Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/01

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

Flickr batch uploading requests page

The Flickr batch requests are mostly ancient, and since Flickr2Commons was launched requests for batches smaller than 380 (three-hundred-and-eighty) images can be handled by the requesters themselves. In fact when I asked someone who made a request two ✌🏻 (2) years ago recently if they were willing to let me upload and organise some of their batches for them they said that they used Flickr2Commons to upload all their images themselves.

I suggest that we archive all old requests and make the page exclusively for batches larger than 380 images (as that’s the rate limit for non-administrators to upload files to Wikimedia Commons within a certain amount of time), the current page could be moved to Commons:Flickr batch uploading/Historic and have this message displayed on the top of the page:

{{historical}}

And be added to Category:Inactive Commons pages. A Flickr batch uploading page could still be useful, but it should only be used for larger batches that require administrator attention ⚠.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 11:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

No, thanks. Those requests might be from people no longer active on Commons, and contain useful images, which we won't otherwise get. In any case, can anyone - specifically, new or IP users - use Flickr2Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
New users can use it unless there's a limit on Flickr2Commons side, and IP cannot use Flickr2Commons because OAuth authentication is not supported for IP users. — regards, Revi 15:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Forking tool

I'd like to make a technical suggestion/request for a new tool for use on Commons and Wikipedia. It's often the case that an editor makes an alteration to an image and uploads it over the original, then another editor reverts this for whatever reason. If both the edited image was useful and the reverting was appropriate it's usually a good idea to upload the edited version as a separate file. The problems with this are; (1) the person who edited the image may not be aware of having been reverted, (2) the person doing the reverting can't be bothered, (3) the edited image needs to be downloaded before being re-uploaded, (4) the file description needs to be copy/pasted from the old file to the new file, and (5) a link to each file needs to be added to the other_versions field of the other file description. All of this takes a lot of time and effort, and the person uploading the new file may not realize that there are problems with the licensing or whatever, or neglect to complete steps (4) and (5). What I'd like to propose is a new tool alongside revert (in the left-hand column of the File history) that can be used to automatically fork content to a new file, making all the necessary checks and updates, and reporting any errors. nagualdesign 23:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I see. Well in that case I'd like to propose allowing any signed-in user to perform 'splitting', assuming it works in a similar way as described above. Thanks, Jeff. nagualdesign 23:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: It's not that simple. Coming up with two or more consistent, cohesive file description pages with correct attribution from the visible edit histories can be nigh impossible at times. Some of the tools used to do it (like deletion, viewing deleted, restoration, hiding, and unhiding) are Admin-only by design. Just make a request at COM:SPLIT or categorize clearly defined files into Category:Media requiring a split up and your request will get filled soon enough.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
That's really helpful. Thanks, Jeff. It does seem like making work for other people though, when I'm more than capable of doing it the hard way myself. If I make any requests, is it fairly quick and easy for an admin to complete it? nagualdesign 21:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: You're welcome. However, your "{{U|Jeff G.|Jeff}}" did not notify me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That's annoying. nagualdesign 19:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Although a split per se requires admin tools, I think some edit-warring could be avoided if it were easier to start a forked version of a file. I’m vaguely envisioning a script, launched from a link just below the existing “Upload a new version“ link, that would work like a new upload except that it would copy the licence & categories, and put appropriate {{Derivative}} & {{Infosplit}} templates in the Source & Author fields that reference the original file, reducing the amount of ‘paperwork’ required.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if it covers everything you are looking for, but I used to use derivativeFX a lot for creating derivative retouches etc. At some point I stopped using it, because it stopped working (maybe in the great toolserver migration saga). I just tried it with a test upload, and it worked fine, so it must have been fixed. It's not quite the workflow you describe, because it assumes you have downloaded and edited the file you want to create a new version of already, so it doesn't do any downloading. The obvious thing it doesn't seem to do is put the new file in the "other versions" of the old file (unless I'm missing a trick), but it might be worth a look nevertheless. -- Begoon 02:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That’s really good news, @Begoon: I used it a bit some years ago but had given it up for dead. Maybe it could provide part of the ‘back end’ in a forking gadget. I wouldn’t expect the history to get copied, as long as there’s a solid attribution link to the older file. But the latter should be tagged so that in case it gets deleted, the admin is alerted to do a history merge.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I'm glad to hear that's working again. I'll have to give it a whirl sometime. It's been so long since I used it last that I can't remember how it works! (I'm sure I'll fathom it.) nagualdesign 19:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to uninstall Flow

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T186463



The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The proposal passes, with 19 support votes (including the proposer), 10 oppose votes, and 1 abstention.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Flow is a WikimediaFoundation project intended to replace wikitext talk pages with more conventional forum-style discussion page. It is intended to be more inviting to people unfamiliar with wikitext, and intended to benefit experienced users as well. You can view and test Flow at Commons_talk:Flow/tests.

