Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/09

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

Allow UTRS on commons.

Blocked Commons editors with their talk page access revoked cannot usually appeal their block easily, (they could email an admin for help, but that is rarely considered) enwiki already has UTRS, why can't this be extended to commons as well? --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC) Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  •  Strong support, by default it should exist. Even if it's not going to be frequently used, there should at least be an option for users who wish to be able to return in good faith to be able to do so if they otherwise can't do this on-wiki. Per "Commons:Blocking policy": "blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one". Any admin that wishes to spend their time there can, any admin that doesn't want to doesn't have to, it's an opt-in system that will only add more options. My main issue with the UTRS is that it's all "behind closed doors", by default the bot that places the template on the blocked user's talk page should also include the entire message unless they themselves have selected to not want this to be publicly posted and the response should also be posted publicly on the talk page (after review by UTRS agent to prevent trolling). The only exceptions should be in cases where privacy is indeed something to be protected. Once TPA is revoked a standard template with information about unblocking, what the user needs to understand, and at the very bottom a link to the UTRS should be provided, obviously UTRS agents can revoke UTRS access like they already can at the English-language Wikipedia. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 Addendum, I'd like to provide the case of user "ARichardMalcolm" (he had to message on enwiki) who wanted to donate materials related to his book and "05:40, 15 July 2016 INeverCry talk contribs blocked ARichardMalcolm talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (promotion-only account)" which was undone later "15:37, 9 November 2017 Guanaco talk contribs unblocked ARichardMalcolm talk contribs (Inappropriately blocked by INC with talk page access disabled; user appears to be reasonable, and any issues can be discussed with them)", many users or companies that wish to donate their materials get nuked and have their talk and e-mail access disabled, there literally is currently no appeals process. Every single productive user who could've been unblocked had they understood the rules and isn't planning on being disruptive is one too many. Blocks exist to prevent further disruption, people who want to cause more disruption tend to ignore blocks and will continue disrupting through socking, but at what point does someone become "a lost cause" and why should this only be at the digression of a single admin that decides that there should be no possible road to unblock? In fact, the current system encourages socking as user "Mutter Erde" had to sock to evade a block they couldn't appeal and they returned now as a productive member of the Wikimedia Commons community. Simply having a UTRS will solve a lot of problems and it's an opt-in system no current admin is forced to use unless they choose to. My only issue with it is that it's a closed off system and matters concerning the Wikimedia Commons should best be discussed on-wiki and not off-wiki, but we simply don't know how many users want to return as productive members but can't because they don't want to break the rules by socking and have just given up on appealing their blocks, this simply seems like a more likely scenario. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Creation of a new mega-category for promoting images/files that go against stereotypes, explains history facts and/or are schocking in some way

No consensus to make any changes based on this proposal. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Hi everyone.

I'm a user that started to contribute first on the italian Wikipedia at the end of 2021 and then on Commons at the beginning of this year. I'm mainly contributing here for now uploading all the available photo about the Romanov imperial dinasty and other historical things.

Navigating through many historical (and not only) photographs here on Commons in these months, I noticed various images that are very schocking and disrupting in the way them cancel many stereotypes and have the ability to describe in a very straightforward way something that otherwise would be difficult to explain or remember. Those images has the power to describe some historical thing or fact in an incredible simple way, I think.

I think that it should be a primary task for Commons to fight all the stereotypes possible... and photographs may be the best way for doing it succesfully.


We already have 3 categories for promoting photos here in Commons:

- Featured pictures (great images from skilled creators)

- Quality images (great/well composed images from Commons users)

- Valued images (good images promoted for being used in other Wikimedia projects, being the best representation of a particular subject)


Well, ladies and gentleman... i propose the new mega-promotion-category Unique images (or Unusual images, etc.), and I can already make some interesting example...

...and there would be many others ready!

We have an extraordinary historical archive here on Commons and many of those photos are not even included in some Wikipedia/Wikimedia pages, imaging having them promoted in some way!

