details and communication related to the images here, I don't see the danger in allowing them to *see* deleted media (which was once visible to all anyways) -- deleted mainly because we should not make it generally available). I do not think it would be a good idea to give them undeletion (or any other modification type) privileges -- just that they can see the content to more accurately identify it, better discuss it, etc. OTRS is part of the licensing system on Commons, and it sure seems like they should have the information needed to do their job. Like anyone else, they should be able to justify the undeletion reason when asking for it -- that becomes a public record of that activity. If they add an OTRS tag before a file is deleted, well, everyone can still see the content at that point and that can happen now. I confess I really don't see the danger of *seeing* the deleted content; they already have access to the private OTRS communications. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  11.  Oppose per Krd. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Why are OTRS members trusted users? AFAIC trusted users are those elected by the community and OTRS members were never elected. In fact, a while ago a Russian Wikipedia user was banned by an ArbCom and remained banned for two years, but remained an OTRS member during the whole duration of the ban (and I believe still is an OTRS member).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    Well, to avoid this kind of option we can add it as a request in COM:RFR and only approved users may accept the right. If the attitude of OTRS to let users be volunteers just because they asked to be so, this permission will be under Commons control (can be usfull also for local wikis). it will distinguished between OTRS volunteers withe the permission and who did not get one.-- Geagea (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    As soon as they explicitly get a permission on Commons and do not get grandfathered in I do not have a problem with the proposal.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    I want to emphasize that to be an OTRS member is not so easy. I know at least one user from Hebrew wiki that apply to be an OTRS volunteer and he was denied. Also I know another member that his permissions were removed because the way he handled the tickets. The application is reviewed by admins and other OTRS members. see here. Hanay (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    This is a low risk permission as it is basically "read-only". What possible abuse could OTRS members cause by viewing deleted images? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    This is not a good argument, since it implies anybody should be able to see deleted images. There are some good reasons why this option is not available to everyone.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's seems to be a good idea and may be useful. But if the fact to give advanced permissions to users who have not been elected by our community is an issue. Then we can condition the access to this new group with 2 conditions 1/to be an OTRS member, 2/ to be elected in a kind of request for right within our community, with the possibility to remove this right if it is necessary while the user stay an OTRS member. In that case I tend to support. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I do agree with Christian Ferrer: it is necessary some sort of blessing from the Commons community, even if it's a quick check that the user has a clean recent contribution record. --Ruthven (msg) 13:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment. I agree with all the comments her, it shouldn't be an advanced permissions. The permission should be added only per request in COM:RFR. But this kind of permission does not exist yet and should be created. I made a clarification above. Hopefully it's clear now. If you think something should be improved in the original suggestion feel free to do so.-- Geagea (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This has already been declined multiple times. Here's an email from krd:
This has already been discussed at Commons several times, and the fact is that these rights cannot be applied to OTRS agents but only to validly elected Commons admins. For the reason that deleted versions (copyright violations) may only be visible to as few persons as required, which are the Commons admins.
This is a requirement of WMF legal, and should not be discussed again and again. Please save community time and don't start public discussions on this topic.
DatGuy (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
To give advanced permissions to all OTRS members and to give, after a request for right with a vote, these permissions to carefully selected trusted users who have OTRS access is not exactly the same thing. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
My email is at this pastebin. DatGuy (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Though every one is of course free to have it's own point of view, to read at least the 3 or 4 last oppose votes, I wonder if they have notified the proposal "request in COM:RFR and only approved users". That's said Krd's comment is not untrue, OTRS members can make a rfa... Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As a former OTRS member, I always desired to see the deleted files. But, as trust is an important part of this project, I think only selected OTRS members may have this "special" permission. This may be implemented as a second OTRS group like "Advanced OTRS members" (for users who're already OTRS members), elected by the community. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Because OTRS members sign a confidentiality agreement, they are trusted by the WMF not to divulge confidential information. The trust we are talking about above is entirely different: OTRS rights are not granted or revoked by the Commons community so ipso facto they are not trusted by the Commons community. Storkk (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment. As a matter a fact, the votes that based on the claim "OTRS volunteers are not trusted", simply indicate that we don't trust Commons admis judgment is good enough whether user is trusted or active in commons. -- Geagea (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I may be missing something, I don't see how whether the Commons community is confident to agree that non-Commons-admin OTRS volunteers will be granted deleted file viewing rights without any vote process, has any bearing on whether the community trusts its own openly elected administrators. These two things seem unrelated. --Fæ (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
No, only Commons admins can grant the permission to OTRS volunteer that asked it in COM:RFR. Any community member can oppose. The suggestion speaking about giving permission to see deleted files, not to undelete them.-- Geagea (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2017/02&oldid=253891204"