Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2015/10

A note of correction

Ref: The page for Hans Sebald Beham.

I have seen the print "Head of Christ crowned with thorns (LACMA) as an item belonging to Sebald. But the print bears the visible sign of A.Dürer. So it should be moved from Sebald page to Dürer page.

Regards.

H.Erdemol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.125.184 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 5 October 2015‎ (UTC)

 Done here, moved to File talk:The Head of Christ Crowned with Thorns LACMA M.2003.53.1.jpg, follow up there. --Achim (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Help to improve Commons:Media by Time? (part of our chronological archives) + link from Main Page?

Is it possible for You to help me improving the new page Commons:Media by Time? My English is not the best, but for the future it shall be a usefull page for our visitors to explain what our categories are (boxes for photos and media and other sub-Cat's), and to find links to our chronological archives. And examples of historical media or related to Time (a REDIRECT to built up to a real Commons-page). An interlanguage-template should be added (with a little text maybe in more languages than English and German. Is it possible for one of You to include a link in the Main Page? My proposal: Talk:Main Page#Make a link to Commons:Media by Time?( ▶ By time ): Looks like ▶ By time, or ▶ Media by time (if the last link to Images from October 22" seems superfluous to you: always very old photos ... and nearly empty. Okay a little bit more traffic on Main page, the link changes every day). Discussion for improvement: Commons talk:Media by Time --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Quarantine for pictures

Section to upload images not yet carried out its approval or is unclear

Characteristics:

• Images can be uploaded with "Commons Upload Wizard " (category "Quarantine")
• Images can not be integration (Wikipedia etc.)
• Images can not be downloaded
• Images are displayed with a reduced resolution
• Pictures are the original link callable under which they are called up in the event of approval
• Images can be displayed only with a password

Examples:

• Logos of companies
• pictures of interiors or stations

Advantage: When communicating for approval can be used with the original image and the original link

Proposal in German: Quarantäne Bereich für Bilder

Bereich zum Hochladen von Bildern deren Genehmigung noch nicht erfolgte beziehungsweise unklar ist

Eigenschaften:

• Bilder könnten mit dem „Assistent zum Hochladen von Dateien“ hochgeladen und markiert werden (oder Kategorie „Quarantäne“)
• Bilder lassen sich nicht Einbinden (Wikipedia usw.)
• Bilder lassen sich nicht herunterladen
• Bilder werden nur mit einer verminderten Auflösung angezeigt
• Bilder sind über den Originallink aufrufbar unter dem sie im Falle einer Genehmigung aufrufbar sind
• Bilder lassen sich nur mit einem Passwort anzeigen

Beispiele

• Logos von Firmen
• Bilder von Innenräumen oder Bahnhöfen

Vorteil: Bei der Kommunikation zur Genehmigung kann mit dem Originalbild und Originallink gearbeitet werden

What do you think about diem proposal? Many greetings --Molgreen (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Template to place additional licensing information for Wikimedia screenshots

Regarding my previous proposal to edit {{Wikimedia-screenshot}}, I've created This template to place additional licensing in the {{Information}} template. What do you think? --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the discussed in the IRC, I finally moved the template to the main Template: namespace. I'll start to use that, expecting that will be useful for everyone. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Changes to {{Wikimedia-screenshot}}

According to this thread in the VPC, the problem exposed by Diego Grez-Cañete is true: most of the users don't add the proper licensing to the Wikipedia screenshots (including me), adding the licensing for every picture depicted there.

For that reason, I propose a few changes to {{Wikimedia-screenshot}}, then, I cloned to {{Wikimedia-screenshot/sandbox}} to test the new parameters and seems ready to be merged in the main Template (but the only translation available is English, so, we should edit the Translation pages to add the new parameters before mergin these changes.