No one sees them, no one knows about them and the things that they describe... it's like those photos aren't existing at all! Entire huge archives from single authors or from national archives from all over the world are being progressively stored here on Commons... we just CAN'T let all this be forgotten, continuing to insert on Wikipedia pages always the same, ultra-known historical dozens of stereotyped photos already written in all the school books.

I already know there's the "FP/Historical" promotion-subcategory, but it somehow isn't good enoughf, not by far (and being that category without any other subcat., despite all the others, make you realise by yourself the GREAT problem we have...).

This is my proposal, from my humble position and opinion... it is an idea, that somehow need to be realised.

Remember what I'm saying now to you: here in Italy quite the entire nation lives on false stereotypes of all kind that is pushing the ENTIRE politic system make the worst errors of all sorts and in every sector

Just to let you know what stereotypes can do...

Thank you for your attention. LucaLindholm (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

These are extremely subjective criteria, and the inclusion of images would be based on what? Any uploader's personal judgement? enwiki has a List of unusual articles which is kept for humor's sake, but is likewise subjective, and by no means systematic. Elizium23 (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
+2. I'm not sure why "FP/Historical" couldn't feature images important to the history of social justice movements, but unique images is to subjective. The same goes for images that break stereotypes. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1 @Elizium23
Well, even the 3 top categories could be subjective... and, as a matter of fact, images are added to them by request from someone and community vote. It has always been in that way. LucaLindholm (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
All of those categories include an elaborate process of nominating, voting, etc. I doubt there is the interest to get together a group of people to work on doing this in that manner, but if you have a group of roughly a dozen or more people who would want to work on this, and intend to extablish criteria, define a process of selection and participate actively, that might be a good thing. But that's a long way from just creating a category. - Jmabel ! talk 22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I have to say, though: I'm not encouraged by finding none of the images you've given as examples particularly interesting, which shows how subjective this is. - Jmabel ! talk 22:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Lowell Mars channels.jpg Yes, it can be difficult to decide which pictures belong in these categories. You might want to start by making three lists of a few hundred of the most anti-stereotype, the most explanatory of history facts, and the ones that most shock you. For example, this picture shocked some people when it was new but other people might not think so. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/08/Category:Commons' weirdest photographs Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05/Category:Cursed images.
i say this proposal can be closed.--RZuo (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Mmh... the fact that this continues to be proposed over time something says however... and for us users that love to browser the endless historical photos archive on this project, it is a thing somehow felt as important. We should think at it, maybe by putting some precise requirement in order to accept them. That's a thaught. LucaLindholm (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This seems much more suitable for a gallery page, than a category. Even there, it seems a bit subjective; it might really be just a subpage of a user page. - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


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

New display field in every page DEFAULTSORT

Would it be possible to display the DEFAULTSORT value on an item's page? This would avoid having to edit the page to see it JotaCartas (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

About saving files in the editing view

I'm from the Finnish Wikipedia. I have noticed that some new and inexperienced users have uploaded copyrighted images from the edit view. Is it possible to see from somewhere how many such uploads have taken place? At least Kyykaarme has made some sort of list of such[1][2][3]. You can also see such cases in my edits and logs when I have suggested such images to be removed. If you think there are so many such uploads, could that function be limited to a certain user access level or removed completely (at least in the Finnish Wikipedia, because I don't know about other Wikipedias)? Luurankosoturi (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Luurankosoturi: Per mw:Upload dialog#Configuration (for wiki sysadmins), "Starting with MediaWiki 1.28 (but not 1.27), it can be disabled by setting $wgForeignUploadTargets to []" (no translation to Finnish yet). Finnish Wikipedia is at MediaWiki Version 1.41.0-wmf.25 (a7ea3a3) dated 21:18, 4 September 2023. You are welcome to form a consensus for such a change on Finnish Wikipedia. We currently have a total of 1,660,170 cross-wiki uploads listed in Recent Changes per Special:Tags (not just from Finnish Wikipedia). It may also be possible to limit cross-wiki uploads by Finnish Wikipedia users here on Commons to autopatrolled users here using Special:AbuseFilter/153 or another filter.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Enable textured 3D files on Commons

Broad consensus for allowing this. Already tracked in Phabricator as T246901.
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T246901
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Featuring 3D renderings of notable objects and places offers great opportunities for improving Wikipedia articles by making them both more engaging for readers whilst also helping them better comprehend the subject.

