Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2016/12

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

Improvements for {{Pixabay}} tag

I created an enhanced version of the template, that integrates the License review feature and accept few more parameters, just like the {{Indian navy}} tag. This can be discussed at the Talk page before moving to the main space. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Box in galleries indicating main category

Is this ready to be a proposal?

Convenience links:

If not, please disregard and carry on.

Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Migration of Pixabay files to the new template

As discussed here and Template talk:Pixabay, I'll start the migration of the files tagged with {{Pixabay}}. The procedure will be the following:

  1. Move the contents of the Sandbox to the main template.
  2. Categorise the Pixabay files to a temp category (using VisualVileChange), in order to be listed at PassLicense.
  3. Use PassLicense to manually replace the tags to the newer ones (it will be faster than VisualFileChange). It will remove the temp category.
  4. Review the unreviewed files if necessary.

Be free to revert any change if there are errors.

--Amitie 10g (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: Thanks for the great effort. Do you need help? --Discasto talk 18:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Not for now, but I I'll take a very long time since the task is done almost manually (PassLicense will ease the task but is still a manual one). --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
OK. Let me know if you need any kind of help. --Discasto talk 22:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

First large commit successful. some examples. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Can this not be done by VFC? at least for those where the license has already been reviewed? Storkk (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Nope, this is why I preferred to use PassLicense instead, due every file has different IDs, and them cannot be filled with VFC, even with regex. For the files already reviewed, I'm just copying the reviewer and date parameters to the new template. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Something like /\{\{Pixabay\s*\|(?:\s*1\s*=\s*)?(\d+)\}\}\s*\n*\{\{LicenseReview.*\|\s*user\s*=\s?([^\|]+)\|\s*date\s*=(\d{4})-(\d{2})-(\d{2})\}\}/i replaced with {{Pixabay|1=$1|2=|status=Confirmed|reviewer=$2|date={{date|$3|$4|$5}} }} would seem to match what you are doing, and would appear to make a big dent in the number of files. But your call. Storkk (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC) (added possible whitespace before newline Storkk (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC))
Thanks. I had some problems with REGEX. I'll test it. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Most of the files migrated! Only 105 files (that haven't been replaced) are still remaing, and I'll review them manually. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Just as reamark: With PassLicense you speak of your GitHub hosted tool? Or is there another instance, too? (I’m not a license reviewer, so I couldn’t use anyway). — Speravir – 00:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I run PassLicense in my own computer. As I mentioned, it is just a find-replace tool like AutoWikiBrowser, where the tags are prefilled, but the review taks is done manually. This is why it does not need Bot permissions (at least for a low ammount of files at ones) (and this is why the Administrators declined to assign Bot permissions to User:DaBOT. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done. Every file listed at Category:Images from Pixabay and category:Videos from Pixabay has been migrated, and the unreviewed ones has been reviewed by Me. Special thanks to Storkk to provide tyhe REGEX pattern for VFC, it saved a lot of time. Now, the right way to pass the review is just replacing the {{Pixabay}} with {{subst:PBLR|<id>|vid}} --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Convert Undeletion Requests to one page per request

I think we should convert the Undeletion Requests to a one page per request format for several reasons:

  • Ability to link to a particular request. Currently you would have to guess in which archive the request will end up in to link to it. Of course that link is invalid at the moment you add it and will only (hopefully) become correct later one.
  • Similar to this, I think Undeletion Requests should be documented on a file's talk page so that the undeletion rationale can easily be identified in case of successive DRs.
  • Most importantly, when closing an UnDR, I often give hints to the requester on how to proceed (for example by using the OTRS process) using {{Ping}}. They will receive a notification, but this notification will be invalid after 8 hours when the UnDR gets archived. That is why I often do not close clear "not done" UnDRs immediately to give the pinged persons a chance to see a comment I leave for them. That increases the workload for everyone, because UnDRs that should be marked as "done" will stay on the page for longer than necessary.

Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  •  Support It looks a good idea to me. Yann (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support It's the only way to provide a fine-grained tracking of undeletion requests. --Discasto talk 22:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm leaning neutral at the moment, since I think most of the above is either addressable with or mitigated by Permalinks/Special:Diff (and in the case of pings, the button to "View changes"); but while I do think it's probably a small net positive, I think we should explicitly ping @Jameslwoodward: , who is the most active admin on COM:REFUND, in case he doesn't have VPP on his watchlist. Storkk (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Please remember that most of the people who need pings are new users. I don't think we can rely on View changes. Thanks for pinging Jim! --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm inclined to agree, but if I am closing an UnDR request from an OTRS member, I tend to assume they know how to view the ping... if I am closing an UnDR from a new user or someone who I don't recognize, I will generally try to bring the file to full compliance myself, and I don't think relying on them to spot a ping in the first place is a great idea. Storkk (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the ping, Storkk. I think it would be a good thing for all the reasons mentioned above. But, and this is a big "but", before I take a stand one way or the other, I think we need to discuss actual implementation. Opening a separate page for DRs is made easy by the "Nominate for Deletion" button in the left column and VFC for mass DRs. Going the other way, those don't work, because the file doesn't exist in public space. I assume that in order to start an UnDR under the proposed system, a user would have to create a new page in Commons space (i.e. "Commons:Undeletion requests/some filename") and then transclude the new page at the bottom of the current UnDR page. That's easy enough for us, but a significant fraction of UnDRs are requested by newbies. (The word "unsigned" appears 24 times on the 116 UnDRs in the current archive and that's not all the newbies.) How many of them are going to have trouble with the process?
I think this could work only if we start by getting a tool to do the work -- so that users can go to Commons:Undeletion requests, click on a button there, and have a form pop up that will allow them to fill in one or more file names and a reason and then have the page and transclusion created with the signature added automatically, much as "Nominate for Deletion" works. Then a tool like DelReqHandler could handle closing them, including removing the {{Delete}} or {{Speedy}} tags and adding a link to the file talk page(s) if the closing is an undelete. If we could have that, I would strongly support it. If not, I think we'd have a lot of frustrated newbies. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree totally. Requesting an undeletion should basically work the same way it does now with the transclusion either happening automatically or by a periodically running bot. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It occurs to me that there is something we can easily change that will make it easier to cite an UnDR. If we always archived into the month in which the UnDR was opened, rather than the one in which it iwas closed, then for any given UnDR you would know that it was either still active or in a specific month. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Another item I would add to my wish list for the tool is that it show the user a list of his deleted files. We often see incorrect file names in UnDRs because the user cannot see his deleted files. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support but with support for newbies (as elaborated by Jameslwoodward). I think this could be simplified by adding a link to a tool for undeletions in the notifications about possible deletions that are posted on the users' talk page. This would be easy to find and would avoid the difficulty of remembering the correct file names. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Implementation

@Yann, Discasto, Storkk, Jameslwoodward, and Tuvalkin: @AFBorchert: Since this idea seems to have general approval, let's think about implementation, which I think consists of three parts:

  1. Replace the current Undeletion Box on Commons:Undeletion requests with a form to create a new subpage, like on Commons:Requests for checkuser. The template should include a category like Category:Undeletion requests to be listed.
  2. A bot should regularly check that category and add any pages listed there to the proposal page using transclusion and remove the subpage from the category.
  3. The archival bot must be changed to archive transclusions instead of sections.
  4. The JavaScript for submission must be adapted.
  5. The UnDR gadget must be adapted.

Does this plan sound reasonable? Did I forget something? @Steinsplitter: Since your bot is currently on archival duty: Could/would you change the way archiving works? Also, would you add the listing duty (point 2), or should I look for another bot? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Would require a re-write, i don't plan to do that. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Bonus: I now created {{Undeleted}} for inclusion on restored talk pages. After this is implemented, we should change the UnDR gadget to automatically add this. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at File talk:Windsor Palace (Thailand).jpg, which now gives a nice history of deletion/undeletion if properly maintained. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Just so no one is confused by the slightly different appearance: I have removed the deprecated langbars (i18n now happens automatically) and made all three templates use the unified tmbox.    FDMS  4    11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

And another note: Jim had a lot of good suggestions for further improvements above. While this implementation so far does not address most of them, I think it is overall an improvement to the current situation and a basis to build on later. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2016/12&oldid=232767949"