Many of Flow's intended benefits are quickly apparent. Flow has familiar forum style and features. There is a clear "reply" button, and messages are signed automatically. Other intended benefits of Flow have been well documented on the Flow page. However some technical aspects warrant more detail.

Technical limitations

In addition to providing software-structured discussions, Flow's input and storage mechanism are noteworthy. Flow's primary input method is VisualEditor. The VisualEditor engine is also used for all content rendering. In particular, audio and video files are not fully supported at this time. Audio and video files may not display at all, or they may appear as a generic icon. The WMF currently has a task open to improve media support. At the bottom right of the Flow edit window, a pencil icon may be used to switch to a mode where wikitext may be entered. In some cases Flow may render wikitext differently than expected. When saving wikitext, the VisualEditor engine is used to convert supported wikitext to VisualEditor's native content format (HTML+RDFa). The wikitext is then discarded. Flow does not include a separate preview function for wikitext. The VisualEditor mode is intended to serve as the "preview" for wikitext. When switching to VisualEditor to view a "preview", the VisualEditor engine converts the wikitext to HTML and discards the wikitext. When you return to the mode for editing wikitext, the VisualEditor engine is used to convert the HTML into new wikitext for editing. The newly generated wikitext usually resembles the wikitext you originally entered. However anomalies may appear, due to translation of wikitext->HTML->wikitext. In rare cases, reverting an edit may damage the original content. This is because the original wikitext was never saved, and the translation process may not correctly re-create the original version. The translation process also has the potential to generate "tumors", chunks of corrupt wikitext that expand each time you preview or save.

Examples: How Flow handles wikitext
'''Wiki''media'''foundation''

On preview or save, Flow will re-write it in a way that renders the same: 

'''Wiki''media'''''<nowiki/>''foundation''

Another example: 

{{#if:flag|<span style="color:red;|<span style="}} font-weight: bold">text</span>

On preview or save, Flow will destroy what you wrote: 

{{#if:flag|<span style="}} font-weight: bold">text
Current deployment of Flow

The WMF has repeatedly given firm assurance that there are currently no plans to deploy Flow without a local consensus to do so.

Flow is currently available as an opt-in preference on several wikis. This activates Flow as a replacement for an individual's User_Talk page. Most of these are small wikis, activated with consensus as small as 2 or 3 people.

At least one microwiki was fully converted to Flow, based on a consensus of 3.

English Wikipedia: Activity died on all Flow pages, they were deleted and the entire Flow extension was uninstalled by community request. (An RFC was drafted, but the WMF agreed the outcome was obvious and Flow was amicably uninstalled.[1])

Meta Wiki: One Flow page was Two Flow pages were shut down and the extension was uninstalled by an RFC consensus of 26-4.[2]

German Wikipedia: Some individuals are currently discussing running an RFC to uninstall.

Current state of Flow on Commons

Flow is currently installed, and active on two pages: Commons_talk:Flow and Commons_talk:Flow/tests.

An April 2017 RFC to Enable beta function of Flow on own talk page ended Opposed 11-2.

General level of support for Flow

In September 2016, the Wikimedia Foundation ran a Flow Satisfaction survey. A small number of public invitations to the survey were posted, and targeted invitations were sent to almost everyone who had actively opted-in to Flow for their user_talk page. Concerns were raised that this may have severely canvassed participation, however those who ran the survey "insist [] we don’t think this is a canvassed or biased survey" and "It was still open to anyone who wanted to participate".[3]

Amongst the various questions about Flow, the survey found 38% of participants prefer Flow over wikitext talk pages. People are encouraged to follow the survey link above, and read the highly positive (glowing) summary of other survey results. The survey report then recommended that the WMF resume Flow development work and pursue expanded deployment. Resumption of Flow development was then added to WMF quarterly schedules.

