Commons:Community noticeboard

Add topic
From Miraheze Commons
(Redirected from Commons:CN)
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Magnanon in topic Quality images
Community noticeboard
Shortcut
COM:CN

This page is for community discussion.
Here you can:

  • Ask questions about Miraheze Commons
  • Discuss topics with the Miraheze Commons community and staff
  • Ask anything else that is not mentioned below

Please remember to:

  • End all your requests and comments using four tides - ~~~~
  • Talk in a calm, and respectful manner (we're all here to help each other after all)
  • Be descriptive of the problem

[edit source]

Proposal 1 of Logo of Miraheze Commons.

Any logo proposals? That'd be nice. Hispano76 (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it is good R C Peña
That logo looks good! I say let's use it, thanks! Paladox (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it should also be used as a favicon, as it will make it easier to distinguish which wiki we are on (this is very important for a user like me, who contributes on multiple wikis).--開拓者 (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Paladox (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks.--開拓者 (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It actually makes sense. The wiki is renamed, and a new logo is created. That's good. For all. Fungster (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. Paladox Hispano76 (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File Licensing[edit source]

Morning, everybody. I come to clarify which licenses are accepted in this Wiki. This is so that new users know beforehand if they have the right license and also to make some arrangements.

  • Are all Creative Commons licenses (CC0 to CC BY NC ND) accepted?
  • Is the Fair Use accepted?

Greetings Hispano76 (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, might want to follow https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing too. Paladox (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paladox Well, then all variants of Creative Commons licenses including "NoDerivative" will be accepted. Greetings. Hispano76 (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consultation on probable "merger" between MediatecaWiki and CommonsWiki[edit source]

Hello, everybody. For some time now, I have been thinking about bringing all my images that are in my Mediateca wiki project to this Wiki for at least two reasons:

  • 1) To be able to use it in any Miraheze wiki including possible future projects of my own without having to be configured in GitHub
  • 2) To prevent the deletion of these images in case of inactivity (Not taken into account the issue of copyright although I try to prevent plagiarism)

I just have some doubts that I would like to ask before doing any Import step. The doubts are:

  • 3) Can I create categories "in Spanish" to categorize my images? for example categorize "File:Manuel Camacho Solis.jpg" in the categories "Personas", "Imágenes de Flickr " and "Imágenes bajo la licencia CC BY NC" or should they be in English?
  • 4) My license attribution and related templates Can they be in Spanish or do I have to translate them into English? for example Template:Flickr
  • 5) Am I free to create categories I want or should I stick to a categorization line here? Can I overcategorize my images?

(Consultation in spanish)

Hi @Hispano76! What is the status of this? Did you merge Mediateca to Commons? I see you are one of administrators here now. --ZBlace (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ZBlace It was a personal project, now completed and categorized here. Hispano76 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hispano76 do you have any documentation on what and how it was done? If not can I ask you a small favor to write it in few paragraphs as I think I want to try replicating this, by creating private wiki with curated uploads and selectively move it to public access on Commons, but I have no technical skills to plan this as a project. Would be much grateful for tips and tricks :-)
--ZBlace (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ZBlace As it's been a while and I haven't been that active, I don't remember the details only that I made the request in Phabricator, and a script uploaded the imported images to Commons. If you want to ask on the community board on MetaWiki. Sorry I don't have any answers. Hispano76 (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Custom licensing to prevent transfer to Commons[edit source]

Hello.
May I upload files deliberately licensed in a way preventing transfer to Wikimedia Commons on a technicality? In other words, essentially free but under such exact conditions that make hosting on Wikimedia Commons not possible with their current licensing system. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Commons does not accept CC BY NC, CC BY NC SA, CC BY ND and CC BY NC ND licenses because they are Non-Commercial and Non-Derived. You could opt for these licenses. Greetings. Hispano76 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to know! ZBlace (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wordmark[edit source]

I propose that we use the following as our new wordmark. What does people think?

MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 20:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That looks fine to me. It looks better than the larger version you posted on IRC. For clarity, this should be for $wgLogos, leaving the existing logo as the $wgLogo. Dmehus (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it is better version¡ R C Peña 16:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit source]

Hello Miraheze Commons community, I uploaded the file File:PicsArt 06-30-04.19.06.png today but I somehow forgot to give a name to it. I even tried to move it after it was uploaded, but my action is throttled. So I request anyone else to move File:PicsArt 06-30-04.19.06.png to File:KawipediaLogoK.png. Thanks, ~ Mazzaz (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging some users as it is urgent: Dmehus and Hispano76. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is done now! ~ Mazzaz (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mazzaz Sorry that we missed this. That's fine that you moved it yourself, and just requested deletion of the trailing redirect, which I've now  done. Apologies for the delay. Dmehus (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dmehus, no problem :) ~ Mazzaz (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few questions[edit source]

Hello everybody, I was just reviewing pages here on the Commons and as I did, the following questions popped up:

  1. What does one do for images without licensing? One approach I've been taking is to inform the user who uploaded the file that images on Commons require licensing/descriptions. Afterwards, would nominating it for deletion be appropriate?
  2. Are images of oneself that are used to self-promote one on other wikis allowed? I've stumbled upon uploaded images of people on Commons which have been uploaded by the person themselves and who use it to create articles on themselves to self-promote on other wikis. Technically speaking, they're using the uploaded image for self-promotion which isn't allowed on this wiki (albeit, they aren't promoting themselves here, they're doing so on other wikis). They per se aren't notable people, mostly just people who are trying to become social media influencers and upload themselves onto Commons. I've been thinking of asking them to upload such photos to the wiki in which they use the photo on, not on this one. These images generally tend to only be used on one wiki.
  3. What about orphaned images? Do they get deleted after a while or left there?
  4. Does notability matter when uploading an image in certain cases (e.g. people, businesses, etc)? I've read Miraheze Commons:Policies and found this "Sysops can delete a page that meets one of the following criteria: [...] Anything that violates what Miraheze Commons is not: [...] Any article that does not exceed the threshold of notability established by the content guide". Does this imply some sort of notability needs to be reached for you to write an article or upload an image? I understand this obviously probably doesn't apply to images of general items/places/animals/plants but would such apply to people, businesses, and other things? This sort of ties in with number 2 as most people uploading images to self-promote aren't notable, instead, they're small influencers/singers/etc., trying to promote themselves.

Thanks! Agent Isai (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agent Isai AFAIK, we have no notability policies. For self-portraits, we should assume the uploader of said photograph is also the subject of the photograph, unless Google reverse image search says otherwise. Orphaned images are okay, in my opinion, as it's an image repository. Probably better to discuss these. Self-promotional images are fine, as it's an image repository. Again, key consideration here is mainly copyright. For your first question, inform the user, yes, but also try and do some background informational research to see if you can't source the source, essentially. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Agent Isai I just noticed your questions here. I was wondering about question one myself. There are still a lot of images either without a license or description and was thinking of doing the same thing. I noticed in the topics namespace you added a message regarding this, how successful did you find leaving message on user talk pages? Did people act on the message? I had already created this draft notification User:Borderman/License notification and was thinking of doing the same, hoping for some response on the talk page User talk:Borderman/License notification but it looks like user interaction on Commons is very limited to practically non-existent. Is it even worth bothering if people rarely visit? Commons definitely needs organising better but hardly anyone seems to use the service. Borderman (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wordmark[edit source]

Hello. How about this new Wordmark (which displays for Mobile and the new Vector, etc.) that shows Miraheze's default font (Ubuntu) and its logo https://static.miraheze.org/commonswiki/b/b7/Commonststlg.svg

And put:

  • wgWordmarkWidth = 145
  • Wordmark Height ($wgWordmarkHeight) = 35

This new logo has already been tested, and will likely be broader than the current one. YellowFrogger (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file you linked is in black and white and would not be a improvement over the current one, which is in color. Zppix (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify this is Not done per discussion on Discord. Zppix (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General Policies[edit source]

Hispano76 created a draft version of a policy page detailing general policies for Miraheze Commons. This is a place to discuss and vote on it. Feel free to suggest changes. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 13:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes[edit source]

Discussion[edit source]