Support for featuring 3D renderings of objects has become increasingly common and better supported on the internet generally; however this support is not currently matched on Wikimedia Commons thereby limiting Wikipedia's ability to feature 3D objects.

As stated in a blog post on the publication of the original basic 3D support in Commons (source below):

In the future, after feedback from our community of volunteer editors, we’ll consider adding support for even more complex file types that support features like textures.

The time to add support for these features is now. Most modern smartphones are able to create 3D-Scans of smaller objects or even complete buildings rights now, and there is no way to upload and display them in Wikimedia projects!

Possible use cases of colorful, interactive and complex 3d models in Wikipedia articles:

  • models of extinct species like dinosaur reconstructions
  • the inside of historical rooms (example)
  • all kinds of smaller interesting objects
This is great, but pretty boring. We need color! ;)

Resources:

Kristbaum (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikimania poster and meetup

Poster by Discott that will be displayed at Wikimania 2023.

Hello everyone, for those of us attending Wikimania 2023 in person I will be hosting a meetup to discuss this issue with the objective to increase awareness of this amoungst Wikimedia Foundation management. This will be done in front of the poster we are displaying during the poster session on Thursday 17 August at 17:00 to 19:00 Singapore time (9:00 UTC to 11:00 UTC). Let me know here if anyone wants to join digitally and I will try to setup a Jitsi hangout so people not physically there can also join in (depending on practicability). We will also be talking about other aspects of 3D support on Wikipedia as well, such as technical considerations. We can talk about this issue more later on at the conference, both in person and online, at the Hackerthon space. --Discott (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

WMF C-Levels and other staff talking about how to best action 3D support on Wikipedia.
Hello everyone and apologies for the long delay in getting this update done. The poster presentation on 17 August seemed to go very well and we got strong support from both the community members present as well as the WMF staff that visited us. Encouragingly the WMF staff, including the C-levels that were present, immediately started discussing how to implement the 3D support. One idea was to enable Wikipedia to feature/display 3D objects that are stored on a site that is already optimised for hosting 3D objects like Sketchfab; the logic being that this would be a quick and relatively effortless way to experiment with the idea so as not to divert too much of the already scarce development talent the WMF has, and if it is a successful experiment then it can be deployed properly with full hosting support deployed on Commons. One of the other WMF staff pointed out how the concept of piping content from a website not affiliated with Wikipedia/Commons might be controversial within the community and so it might be best just to go 'all in' rather than doing the experimental rout. I stated that I was 'method agnostic' but could see the value in trying out the experimental route. I however now regret that I did not also, at the same time, echo the concern about sourcing from a non-Wiki project as a possible issue for the community. A final concern by another WMF staff member was the possibility of people using textured 3D objects to upload pornographic content that is not allowed on Commons, fearing that is might create an extra review burden on the community. Concerns on the 'how to do it' aside, the important thing is that people liked the idea of doing 3D support, immediately recognized its immense potential and possible value for Wikipedia & Commons, and also want to see it done which was the purpose of this poster. So mission successful! Now onto the next part of this: "how to get it done?"--Discott (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Voting