Proposal

Uninstall Flow, as was done on English Wikipedia and Meta wiki. Alsee (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Responses

  •  Support for two reasons:
    1. Standard Industry Best Practices say that one of the most important ways to improve the security and stability of a system is to uninstall unused software. This is especially true when that software is undergoing active development. Flow is an unusually complex and invasive extension, hooking into many parts of the wiki. The WMF has drafted extremely vast plans for Flow development that would be extremely invasive into all parts of the system. There is absolutely no reason Commons wiki should risk disruption due to inevitable bugs in an extension that it's not using.
    2. If a series of major wikis uninstall Flow, pretty soon the the WMF will be forced to face reality. We are NOT eagerly waiting for Flow to be upgraded and deployed. We really truly want Flow gone. The 38% support in the survey was a Votestacking fabrication, and the glowing Survey Report was somewhere between wishful-self-delusion and propaganda. Alsee (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Alsee: There are a lot of allegations without evidence here... Yann (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yann, I'm not going to guess what you mean and waste my time digging up cites for random sentences we both agree don't need cites. Would you like to identify your top two concerns? Alsee (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Alsee: You can't put up wild allegations without giving evidence. Sorry, but it is to you to back up what you say. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yann, I am not going to guess what you mean. Would you like to identify your top two concerns? Alsee (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Alsee: Copying and pasting the same sentence again doesn't give any more evidence to your allegations... At this point, it is quite clear you have some agenda here... Yann (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support At the very heart of this wiki lies the presumption that any edit can be reverted perfectly. Flow does not allow that. For that reason and all the others above, it should be uninstalled posthaste.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support uninstalling. I only had to spend one minute to look. I failed to immediately find out how to edit comments made by others. It is also so invasive I didn't understand immediately if wiki markup is understood at all, or how I would format my posts to be semantic and accessible to any reader.