  • MacFan4000 Per my discussion with Reception123 earlier this year, and even last fall, I cannot support any draft policy that includes specific prohibitions on non-free licensing, since (a) Miraheze Commons is not Wikimedia Commons, but mainly because (b) Loginwiki has file uploads disabled, so Miraheze Commons is the only available venue to upload non-free media images (including the user's own copyrighted works or self-portraits of themselves). I'm looking to prepare an alternate, narrower scope Miraheze Commons in June or July (hopefully) that will address this, so I'd rather close this proposal as deferred until then, if at all possible. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    MacFan4000, Dmehus, Of course I am in favor of being more permissive, if I remember correctly. My original idea in drafting that policy, especially on licenses and copyright was to propose and have it modified to fit the Commons project. The original content is based on more "strict" projects. Hispano76 (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Dmehus: Any update on this? Agent Isai Talk to me! 04:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

StructuredDiscussion as a barrier in some instances[edit source]

I've realized that this extension has some bad impacts on the efficient administration of this wiki, but it's understandable given that there is some positive news that might be preferable. StructuredDiscussion extension shouldn't have an effect on all namespaces, as it breaks a few things, which are including but are not limited to the AjaxQuickDelete.js script which I was going through recently. Having the flow-board content model as the default CM of User talk pages breaks the Ajax delete script which makes it impossible for it to deliver a notification of the deletion to the user's talk page. There are also a few tools that might not work because of this default content model that all talk pages have.

Possible solution is that; What if we say $wgNamespaceContentModels should have all namespaces except User talk, File talk, etc.

What do you think of this? Chimobi (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would support disabling StructuredDiscussions outright, and if unfeasible, removing it as the default content model in all talk namespaces for which it is by default. StructuredDiscussions is non-standard, and provides a sub-optimal experience, which is particularly important considering its impact on compatibility with scripts from Wikimedia Commons. The reply tool is a much more suitable option in terms of providing that easy of use. — Arcversin (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The StructuredDiscussions has a lot of significant benefits, so I would, unfortunately, not support removing it from Miraheze Commons, chiefly because the workflow of Miraheze Commons patrollers and administrators is not significant so as to require many automated messages. Even if it did, that script can be adapted without so much difficulty, I'm sure, to try another approach. Your compromise, Ugochimobi, while admirable, would provide a similar effect. One of the chief benefits of StructuredDiscussions is that it is not necessary to sign one's discussion posts, which is particularly helpful when users are renamed. Secondarily, and more philosophically, I quite like that Miraheze Commons does not simply replicate Meta Wiki in terms of its discussion systems, default settings, and the like. I would be open to considering another discussion system, provided that discussion system (a) had a similarly nice threading system to StructuredDiscussions and (b) did not require the leaving of static signatures. One potential option would be CommentStreams, but I have not explored whether that would work with your script or not. Dmehus (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As per Arcversin, I would strongly support disabling StructuredDiscussions as the default for all talk pages. I would also support the ability to request StructuredDiscussions enabled on certain talk pages as requested by a user. While the extension was certainly meant to revolutionize the talk page in it's time, it is beginning to show it's age in various ways and is not really being even worked on. It has become highly inconvenient to have it break the script and overall many times acts sluggish and cannot support some features such as templates which reflect the name of the page. Agent Isai Talk to me! 03:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, I'd be open to exploring other discussion systems, but would not support moving to a wikitext based discussion system where talk page conventions require users sign their posts. That's one of the important considerations that distinguishes Miraheze Commons from Meta Wiki, and the argument that we even need to use Wikimedia Commons JavaScripts is rather weak. In other words, I would need to see much more compelling arguments to upend a discussion system on Miraheze Commons that has existed for years, particularly when the level of activity on Miraheze Commons is minimal. I'm not even certain we need to be notifying users on their user talk pages anyway. I would much rather use a deletion tagging system whereby non-accepted images are tagged for deletion and not deleted before a reasonable period of time (say, one week, at minimum). Dmehus (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

file transfer[edit source]

sorry, does anyone know how to transfer files that have been deleted on commons here ????

Wikibase instance behind Commons.Miraheze.org[edit source]

Is there a Wikidata.org like Wikibase instance behind Commons.Miraheze.org to help with structured (open linked) data?

I was just attending Wikimania workshop on OpenRefine and it seems that this would be needed to be able to use OpenRefine as tool as it is used there.