If you agree/disagree with these changes, please comment bellow. If you want to discus the origin of this issue, please comment in the VPC thread linked above. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: It should be made clear (in the template documentation, perhaps) that screenshots that include 'locally-hosted' fair-use images can't be uploaded to Commons like this. (Yes, I know you are using 'commons-specific' parameters, but still, it should be made explicitly clear.) Revent (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm editing the documentation and trying to internationalize, and as you mentioned, add a statement to avoid include fair-use images depicted in screenshots... but, again, we should decide if these pictures may be considered de minimis or not if the main subject are the browsers and tools (please discus that in the other thread in the VPC). --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I did not mean to imply that such images might not be 'de minimis' (in most cases, they probably would be), just that you should make it clear that people should not mark included 'fair use' images with the parameters intended for CC-licensed ones. That's what I mean by 'like this'.... not that they couldn't potentially be uploaded, but not using the particular licensing method you're working on. Revent (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem here that is several users, including admins, and specially Diego Grez-Cañete disagree that these pictures in screenshots are de minimis, but please discus that in the other thread... I need some help from a template-expert, I have some troubles with {{#if}} blocks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Pictures in screenshots are not necessarily de minimis. For example, the Swedish supreme court found that the inclusion of [1] and [2] in [3] wasn't de minimis. However, what constitutes de minimis is different in different countries.

The template {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} only handles one thing: the template refers to the licences under which the text is licensed. Other things, such as attribution and licensing information about pictures appearing on the screenshot, are not handled by the template but need to be separately included on the file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Host WikiWidgets at Commons

Hello, I've been working on a project called WikiWidgets for some time now. The project is about embedding interactive JavaScript widgets into Wikipedia articles, to aid the understanding of certain topics. So far the project has been deployed in the Spanish Wikipedia (my home project) and the two existing wikiwidgets can be seen live here and here. The project has reached certain maturity already, so now I'm thinking about spreading it to other wikipedias. The two existing wikiwidgets have their own git repositories at git.wikimedia.org (here and here) and the latest code is regularly copied to pages under the MediaWiki namespace in the Spanish Wikipedia. The code is then loaded by a small script at MediaWiki:Common.js that fires when a template (called Template:WikiWidget) is found on an article. The two wikiwidgets are fully internationalised and localised to Spanish and English (more languages soon to come, translators needed). What I would like to request this community is that the code of the wikiwidgets is copied to the MediaWiki namespace of Commons, so that every Wikipedia that embraces the project is able to use the same code. To be perfectly precise, what I request is that the following pages are created:

• MediaWiki:WikiWidget-Formicarium.js with the code here
• MediaWiki:WikiWidget-Formicarium.css with the code here
• MediaWiki:WikiWidget-Vivarium.js with the code here
• MediaWiki:WikiWidget-Vivarium.css with the code here

Once done, I will adjust the script at MediaWiki:Common.js in the Spanish Wikipedia so that it loads the code from Commons (like the HotCat gadget here) and then move on to spread the project to other wikipedias. Thanks for reading! --Felipe (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Raymond, Steinsplitter, Leyo, Ebrahim, Krinkle, Rillke and Matma Rex! As the latest editors of MediaWiki:Common.js, I think you will fully understand this project and request. What do you think? --Felipe (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

My common.js edit was only maitenance, I'm not very active here at Commons. Matma Rex (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lupo, as the main contributor to MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat, what do you think about this? --Felipe (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

What has HotCat have to do with this? I'm not exactly active anymore here and I didn't follow recent developments in the scripting area. Lupo 06:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing directly, it's just that I want WikiWidgets to be hosted at Commons like it's currently done with HotCat. --Felipe (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that commons is the best place for this. Why not meta? Or just eswikipedia, as that's where you're active I assume. Bawolff (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bawolff. It's really tempting for me to give up here at Commons and continue developing the project from the Spanish Wikipedia, where I can get things done much faster. However, I think that this project has a lot of long-term potential, so it's worth being patient. If we don't centralise from the beginning, the project will fall into the same chaos as gadgets, with code and efforts split around hundreds of wikis and no coherent international wikiproject uniting the efforts of so many developers, despite the fact that they all speak the same language (because all JavaScript developers speak English). What a waste! Instead, I envision a single wikiproject here at Commons, where developers from all wikipedias can collaborate in the development of the same wikiwidgets. If Meta were a more adequate place to host this project I would be glad to move the proposal there, but I think Commons is more appropriate, because I see wikiwidgets as a new kind of media, just like images or videos. In fact, if my proposal is implemented here, it would be easy to propose one of the wikiwidgets as the media of the day, and there should be no technical difficulty in adding it to the main page. --Felipe (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Felipe Schenone: Please elaborate what this tool is doing exactly and why do you think this is needed for commons? --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: With pleasure! Wikiwidgets are not exactly a tool, nor are they needed for commons. It's a new kind of project for Wikipedia. The idea is to be able to insert interactive JavaScript widgets into Wikipedia articles, to help explain the topics covered in the articles. The project is already deployed in the Spanish Wikipedia, you can see the two existing wikiwidgets so far here and here. Please check at least one before continuing. Technically speaking, the project works like this: a small script was added to es:MediaWiki:Common.js. This script runs for every article and checks for the existence of a specific div that can be inserted into any article using the es:Template:WikiWidget. When the div is found, the script reads the data-wikiwidget property of the div, which contains the name of the wikiwidget that should be inserted into the article. If the wikwidget is called X, then the script will load the code found at MediaWiki-WikiWidget-X.js and MediaWiki-WikiWidget-X.css. This code will replace all the contents of the div with the wikiwidget itself. What I request is that the code of the two existing wikiwidgets is added to the MediaWiki namespace here at Commons (see my first post) so that it's easier to spread to other wikipedias, and more importantly so that we may start building a central hub for the project here at Commons, to avoid splitting efforts like it happened with gadgets. I hope this makes sense, but let me know if anything is not clear. Thanks! --Felipe (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Quite interesting, and it makes sense to host these script centrally. So Commons looks like the right place to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a cool idea, although I'm a bit worried about the security implications. This would make it very easy for a rouge admin to insert exploits into articles without being noticed. Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