    Speaking of accessibility, it's still in baby shoes: <article> elements are not used for comments, but instead a <div> soup. I understand it's a work-in-progress, but still. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 01:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Flow brings several advantages on talk pages: no need to sign, no need to follow the whole page to get a notification about an answer, etc. These are mostly useful for newbies. Flow should be used on pages where it would be useful (Help desk, COM:UDR, etc.), where most people asking questions do not sign, and do not see the answers because they do not watch the page. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support uninstalling. My experience using Flow on wikis where I am forced to hasn't been positive. —MarcoAurelio 10:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Correct rendering of pages, including images and video files, are critical for sensible discussion about Commons content on Commons. If newbies don't want to sign their posts, then for goodness sake, someone write a bot script to do it for them. As for expecting long term contributors to this project to switch to using the Visual Editor, forget it. It's been many many years of pointless discussion, and too many years of the WMF blatantly ignoring valid complaints about the different ways in which it failed to work, to expect us to invest our unpaid volunteer time to just get bitten yet again. --Fæ (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Krd 10:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support per MarcoAurelio & YannFae. Storkk (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Yann. Flow might not be all the way there but it does have many advantages over traditional talk pages. I would give it a chance and not pull the plug yet. --Jarekt (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    It will brake our talk page notification tools, etc. And handling spam via Flow is a mess, imho. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Steinsplitter: Which notification tools are you talking about? Flow completely changes the way notifications are handled, so you can't compare it with the current system. And IMO using {{Ping}} and other templates is a poor hack. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Abstain as long as I don't have to use it. It's disgusting to use it on Wikidata user talk pages, works for simple text and is awful for templates and links, costs perhaps twice the time to input those if they are rendered correctly at all, those using <code> or <syntaxhighlight> don't it seems and needs workarounds not to introduce wrong <nowiki /> tags. --Marsupium (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per discussion below. Proposal seems politically motivated with no strong argument presented to uninstall (vs choosing not to use). Perhaps Flow is unfinished, buggy and may even be the wrong approach for Commons editing participation, but it can be ignored, just as parts of Commons can be ignored. The wikitext interface is a poor one that attracts a narrow subset of the population (typically male, typically nerdy) and is a barrier to many creatives who would otherwise participate here. That might not bother those who are happy to hoover up images from elsewhere, but it bothers me, who wishes we had more photographers (and other artists) contributing directly to Commons. The solution might not be Flow, but it certainly isn't wikitext. -- Colin (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I tend to oppose mainly as per Colin, however the issue is that even when you don't active it yourself, if a user active it on his talk page, then you have not other choice that to use it. Also the option "source editing" in Flow should at least propose the same taskbar / menu bar (specially with the edittools). And how will this work with our notification system (block, copyvio, nomination for deletion coming from VFC)? the fact that it is a choice "only wikitext" or "only Flow" worried me a bit. I just try to nominate the page for deletion, as a test, and that don't work, therefore likely the VFC notifications will not work too in a "Flow user talk page", hassle to notify the users. Therefore I tend also to support. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Keep it as a test, develop the test to highlight the potential problems with Commons. No to an implementation as long as there is no solutions for potential issues. But I even more opposed to a test end just "for the principle". Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support, obviously. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support If there's no consensus to even leave it as a beta feature, then no point in leaving it installed. --Rschen7754 00:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- 12:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelSchoenitzer (talk • contribs)
  •  Support Not needed here. --Gestumblindi (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Unused. Should the community change their mind in the future, another proposal can always be made. Train2104 (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Colin and Yann. It may not be a finished product, but removing it simply becuse it is not ready for prime time and only used for testing here, is not any way to imporove anything.It seem as development has started up again, so let's keep it for testing - so Commons does not get forgotten and left behind when other wikis adopt and fit Flow for their needs. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support complete uninstallation. It is our goal as Wikimedia Commons to help users have a friendlier software. It is logical therefore to remove some cruft, such as the "Topic" namespace which is currently displayed in various places for no gain, and any other facility added by this unused extension for which there is no foreseeable use on this wiki. Nemo 10:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I fail to see the issue right now. I will never support Flow in its current form but I don't see the issue with having these test pages and attempting to develop it if that is Wikimedia's goal. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support There is no point in it existing on Commnons at this point, even on two pages, when there is no plan to roll it out wider. If there are plans to resolve the issues with Flow and bring it back, then do the work on one of Wiki's incubators. Wikimandia (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I supported it being uninstalled on EN and am supporting here too - To put it in very blunt terms Flow is horrendous and IMHO should be uninstalled on every project ... anyway in short as the saying goes "if it ain't broke don't fix it". –Davey2010Talk 15:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support but only per the previous RfC. Flow should be reinstalled if/when the concerns mentioned in the previous RfC are addressed. Jc86035 (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Flow isn't a wiki-model type thing; it's more like Facebook posting, and as well as images, it doesn't accept things like templates (how would you leave a block template, for example), and posts can't be edited in the normal way. Little side things, like the Notifications system, are okay, but we shouldn't be using non-wiki-model type things in major areas such as discussion pages. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