--ZBlace (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK - this did not get picked up as topic by anyone here, so I will try Meta. --ZBlace (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UPDATE it was already discussed on Meta! --ZBlace (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ZBlace: There is not. Miraheze Commons is sort of like Wikimedia Commons but Miraheze lacks a WikiData-esque project. Agent Isai Talk to me! 16:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add an inactivity clause for bureaucrats and sysops[edit source]

What happened to the upload file link?[edit source]

Just wondering what happened to the upload file link from the tools menu. I am sure it was there when I started using Commons a while back when implementing the carousel on the main page and starting the category structure. Would be helpful to have that reinstated, unless it was removed for some reason. Borderman (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Borderman take a look at #Restructuring_the_Sidebar Chimobi (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing file details and licenses from multiple uploads[edit source]

I have been away from Commons for a while and I have noticed a lot of uploads. Some of these uploads do not have any details and, more importantly, do not have an appropriate license attached. I think there should be a message put in place somewhere saying that at the very least the Description, Source, Author and License field should be filled in to provide a basic-level of information pertaining to each image that is uploaded.

With other image repositories out there, especially the universally-known Wikimedia Commons, it would aid Miraheze's standing on the wiki stage including as many high quality images as possible across as broad a spectrum of topics as possible. The inclusion of image information via description, author, source, date etc., will help towards making this a quality resource that could one day be a stand-out image repository.

In addition, the license {{No license}} even states:

I recommend that those who have uploaded images using this license be notified to allow them to include the appropriate license, otherwise the image will be deleted.

Thoughts and ideas welcome. Borderman (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Borderman Hi, you are very right, and on track too. There have been several uploads, I mean Commons has never been active because there are several users uploading images but without a basic licensing. I think the best bet is to draft out a licensing policy for Miraheze Commons, present it before the community for consensus and get stewards to approved it as they deem it necessary. Chimobi (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chimobi This may take some time to implement, but is definitely the correct way to go. In the meantime it may be prudent for a message to be left on the users' talk pages, politely asking if they could include the correct license, until such a policy is put into place. Users working on their own wikis should already be aware of licensing images/files that are uploaded, but we should never assume this to be the case. Borderman (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Borderman Yeah, let's do that, let's send them a TP notification regarding every single image they have uploaded that lacks a license. Chimobi (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chimobi Sounds like a good place to start. I am thinking of a simple template so it's easy to include. I can put something together over the weekend. Borderman (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have done some deletions of these files from time to time, but I have had other things to focus on. A policy sounds like a good idea. The current system of deletion after a certain amount of time was pretty much a copy/paste from Wikimedia Commons. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MacFan4000 Sounds good! Chimobi (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restructuring the Sidebar[edit source]

For consensus' sake, I want to present that we restructure the sidebar to a more simple for very useful one;

Current Sidebar content
  • navigation
    • mainpage|mainpage-description
    • recentchanges-url|recentchanges
    • Special:NewFiles|Latest images
    • Special:Random/File|Random image
    • Category:Miraheze Commons|Categories
    • helppage|help
  • Noticeboards
    • Miraheze Commons:Administrators' noticeboard|Administrators' noticeboard
    • Miraheze Commons:Community noticeboard|Community noticeboard
  • SEARCH
  • TOOLBOX
  • LANGUAGES
Proposed sidebar content
  • SEARCH
  • navigation
    • mainpage|mainpage-description
    • Miraheze Commons:Administrators' noticeboard|Administrators' noticeboard
    • Miraheze Commons:Community noticeboard|Community noticeboard
  • contribute
    • upload-url|uploadbtn
    • recentchanges-url|recentchanges
    • latestfiles-url|latestfiles
    • randomimage-url|randomimage
  • TOOLBOX
  • LANGUAGES

This would reinstate the missing upload link and reposition some things appropriately.