 Support This would be an valuable addition to Wikimedia Commons, as there is not yet a non-commercial platform for 3D renderings and models Ionenlaser (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Support чтобы обойти загрузку текстуры в 3д модель можно применить облачный формат E75 там нет текстур а только миллионы точек с информации о координатах и цвете точки в итоге визуально мы видим 3д модель но по факту это массив точек это очень удобный формат и он создается только 3д сканером в момент сканирования--Masterhappiness2022 (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Всем привет! у меня есть цель и я прошу помощи в ее реализации. Я Занимаюсь 3д сканирование и хочу оснастить каждую статью википедии 3д моделями земных достопримечательностей. Википедия очень правильное место и лучше не придумаешь! Я могу загружать и в STL но нужно чтоб ваши специалисты добавили возможность смотреть эти 3д модели с текстурой(в цвете). Да я понимаю Что для википедии это дополнительная работа. но в этом направлении нужно точно развиваться ведь не за горами мета вселенная. Вот представьте человек открывает статью в википедии скажем про пещеру или пирамиду или архитектурное сооружение и прочитав и посмотрев фото этого объекта он получает возможность посмотреть виртуально 3д модель этого объекта! Я обладаю всем нужным оборудование для реализации этого проекта в википедии и оно очень дорого мне обошлось, я хочу чтоб в википедии была такая возможность совершить путешествие к тому месту куда не могут приехать например люди с ограниченными возможностями или школьники и студенты которые не имеют финансовой возможности но Википедия предоставляет им эту возможность совершить бесплатно ,виртуально. Я вас очень прошу поднять этот вопрос на совещании Руководства Википедии т.к. эта возможность также повысит популярность википедии и обретет новый современный подход к статьям и это уже будет не просто текстовые статьи а полное погружение во все нюансы которые не описать текстом. --Masterhappiness2022 (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You voted twice? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Support We should have (almost?) all free file formats. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Almost every file format has unique functions, that can be useful, depending on the purpse --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support Just a few weeks ago I was having a discussion about the lack of support for the formats that many GLAM entities use for their collections of 3D models. This would definitely facilitate mass importing of such collections. --Waldyrious (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Support This seems like a no-brainer and having textured 3D models of things like extinct species would be really cool. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Support I am, as I write this message of support, preparing a poster for Wikimania 2023 advocating for support to be given to developers to make this a reality (along with support for other aspects of hosting 3D objects on Commons). This area of 3D browser interactivity has come a long way over the past couple of years. There is also a great deal of 3D content out there that is copyright compatible for uploading to commons, it seems such a shame to be preventing people (due to a lack of technical support) from using that content here and on Wikipedia. Its the sort of modernization that I feel is needed. --Discott (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Support I love 3D renderings of objects. 20 upper 06:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T246901