per Colin and Yann. i do not see any reason to relitigate the drama of other projects. you are in effect grave dancing over Jorm's work. failed attempts to improve talk are still useful as scaffolding for the eventual replacement. the fact that i conduct most communication off wiki and ignore all templates is no reason to uninstall all talk pages, or templates, or notifications. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Nyttend puts it well. Flow is unfit for purpose. -- Begoon 03:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - As a relatively new user, I believe that Flow makes on-wiki talk pages much more accessible. Talk pages are the bread and butter of wiki culture, so we should make an effort to invite new users into the discussion by providing a helpful, familiar paradigm rather than this technocratic nightmare of nested indentation. The survey results are unsurprising, in light of incumbency advantage. They show that Flow isn't a runaway success yet, it's still in its infancy, and long-time editors prefer whatever crufty thing they're accustomed to. This is an opt-in prototype that nobody is forcing you to use, so the arguments that "we really don't want this" sound disingenuous. If Wikitext and Flow are both unpleasant, and we see a near-draw in the number of editors who prefer each, then how about leaving the new system alone so those who wish to can experiment with it? Adamw (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support uninstall. Quite annoying and unpleasant experiences wherever I've been forced to use it to communicate (Wikidata user talks, for instance).-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do not see a reason why this test should be stopped. I do not use it but having it in the real live environment can bring some new insights that can difficult be tested, everyone knows that the existing flow will not go productive in big projects. Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  •  Question What's the actual status of Flow right now? Shortly after it was announced as a beta feature in 2015, it was put in "bugfixes only" mode (see the statements by User:Quiddity_(WMF) in Topic:So4juczs8f56jvp5). There were talks about moving on to something called "Workflows" instead but it seems that never took off? mw:Flow#Development_status is pretty vague, but there seems to be some movement over at Phabricator (phab:T167928)? As it is, Flow might be useful for some smaller wikis, but it's currently not in a state where it really could be used broadly on a project like Commons. Might be useful for a few select pages, though. --El Grafo (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    If it were uninstalled today from Commons, there's nothing to stop it continuing to be played around with on the beta cluster. If folks are going to keep using main projects like Commons as a test site, especially for "tests" which carry on for more than 2 years, then I don't see the point of having a beta cluster. --Fæ (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    El Grafo, like you have seen on phab:T167928, the development has restarted. No announcement has been done so far because the developers needed to decide on a few things and update some pages to provide the best information to communities. In a nutshell, the improvements listed (wikitext storage of messages, search on a page, or move messages) narrow Flow's scope to user-to-user discussions. Those improvements will be deployed on all existing Structured Discussions pages. Some wikis, including Wikidata, French Wikipedia or Chinese Wikipedia, have chosen to use Structured Discussions on user talk pages (Beta feature) or Help desks. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I cannot help but notice that Alsee has 118 edits on Commons, of which only a minority is content. What motivates such a drastic proposal from someone with so little stakes in Commons? Rama (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    Hi Rama. I acknowledge my work on this wiki has been very modest. However I am a well established member of the broader community (mainly EnWiki), and I expect I will be returning here for years to come. I also don't think the proposal is "drastic". It would remove two unproductive pages, and the WMF has already worked out a reasonably easy uninstall procedure. As for my motivation: Wiki-community service. (Based on responses so far, it appears most people agree that posting this proposal was a positive service.) In particular, I am very concerned that WMF engagement with the community is too often painfully-poor. I have taken a special interest in bringing EnWiki community-consensus concerns to the WMF, and keeping the EnWiki community informed of significant new developments by the WMF. It is often painfully difficult getting the WMF to listen to EnWiki, and I've seen how hard it is for other wikis to have any effective voice with the WMF. Other wikis get screwed over. In some cases EnWiki can push to get a problem fixed, and the WMF only fixes it for EnWiki. For example the WMF has begun stealth-deployment of VE as the default editor for new users at all wikis. I caught the issue and EnWiki got it fixed - for EnWiki. The WMF plans to silently do the same at every wiki, unless there is a local consensus to define the wiki as "wikitext primary". The WMF isn't telling wikis that choice exists, they're just going to push out what they want unless someone opens a local discussion on it. The WMF has also decided to phase-out our wikitext editor. They're building a wikitext mode inside VisualEditor as a replacement. It has atrocious performance and faulty previews. EnWiki established overwhelming consensus against it. The WMF is moving forwards with the project, planning to eventually deploy it here and everywhere else. We need more cross-wiki community collaboration to give the community more voice with the WMF. We need more cross-wiki communication, to establish multi-wiki consensus on shared interests. I saw Common's overwhelming rejection of Flow in the last RFC, and I decided to take a step towards establishing a stronger multi-wiki consensus on Flow.
    If you like Flow, I hope you will at least respect that I am acting in Good-Faith service of community consensus here (presuming that this proposal continues to get solid support). Alsee (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    Your argument is more about your distrust and dislike of the WMF than about the uninstall of Flow. In fact, I fail to see any argument at all supporting your case in your very own argumentation: your not using Flow is one thing, uninstalling it from projects is quite another. I do not use the Upload Wizard, but you do not see me advocating its removal. Rama (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, it is quite clear Alsee is not here to improve Commons, but just using this project as a playground for politics... Yann (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    Rama, I gave two clear reasons for uninstall in my !vote. (1) There is no reason the wiki should be affected by development-bugs in an unused extension. If you are going to claim I made no argument at all supporting uninstall, then I'm not sure what productive discussion we can have. And (2) I think there needs to be a reality-check on the future of Flow. If Flow has a long term future, then we should embrace and improve Flow. If Flow is a dead-end, those limited resources may be better allocated elsewhere. Alsee (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    (1) is not an argument for uninstalling Flow, just a statement that Flow is not widely used. "Flow has bugs that open security holes to the rest of the software", for instance, would be an argument for uninstalling (I insist that it is just an example, not an argument that anybody has actually raised). "Flow has bugs, I don't like it an neither do my pals" is an argument for you not using it, for which, well, congratulation (on the day you start contributing extensively to this wiki, I mean).
    (2) is not even remotely an argument for uninstalling Flow, it is a judgement of value. That "there needs to be a reality-check on the future" is a vague, unactionable opinion, and a very fine one, that I would support; but it does not entail that an immediate uninstall of Flow is in order. I would support reality-checking lots of things that I would also find unwise to disrupt. Rama (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    Alsee, please stop saying that "The WMF has also decided to phase-out our wikitext editor". This is not true. We've talked before about this, and you know that this is not true. The Foundation's plan for the 2010 wikitext editor continues to be full, normal support for the foreseeable future. Please do not mislead fellow volunteers by saying otherwise to them.
    For the rest of you, I apologize for this confusion. I am the product manager for Structured Discussions (Flow) now, so the responsibility for this decision lies with me. I have decided not to de-install this software from this or any other wiki without a solid technical reason for doing so. Custom configurations for each wiki slightly slow down the sites for every reader and editor, and complicates Ops' work, which, unlike the assertions above, actually is a security risk.