Intentional pinging of some active users @MacFan4000, Borderman, and Penarc1: Chimobi (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chimobi The current sidebar isn't complex by any means so I am not sure it needs simplifying as such. I was just curious why the upload file link was missing from the tools menu as I find this quite useful instead of going back to the main page. "Recent changes", "latest files" and "random image" are methods of navigation but they still work under the "Contribute" heading. It's seems to be the way they have it that on Wikimedia Commons.
Also, I find categories quite useful so I would still prefer this included. Because I have been away from here for a while, I didn't want to step on any toes and make changes without asking first. I have noticed though that a lot of the uploads have been uploaded to Category:Commons media, which seems a little lazy to me. This essentially puts a wide variety of images under the same category, which is bad practice. I am thinking of making the upload information on the upload page a bit more obvious so it stands out more. Borderman (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Borderman Category:Commons media in my view should be a parent category, but I don't know if it was discussed some where for it to be like this, which I don't think so... But yeah, it should be like a parent category that would contain even other parent categories, like, a lot of parent categories that are even parent categories themselves.

Since we have just over 2k media files, then I think we could still do the necessary categorisation as we deem it appropriate, it wouldn't be too much, at least for now, because the more it waits, the more media files come in, and the more work we have to do.

"I am thinking of making the upload information on the upload page a bit more obvious so it stands out more."
Let's see what you can do about this. Chimobi (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the upload file button now, but looks like it doesn't show for British English, but does for English. Chimobi (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chimobi Agree with the usage of parent categories. My latest image is in a bottom-level category with about six or so parent categories until those categories reach the top-level category. This is how I usually include my images because images can be browsed with more success that way. The images that currently only have it's own bottom-level category (the category of the specific subject of the image) without any parents will easily flood the top-level category and make things harder to find. A good top-level category looks like that in Wikimedia Commons Root but this project should not aligning itself with Wikimedia as they are fundamentally different.
A lot of the uploads here could really do with multiple layers of categories (categories and subcategories) and user categories should be in a user-specific category and subcategories. This will then separate them from the main topics. With enough structured categories populated with high quality images, Miraheze Commons will be on the way to being half decent. At the moment it has got a long way to go.
Regarding sorting out the 2k+ media files, that will take a great deal of categorising to ensure that each file is categorised in the best way possible, which may involve further community help. But, yes, I agree. The sooner this starts the better. Borderman (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Borderman Exactly, you got every point I made. So let's see how we can really improve Miraheze Commons henceforth, by starting with the notification of users who uploaded image with empty descriptions, but while we await your template, over the weekend, let's see how we can further the cleanliness of commons.
I will also find if it's possible to have a script that can make some things faster. Chimobi (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chimobi Great! I will create the notification template for the talk pages and work on the upload page information. Regarding scripts, that will definitely have to come from you or someone else as my knowledge in such areas is non-existant! Borderman (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hehe, alright! Chimobi (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problems with this proposal. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd go ahead and implement this later since there's nothing wrong with it. Chimobi (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improve upon the license templates[edit source]

I have notice that Commons has a fairly wide selection of Creative Commons license template that are little light in information. I created an updated CC license for my own wiki. I added one on Commons and plan to continue to use it for my own image uploads as my previous license was looking a bit dated.