This has been dicussed before; see Phabriactor ticket T246901. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the template! It has of course been discussed before and on different forums, but it probably is good to put this issue in front of people on Commons to gather support and future use cases, so WMF has an easier time to allocate resources to this :) Kristbaum (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Strong Support, there are so many projects in the digital humanities, that might supply data to make their results visible. --h-stt !? 20:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Support, this would finally grant Commons a useful (for an average person) feature which would make it better than a generic file bank service. I would be glad to upload some 3D scans of my collection if it were technically possible. Drogosław (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  •  Support, obviously. I still find it odd that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) acts as if it needs to get community consensus for every small technical improvement, especially since it just assumes that "everything is disallowed unless explicitly allowed" which kind of goes against the spirit of open-wiki's where improvements should always be welcomed unless we can think of a reason to exclude them. 3D scanning public domain objects doesn't create new copyrights and a lot of museums around the world are now scanning old cultural heritage. The reason why nobody outside of Wikimedia websites takes the Wikimedia Commons seriously is because we are too slow to adopt new technologies and utilise existing technologies, 3D objects are the latest in a long list of technologies that will be useful in other technologies. 3D objects are also useful for Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR), now imagine if we'd have interactive scans of places like the Great Pyramid of Giza freely available at the Wikimedia Commons that both educators and video game developers could download knowing that it's from a free source. This technology has so much potential and we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot by not allowing it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Strong support As a creator of 3D models, I am in favor with this idea. I also support adding new 3D model file types that support texturing. But there are some other reasons for more file formats: You need to do less converting from other repositories. But other formats also allow to create rigged models, which means, you can rotate an arm of a 3D model for example. This is not supported by STL, which is currently the only allowed filetype on Commons. STL is good for 3D printing, but only covers the mesh itself. It covers no surface properties, no textures, no transparency, no rigs, no animation and more. Some models make even no sense at all, whenn textures or properties are missing. Models of windows without transparency are useless, and so are signs without textures. There are some Creative Commons (including CC0) repositories of texture mapped models (for example by NASA, that show probes and satellites with textures). Having these models without texture reduces their educational value severely. I also remember converting COLLADA (DAE) files from 0 A.D., a free strategy game, to STL. This took much time. So in short: I really hope that this idea will be reality soon, in combination with more free mesh or model filetypes, so we get a broader bandwith of 3D models with much more features than only the mesh itself. AFAIK DAE (COLLADA), OBJ and STL are open filetypes. PLY (free???) allows the storage of textures with the meshes. The Blender filetype also offers a huge range of additional features (as it is a scene filetype), but it has possible backdoors. I hope, that those filetypes could be considered to be added. Also interesting might be the implementation of file types that are made for point clouds. This is in important topic in scanning of 3D objects via laser scanning. One filetype is *.laz --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Strong support There are literally hundreds of 3D file formats (open, proprietary, commercial) and are widely used in academia, research, 3D games, AR/VR, design, industry, etc. Hence, some open 3D file formats to be considered to start with: - PLY (Stanford polygon file format): suitable for preservation (ASCII version), allows colour, transparency, surface normals, texture coordinates, and data confidence values. - OBJ (includes optional .mtl and .jpg image files): suitable for preservation (ASCII format is preferred) of wire frame or textured models. - X3D (ISO standard XML-based format developed by the Web3D consortium): suitable for preservation and recommended for complex 3D content. - STL (Stereolithography or Standard Tessellation Language): suitable for preservation for very basic datasets (ASCII format only stores 3D geometry, i.e. no textures, whereas the binary version with the help of an extension also saves colour information and requires less storage space). - Pointclouds: exchange and archive (e.g., ASCII TXT, ASTM E57 format) or visualisation (not sure if it makes sense to create, for example, a derived PLY?). As for the visualisation of 3D models, perhaps 3DHOP (developed by Visual Computing Lab, ISTI-CNR) might be somewhat helpful. It's «an open-source framework for the creation of interactive web presentations of high-resolution 3D models, oriented to the Cultural Heritage field. 3DHOP allows the creation of interactive visualization of 3D models directly inside a standard web page, just by adding some HTML and JavaScript components in the web page source code. The 3D scene and the user interaction can be easily configured using a simple 'declarative programming' approach. By using a multi-resolution 3D model management 3DHOP is able to work with high-resolution 3D models with ease, also on low-bandwidth. 3DHOP does not need a specialized server, nor server-side computation, and does work directly inside modern web browsers, no plug-ins or additional components are necessary.» https://vcg.isti.cnr.it/3dhop/
Veryfiner (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Strong support I have a number of photogrametric 3D models on Commons, all of which would benefit from texturing: even in simple cases, texturing gives indications of materials (is a statue made of bronze, marble, clay...?), and conveys verisimilitude through little details such as weathering or ambient occlusion.
No indication of material, and scarcety of details
  • Terracotta object renders like clay
    Terracotta object renders like clay
  • Plaster object renders like clay
    Plaster object renders like clay
  • Marble object renders like clay
    Marble object renders like clay

More importantly, some models suffer greatly from being only clay models: for instance polychrome archæological artefacts are improperly represented by clay models.

polychrome archæological artefact improperly represented by an untextured models
  • polychrome archæological artefact improperly represented by an untextured model: 3D clay model gives volumes but misrepresents colours
    polychrome archæological artefact improperly represented by an untextured model: 3D clay model gives volumes but misrepresents colours
  • polychrome archæological artefact improperly represented by an untextured model: photograph gives colours but not volumes
    polychrome archæological artefact improperly represented by an untextured model: photograph gives colours but not volumes
  • Model looks damaged (nose)
    Model looks damaged (nose)
  • Texture gives information that the damage is on the object rather than on the 3D model.
    Texture gives information that the damage is on the object rather than on the 3D model.