    If anyone wants to object to the existence of this tool, as used by several communities, then I encourage them to engage in that discussion at the right time and place – which is in the annual plan, not the village pumps for individual wikis. I see the annual plan very much as our "contract with the communities" – we say we will do things, and our communities should expect that we keep to our commitments in that plan. You will find community-requested improvements to this software listed as a priority for this year under Program 5, Goal 3. The talk pages about the annual plan, widely advertised through banners during the process, were the correct places to suggest changes to the Foundation's planned work. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    Jdforrester, you do not get to personally dictate to this community how we run our votes or discussions, and I doubt that anyone wants to be forced to check-in with you every time we have a meaningful vote or discussion. If you have suggestions or advice, that's super, but you are not the boss of me or any other unpaid volunteer contributor. If you want input in the "right" places, then please feel empowered to take our locally established community consensus and put it in those places yourself. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    Hi Jdforrester (WMF), it's a surprise to hear from you on this subject, given that you have been non responsive for six months[4] on whether you intend to be collaborative or combative regarding the consensus on the new wikitextmode-in-VE editor. For those unfamiliar, there was an overwhelming EnWiki consensus[5] objecting to performance and preview issues with the "NewWikitextEditor". (The last time I tried to use it, clicking preview took over 60 seconds to load, and the rendering was faulty.) As for the "confusion", the plan is for wikitextmode-in-VE to become the default wikitext editor, and for the current wikitext editor to move to opt-in for some unspecified period of time. The WMF's roadmap states: Finally with regards to core work, our intent right from the beginning of our work on the visual editor has been to operate as the core 'platform' for all kinds of editing in MediaWiki, and not just to be another single editor. Depending on how you count them, there are currently six pieces of editor software beyond the visual editor installed on most of our wikis, which gives us six different interfaces by which to confuse users, six different sets of bugs to track down, and six different places where features can interact in unexpected ways and which need to be tested. Our goal is to gradually reduce the number of pieces of software with equivalents based on the single platform.[6] Who wrote that? You did.[7] Maybe I am confused. I don't see how increasing the number of editors will "reduce the number of pieces of software with equivalents" unless you explicitly plan to remove the current wikitext editor. I think most people would consider it a "phase out" to temporarily move the current editor to opt-in, then remove it. Alsee (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of things I like about FLOW but they do not surpass the things I dislike. For example "history" does not work so I cannot see what has changed from when I last looked. Also I am very concerned with us going from two ways to edit Wikipedia to three ways to edit Wikipedia (VE and the old editor to VE, the old editor, and FLOW). Additionally I like new comments at the bottom rather than the top and I hate the fact that discussions jump around within a page (BTW I hate Facebook which also has many of these features). IMO FLOW is in a early stage of development. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    • With respect to new posts occuring at the top rather than the bottom, it is not that much of an issue with the current system. Not sure if I want "infinite scroll". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
      Doc James, what is your view on removing Flow from communities that don't want it? I am rather concerned that the WMF appears to have reversed position on this. Alsee (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
      If as they say it makes the tech work easier and improves performance I am okay with seeing it stay installed. If the community has agreed something is not to be used than one would expect to see blocks handed out by the community for members who breach that agreement. It would be the use of the tool that the majority oppose that is the real issue rather than the existence of the tool. From what I understand some of the small wikis like FLOW and if consensus exists to use it there than okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
      Doc James, I seriously question how having Commons configured the same as the Flagship-EnWiki and Meta could make tech work more difficult or diminish performance. It appears to be an implausible claim.
      On the other hand almost any programmer can confirm industry EN:Best_coding_practices#Deployment #1 Don't install something you're not going to use and #2 uninstall things you aren't using. Bugs are inevitable, especially when software is under active development. Keeping the EN:attack surface as small as possible is a basic security measure, and generic bugs can't affect a system if they aren't installed.
      Is more bad-blood between the WMF&community truly being outweighed here due to priority technical reasons? Or is this about digging in on an agenda to eventually convert Commons and other wikis to Flow? Alsee (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      Hum, as a non tech person I do not know. I think we can all agree that our talk page systems could use improvement. VE was acceptable and in fact supported as it was and is only optional. Those of us who do not like it are not required to give up their prefered method of editing. This is the fundamental problem FLOW faces in that it has difficulty being introduced gradually.
      I am on the other hand happy to see software developed for projects other than EN WP. However I would still like to see significant efforts put into improving the current talk page system. Maybe we need a version of VE that works on talk pages? Regardless we need more community input / involvement in software development. We are NOT like facebook users (these being who FB sells to advertisers) and thus we cannot use software development techniques that FB uses for its users. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding not being a tech person - there's an entire tech staff that can offer advice on the difficulty and impact of uninstalling Flow. As for improving talk pages, that would obviously be popular. But it's hard to get any progress on talk pages when that department seems to view talk pages as a competitor to Flow. I wholeheartedly agree on more community input on development - most importantly before coding starts. The cheapest and most pain-free time to identify and resolve issues is during the concept&planning stage. The NewEditor project was effectively built in secret. Once the prototype was complete is was too late. The WMF has been completely unwilling to discuss changing the design. For the last year I have been unable to get any meaningful response on how the WMF plans to deal with community concerns. I fear the NewEditor project may be driving towards a crisis. Could you inquire whether they plan to force it out as default, if the community considers it a downgrade? Alsee (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point by Doc James: "VE was acceptable and in fact supported as it was and is only optional. Those of us who do not like it are not required to give up their prefered method of editing. This is the fundamental problem FLOW faces in that it has difficulty being introduced gradually." In German-language Wikipedia, the community decided in early 2016 to adopt VE as an option for not logged-in and new users. Per default, there are now two edit tabs in German-language WP: "Bearbeiten" (which is using VE) and "Quelltext bearbeiten" ("edit source", using the classic wikitext editor). Logged in users are still able to completely disable VE individually, if they wish to do so. Only through the optional nature and full mutual compatibility (you can always edit the same page in VE or wikitext and switch freely between these modes) VE finally was considered acceptable by the community, I think. As Flow, on the other hand, is not an optional mode for editing discussion pages but something radically different and incompatible with the existing "flow" of editing discussion pages, it's no wonder that the opposition is very strong. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR CLOSURE. This has been open almost two months, and there has only been one new !vote recently. Alsee (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Alsee (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Seconded.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
How do we get someone to put a closure on this? On EnWiki it would be posted on AN/Requests for closure. Alsee (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Still needs closure. Anyone? Alsee (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
This conversation ended a while ago and probably can be archived. Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Leaving a redirect