Just wondering what other people think of the style, which has been created in same vein as the CC summaries using simple wikitext, seen here: Template:CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Borderman (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Borderman This looks pretty cool, apart from a redesign, I wanted to bring in some cc license templates that would be able to display license details from the multimedia viewer. Chimobi (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chimobi Thanks. Can you elaborate on what you mean exactly? Borderman (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Borderman yeah, with these templates, when we use them on file pages, uses would be able to see the license details and author information and descriptions in different languages, for example, if a wiki's language is Spanish and there's a Spanish description on the file pages on Commons here, the Spanish description would display there when viewing the file from the MultiMedia viewer extension. Same applies to all languages... But if there's no suitable language description on commons here, then the default (English) language would be used. From the multimedia viewer one'd also be able to see the correct license terms, not just saying CC-BY SA 4.0, for example. Chimobi (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chimobi Interesting. I think I see what you mean now. Is that something you could implement?
Does the multimedia viewer need to show more detail of the license? Isn’t it designed to show only the basic information because if anyone wants to see more, they can do so visiting the actual image page. If anything, the image page needs a good overhaul as it’s design hasn’t changed for years. Borderman (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Borderman Honestly user need not to visit the file page for them to see the terms of a CC license. For example, with these templates, if someone uses an image on their wiki that was uploaded to commonswiki and want's to see what the description and license is, from the Multimedia viewer the user would be able to do that, without clicking on View More-ish link that would take them here. It make accessibility easier. Chimobi (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chimobi That's a fair and valid point and makes total sense. I like it. Borderman (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Borderman Take a look at File:Logo benpedia.png for example, I just place my draft template I added to the file page, try viewing from the Multimedia viewer you'd find the view terms button close to the view license link, one can easily see the cc terms there. Chimobi (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chimobi That's pretty neat! How did you actually implement this? Is this something that can be used site-wide? I am guessing for this to work, the license has to be contained within the Information template and not under a separate "Licensing" heading. Borderman (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Borderman Yeah, the module Module:User:Ugochimobi/Information adds some microdata information on the file pages that both Multimedia Viewer and search engines (google) understands and can follow. This would also probably help add 0.1% seo improvement for us :)
Although it's pretty much a wmf idea, but would make sense if we could implement it here.
I tried doing these things in the past, but over 100 templates I implemented were deleted by an admin which I am not interested in mentioning now. I got tired, lol. Chimobi (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chimobi Ok, that makes sense, not that I actually understand the module or any of its code! This would definitely add an improvement to the multimedia viewer and I don't have any issues with it. Maybe, before any roll-out is confirmed, it should be discussed by the community to see if there are any objections. I can't see why there would be but you never know.
I, too, have had things deleted in the past but I don't know if it was because of my previous inactivity or something else. Borderman (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright.
You could find the reason in the deletion summary, unless the admin didn't specify at all.
Mine was copyright-violations as the reason... I couldn't comprehend and I still can't but, well... I hope I don't become a victim of it for the second time. Chimobi (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, for the descriptions you can see that with the help of language templates (Template:En, Fr, It, De, Ja, etc) I was able to add the descriptions in different languages. Now, if you're an english user (not the language of the wiki, I was mistaken when I first said the language of the wiki, that's not correct but rather, the language of the user) then you'd see the english description from Multimedia viewer, also, the english description would also be used by search engines for the english searchers. This would happen for all languages too. Chimobi (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improvement of Creative Commons licenses[edit source]

Whilst it is good to know that Commons has a few Creative Commons license templates, I feel these should be improved upon to provide at least the same basic information that is shown on the actual Creative Commons license summary pages.

I created a the CC BY-SA 4.0 template a while back as I prefer to use this specific license for my uploads, although I am currently using CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 for my better images. However, the reason for this post is to see if we could expand on the current license templates to update them and give them a fresher look similar to that of the Creative Commons license summaries.

I am reaching out to the creators of these licenses @Hispano76 and @Paladox to see if there are any objections. This should be done sooner rather than later if we roll out the implementation of the possible License notification for images that do not meet the criteria we are aiming for. Borderman (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm no longer the maintainer for "commons.miraheze.org" nor an administrator on here. I'm fine with what ever the community wishes. Paladox (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Borderman On the contrary, I will be very grateful if you help us in some areas that need to be worked on, such as the licensing templates. Go ahead with it Hispano76 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hispano76 Ok, I will look into updating the license templates. I was wondering, do we really need all the older versions of the licenses? Maybe we should consider just using the 4.0 versions for all new uploads as this supersedes all older versions. This will keep the list simpler. Borderman (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of StructuredDiscussions Extension[edit source]

Hi everyone,

I've been thinking on this heavily for a while, and I wanted to bring up the possibility of the StructuredDiscussions extension being removed from Miraheze Commons. Every other project wiki affiliated with Miraheze, meta wiki and dev wiki (and templatewiki before it was merged) employed the use of a regular talk page, as opposed to StructuredDiscussions. I'm not sure how the extension even came to be used on commonswiki, but it's kind of annoying, to be honest, and sort of defeats the purpose of by not being able to control your own talk page.