What is a rouge admin? I like French for what it's worth. -- Rillke^(q?) 00:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

See w:WP:ROUGE. --Carnildo (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. An English Wikipedia fabrication. @Kaldari: Absolutely clear to me that that your first thought about Commons.

Personally, I don't have these concerns as Meta is loading some of our code and that's the home of stewards so if Mr. or Mrs. Evil would like to do their name justice, they would probably find better targets. What I am concerned about is the real narrow scope of these scripts, right? If there is not one opposing, I am going to security review them and eventually copy them over to our MediaWiki namespace. -- Rillke^(q?) 01:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Felipe Schenone: Here we go. Note this comment, though. Also, please have a user page here and, as a maintainer you should not forget to watch the created pages. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rillke! I created my userpage and added the created pages to my watchlist. I also updated the code to fix the problem you noted and I've localised the scripts to a few more languages. You may want to update the code at the created pages with the latest at the repo. Next step will be to consult the WikiProject Council to create the wikiproject. After that, I'll request an edit to MediaWiki:Common.js so that the wikiwidgets can be used here at Commons, and later I'll propose one of the wikiwidgets as the media of the day. See you around! --Felipe (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It should be a gadget. Loading more .js via common.js is not a good idea. And it should be on a opt-in basis. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: No JavaScript is loaded by default. Only a preview image is loaded and only in the few articles with the WikiWidget template. The JavaScript of the widgets is only loaded when the user clicks on the Play button (or more precisely, on the preview image). For simplification purposes my technical description wasn't accurate on this particular point, but I take this opportunity to clarify it, as it's an important point. --Felipe (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Most likely you'll have to load them with withJS= and withCSS= URL parameter as neither I, nor someone else will add more query selectors to MediaWiki:Common.js. Your widget should understand that if they're loaded withJS, they should probably immediately start. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rillke: I wasn't aware of the withJS and withCSS functionality, thanks, it's a useful tool. However, it cannot be used to display the wikiwidgets as the media of the day in the main page. In order to do so, the es:Template:WikiWidget would need to be created here (that's easy, I can do it) and the following code would need to be added to MediaWiki:Common.js:

$( '.WikiWidget' ).each( function () {
	var wikiwidget = $( this ).data( 'wikiwidget' );
	var preview = $( '<img>' ).attr({
		'class': 'WikiWidgetPreview',
		'title': 'Click to load the WikiWidget',
		'src': $( this ).data( 'wikiwidget-preview' ),
		'style': 'cursor: pointer'
	}).click( function () {
		importScript( 'MediaWiki:WikiWidget-' + wikiwidget + '.js' );
		importStylesheet( 'MediaWiki:WikiWidget-' + wikiwidget + '.css' );
	});
	$( this ).html( preview );
});