Perhaps file movers could benefit form the usage of suppressredirect. When a file is moved, a redirect is left behind. Sometimes, no direct links (on commons at least) point to the old name. Perhaps file movers can gain that right? Artix Kreiger (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Agreed This is very useful: I have a similar right on en.wp and it comes in handy there but mostly due to name conflicts. In the case of files named "x9sdf8sf.jpg" or "IMG_0001.PNG" or "thing.gif", those are names that shouldn't even redirect because they should never have been created in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This is certainly one of the rights that I think could be unbundled a little bit. I have come across a number of requests in Category:Other speedy deletions where the file mover has had to leave a redirect but it isn't a particularly useful redirect. An admin having to delete that redirect is just piling extra resources onto a task that could be done by one user --> the trusted file mover. Green Giant (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I propose that file movers be given that right, but I think it is named "Not create redirects from source pages when moving pages (suppressredirect)" per Special:ListGroupRights.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Jeff, that appears to be the wording. Artix Kreiger (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Artix Kreiger: Kindly recheck your code for the missing "re" in the middle. {{S}} as technical proposer.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: , how long would you divide "old" and "new"? Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: , what about for newer files? A cut off time limit, lets say, a week? Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
What issue does deleting the redirect solve? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unless there is a technical method to enforce a time gate, and not just a written rule. I'd almost be tempted to unbundle as a higher-than-admin right - to ensure admins are consciously evaluating the value of a redirect. In many cases the redirects are pretty harmless even if they are 1 day old.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above: it's better to have this function more controlled, as leaving a the redirect depends on time and on theusage of the file. In any case, leaving a redirect behind is not an issue, and it has practically no impact on disk space. --Ruthven (msg) 10:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't understand the problem that this is trying to solve, so per Zhuyifei1999. Storkk (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No, Don't delete redirects. — regards, Revi 15:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    @-revi: Deletion of redirects can be helpful in cases of page move vandalism (for both involved pages).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    Vandalism is one of the 'obvious exception' to that essay, I think. — regards, Revi 01:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose: There are very few circumstances when it's helpful to delete a redirect. In those cases, it shouldn't be a problem to propose the redirect for (maybe speedy) deletion in the usual way. --bjh21 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose per others. The default for moving a file must be to leave the redirect, everything else would be dangerous. That's how we've always done it, and there are good reasons for that. We can check usage on WMF wikis and fix file links there after a move (I think we've even got a bot for that), but we have no control over external wikis using mw:InstantCommons or other websites linking to Commons via normal URLs. We don't even know which files are used externally, so deleting redirects by default would break things without us even knowing. I the few cases where a deletion actually makes sense, it can easily be done manually. That should be a very conscious decision, and our current way of doing it supports that by requiring to actively and consciously filing a (speedy) DR. --El Grafo (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • -1, the suppressredirect right encourages mindless deletion of redirects. Speaking of which, it's worth removing that right from the sysop package unless we're quick at desysopping users who abuse it. --Nemo 13:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per El Grafo and others. Since cc-by-sa 4 accepts "linking to the source" as legal, deleting redirects would break the legal use of this licence by tons of external usages. --Smial (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial, El Grafo, and others. File namespace redirects should not be deleted for license compliance reasons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Transportation