Finally, on the technical side, not having textures forces us to upload high polygon models. The possibility to embed bump maps and displacement maps would allow conveying the same amount of detail with much smaller models (one order of magnitude fewer polygons at least). I very much hope this proposal comes to fruition. Rama (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  •  Strong support A more structured 3D viewer would be an asset not only for Wikimedia, but also for scientific projects that previously had to host their files on their own servers or with commercial providers. The option to add footnotes to the 3D models would be particularly great. Please! Please! Please! -- Frieder_Leipold (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Strong support 3D models are a powerful feature, and their presence makes Commons and Wikimedia stand out. (I don't see 3D models used to explain concepts anywhere else.) Adding the ability to convery color and texture will make them even more useful. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tracking file usage on the AARoads Wiki

On Commons talk:Tracking external file usage I've proposed that Usage Bot should start maintaining a set of galleries tracking the usage of Commons' files on the AARoads Wiki like it does for several other external wikis. Opinions on this proposal should be posted there. --bjh21 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

How about a gadget License-a-lot similar like cat-a-lot

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

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

Filter for files used on Wikimedia sites

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

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

Shutdown of Computer-aided tagging: Mass revert?

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

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T339902

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

I come across these mistakes very frequently. And the bot tags are completely inaccurate. When I look at the file's history, no one but the bot has edited it. What the solution is, I do not know, but I belief is that the Commons has been massively harmed by bot tagging. Krok6kola (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The WMF classed 73.4% of such values as "bad". Absent an alternative proposal, I think this is inevitable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
If we mass revert, then the bot should leave an edit summary that encourages anyone watching the file to check to see if what it has reverted should be restored. After all, 26.6% of 1.5 million is not small. If they are right in their count, we would be having a bot revert about 400,000 good edits to get rid of 1.1 million bad ones. (BTW, I think the numbers are a bit misleading, because thousands of these edits were things like two people edit warring over the depicts on a file.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Do you refer to the ISA tool disaster? These edits are not marked as done with Computer-aided tagging. We should only include edits with the "computer-aided-tagging" tag, the ones with "computer-aided-tagging-manual" tag should also not be included. GPSLeo (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I doubt that any such edit wars were tagged as being by the Computer-aided tagging tool, so they won't be included in the figure given. Do you have any examples to the contrary? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 Comment - It would be worth of save the added values to file or something before bulk reverting them so if somebody would like try to filter out useful ones (using machine vision for example) I think something like open_clip could work for finding useful tags and I could could do a practical test if the idea works at october. --Zache (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 Support bulk revert.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 Comment has anyone asked the tech team to share the list of what they determined to be "good" edits so we can assay whether it looks like there would be a fair amount worth keeping? But I wouldn't object to just deleting it all. One ham-handed mass edit deserves another.
Edit summary should make clear that this is "without prejudice" and if you think the item was correct you should feel free to re-add. - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The criteria are detailed in the linked Phabricator ticket. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 Support (with an appropriate edit summary that encourages people to re-revert bad reverts) El Grafo (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 Support. See also this alternative evaluation: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T339902#9166347 (8.6% “good”, 73.4% “bad“) – McDutchie (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

[restored from archive] This needs to be properly closed - do we have consensus? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

if possible, only revert edits made by users who are merely autoconfirmed or not even autoconfirmed. any user with autopatrol or more advanced user right can be assumed to have used the tool properly. RZuo (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/09&oldid=831091242"