Per all of the above, I'd like to propose the removal of StructuredDiscussions from Miraheze Commons, and return back to normal talk pages. Thanks - BrandonWM (talkcontribs), 07:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good morning, on this subject. I don't remember at what time the change was made but I don't know if MacFan4000 could clarify that. For my part, I have no opposition to withdrawing this extension, which in fact has not been fully maintained and improved. But I'm not sure if anything will be broken with the talk pages if it were disabled.... Hispano76 (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: This issue was previously raised, see above thread. Chimobi (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, would any of you be opposed to starting a Requests for Comment in order to remove the extension? Thanks - BrandonWM (talkcontribs), 00:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would not support that. I do not see a need for a removal for the StructuredDiscussions extension. Users should be able to use it, if they wish. If you want to propose to change the default discussion mechanism in a given namespace, that would be a more useful discussion. Or, better yet, if you want to opt certain talk pages or user talk pages out of StructuredDiscussions, that would be fine as well. Dmehus (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the absolute least, I would request that users have the ability to opt out of having the StructuredDiscussions extension on their talk page. To go further, 4 separate users (outside of myself) have supported removing the extension entirely. It doesn't work properly and does not permit the user to archive or delete discussions from their talk page, which should be a basic thing, really. Frankly, SD offers no additional benefit as opposed to regular talk pages. Thanks - BrandonWM (talkcontribs), 08:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the ManageWiki logs I don’t see the entry for the initial enabling the ext. (looks like it got a little messed up). If I did enable it 5 years ago, I don’t recall why. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 14:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, any chance a bureaucrat could just disable the extension? Thanks - BrandonWM (talkcontribs), 18:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They could, yes, but I also don't see a compelling reason for outright disabling it. Miraheze Commons is an entirely independent wiki, and just because it's not enabled on those wikis doesn't mean it can't be enabled here. As I said, though, if you want to be able to opt out of StructuredDiscussions, I'd have no objections to that and would support that. The chief advantages to Structured Discussions are two-fold: (a) threaded conversations (i.e., as on Discord) and (b) no requirement to sign (~~~~) one's posts, which is especially helpful for users that are globally renamed. For those reasons, I'd definitely prefer to leave it enabled, but would have no objection to users being able to opt out of it if they wish. Dmehus (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The chief advantages you've stated:
a) Can be solved via talk page topics, which is mostly used anyway.
b) Usernames can be tracked through renames (or redirects), or tools can mass-edit the text to change it to the new rename.
StructuredDiscussions also isn't kept up to date, like I've stated before. And in addition, prevents users from being able to edit their own talk page. Which is a clear issue. I'm also not entirely sure how opt-outs would work, but based off my limited knowledge of MediaWiki, it would be a tedious process. Which is why the extension should be disabled entirely. Thanks - BrandonWM (talkcontribs), 01:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's still maintained. How might StructuredDiscussions prevent users from editing their own user talk page, though, and, if the ability to opt out of StructuredDiscussions, that would be moot. It's not a tedious process, either. There's just a special page you enter your user talk page, and your StructureDiscussions page is converted to a wikitext user talk page. Dmehus (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, but then it gets into the issue of what types of pages users can change to talk pages, and if it's possible to moderate that. In addition, I don't really see any users outside of yourself that want to keep StructuredDiscussions. Frankly, the extension is messy. Thanks - BrandonWM (talkcontribs), 16:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requests for Comment: StructuredDiscussions Extension[edit source]

Avis Draws' Artworks and the Content Policy[edit source]

Before transferring Avis Draws' artworks here, I faced the project scope controversy on Wikimedia Commons because some users wanted them deleted during the deletion request. Those under CC-BY-3.0 on DeviantArt are okay, which is a good thing; they need to comply with the Content Policy. Can anyone please review them? - The Harvett Vault | he/him | user | talk - 12:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC); edited: 12:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Harvett Vault about this issue, I recommend contacting the stewards or Trust and Safety via email at: stewards(at)miraheze.org or ts(at)miraheze.org Hispano76 (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I'll do it then. - The Harvett Vault | he/him | user | talk - 00:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MiraHeze and Wikimedia Commons comparison[edit source]

Any document of MiraHeze and Wikimedia Commons comparison available? I would be curious to know of differences. ZBlace (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AI generated images[edit source]

Hi everyone, SK here. Regarding the file posted right, I was wondering if we have an official policy on AI-generated images and whether they may be included here under CC (or PD) licenses. As I understand current law, raw AI images cannot be copyrighted and are therefore considered public domain by default. Please let me know if pictures such as this are permitted on Commons. SimonJKirby (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality images[edit source]

You could create a category of the wiki's quality images to improve the project.

Quality images logo from wikimedia commons

Magnanon (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]