Is this the code that neither you nor anyone else will be willing to add? If so, then would it be too much to ask that if the Commons:WikiProject WikiWidgets gets approved, and a wikiwidget gets selected as the media of the day, the code is added temporarily to MediaWiki:Common.js so that the new project can get some exposure via the main page? After that day, when the media is archived, the code at MediaWiki:Common.js can be commented out. The wikiwidget will cease working in the archived page, but we can always replace it for a link to a URL with the withJS and withCSS parameters, so that users browsing the archive can still check it out. --Felipe (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

For the main page, we have MediaWiki:MainPages.js - It'd be okay to have the suggested code there (for a time). -- Rillke^(q?) 13:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Great. I'll move on to request the WikiProject. I think this conversation can be archived now. Thanks! --Felipe (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject WikiWidgets created, I'll be improving it in the following days. Archive this discussion please. --Felipe (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Felipe Schenone: @Rillke: Oppose. It schould be a simply gadget. I wasn't able to get this working. Please only put working stuff on the mainpage. And there is no i18n as far i can see. This works only for videos or for files. Will there by a play button on a file? If yes, Why is such a button needed. The file schould be displayed directly whiteout klicking on a button. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't put anything on the main page. What did you exactly try? This isn't obvious from your contribs. About the gadget: It makes sense. OTOH, this means adding 2 more modules to the gadget registration. And they should certainly not load by default (except perhaps on the main page when the widget is displayed there). Thanks :-] -- Rillke^(q?) 18:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: I created the subpage Commons:WikiProject WikiWidgets/demo with instructions on how you or anyone can see a demonstration of the WikiWidgets here in Commons. I had no trouble getting it to work with the code I posted above, so I'm not sure what went wrong in your case. Can you try again? I don't understand what you mean when you say that this works only for videos or files. WikiWidgets have nothing to do with videos, can you explain? As to your comment suggesting that the script above should be made a gadget, I strongly disagree (unless the gadget is enabled by default) because then they would only be visible for those users that have the gadget enabled and visit the extremely few and rare pages (so far) that have them. In other words, nobody. Regarding your suggestion that the WikiWidgets should autoload, this has been discarded in a previous discussion, because loading a wikiwidget involves several calls to the server, which can be a pain in slow computers or slow connections. I agree however with Rillke's suggestion that the WikiWidgets should autoplay when loaded, and in fact I have already modified the code in my localhost so that they do so. I'll share the latest version with other improvements soon. Finally, regarding i18n, the two existing WikiWidgets are fully internationalised and localised to several languages. If you mean that the script above isn't internationalised, then yes, sorry, but I don't know how to do it in this case, and it's just a single line, which in fact could be erased without much loss (btw, I just translated it to English, I had left it in Spanish by mistake). --Felipe (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thinking again, moving the script above to a gadget may be a good idea. If it's moved to a gadget, the code can be hosted here at Commons (like the code of HotCat) so any changes made would propagate immediately to any Wikipedias that adopt it. Also, it would make it possible to internationalise the messages. Regarding the issue that only users with the gadget enabled would be able to see the WikiWidgets, it's just a matter of exposing the issue to each Wikipedia that adopts it, and let each one decide if it's a good idea to enable it by default or not. And for those who don't, at least users will have a chance to enable it themselves. Also, making a gadget for the project would give it a little more visibility, as it would appear in the list of gadgets, which some users check every now and then. So ok, I'll develop a gadget for it. --Felipe (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Each gadget is a module. And each module at Commons can be loaded on demand using the withModule= URL-parameter. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rillke: I've been trying to test the "withModule" parameter without success. I tried things like "?withModule=edittop", "?withModule=gadget.edittop" and "?withModule=gadget-edittop" but I don't seem to hit on the right name for the module of any gadget, nor could I find any documentation on what are the names of the available gadget modules. Could you give me one, or link me to a list? Thanks! --Felipe (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rillke and Steinsplitter: I have developed the code for a WikiWidgets gadget, it can be found at my subpage User:Felipe Schenone/WikiWidgets.js. There's one thing that troubles me though. WikiWidgets are not gadgets, they are meant to be a new kind of media. Therefore, it seems strange to make them depend on a gadget. Wouldn't it be better to put the code in MediaWiki:WikiWidgets.js and just call it with importScript or mw.loader.load from MediaWiki:Mainpage.js or MediaWiki:Common.js, depending on the wiki? Is there any decisive advantage to either approach? --Felipe (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)