I suggest to create a new annual event. Wiki Loves Transportation - a competition of photos of cars, trucks, buses, locomotives, vessels, airplanes, other vehicles etc.
Why it is important: vehicles have the short term of active use. Old models are utilized (scrapped) and replaced with new.
We can keep images of vehicles for history.
Please, add Your comments and vote below. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  Provisional Support I would be all for this but it would require a lot of organization. For instance, in which countries would this take place? Wiki Loves Monunments and Wiki Loves Earth are country/regional specific. Who would judge? How would it be organized? I could think of more questions but I believe I have established my point. Don't misunderstand me, I think this is a fine idea, I just would like more details. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support, For this, organization needs work and scope needs refinement before things happen. Aside from that, this is a good idea to work with for information. Natural progression of change should be documented and will serve people well. Artix Kreiger (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support, I regularly upload images of vehicles (though as I am not knowledgeable in most brands and their sub-categorisations I refrain from seeking them out), and it's quite common for vehicles to be missing. I also suggest a competition for “corporate vehicles” (which might now be deleted as “spam” or “obvious COI’s”, but as many companies go bankrupt these images could serve as historical preservation), or training vehicles (another category horribly underrepresented). Most automobile 🚗 models are notable enough to have entries on various Wikipedia’s, but it's quite common for there to be almost no images of a certain model here so giving people more incentive to photograph more vehicles (or just photograph more in general) is always a win 🏆. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 08:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I like this idea very much. Also I hope to see some writing contest about railway which is interesting for me. --Visem (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the idea. Fully supporting this! — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 02:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good idea. De728631 (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good idea. Second International wiki-project from Ukraine. :-) --Nickispeaki (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)* Support
  •  Comment Who's going to do all the category cleanup? Transportation images tend to have a more complex and detailed category structure than much of the rest of Commons. For example, identifying the model of an automobile is a difficult task. This sounds like something that will end up with a lot of images in top-level categories, making them not particularly useful, unless there is a great deal of organization to ensure good category sorting. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with Pi. There are all sorts of subjects that individuals love and could base a project on. On the small scale, I think Photo Challenge would be more appropriate, especially if you pick just one category (e.g. scooters). The "Wiki loves" is on the other scale and can involve a huge amount of volunteer effort. Even though WLM does generate a large number of images, in some countries the results are disappointing such that for all the effort put in locally, a year's competition produces not even one image worthy of FP. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK WLM is aided as the historical buildings are already plotted on a map so you can click on it and upload and it will be identified correctly. Even for less advanced systems, it is usually not hard for the photographer to state correctly what building they are looking at. Whereas I wouldn't have a clue which model of train engine or bus I see, and while I can identify a modest number of cars, I wouldn't be specific enough to know it was the 2011-2015 model, say, and there are plenty people who's identification abilities go no further than "red car". Add to this the problem that reviewing/judging the candidates can be a long and tedious job. It is fine if the quality is high and there is variety, but if we lack both then it becomes very dull. Some people on WLM just seemed to upload their camera's memory card. For transport, I could see someone standing beside the road snapping everything that went by and uploading all of that. Perhaps the first step would be to create some kind of WikiProject Transport for Commons where you get enthusiastic people together and encouraging each other. That may be sufficient, and may also help to set some standards, both in terms of documentation and approach to photography, but also standards of what quality and style of image we best need. -- Colin (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it doesn't make sense to !vote on this until some interested people have spend some time to actually work out a concept. Until then, I'll remain sceptical, as I share the concerns expressed by Pi and Colin above. What could work, though, is focusing on immobile transport-related objects such as train stations or aerodromes. They are easily identified by non-enthusiasts; and there are lists available that could be used in a similar way as monument lists are used for WLM. --El Grafo (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: why not have a transportation photo challenge at Commons:Photo challenge every year or 6 months? --P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support, there are lots of existing photography groups who like taking photos of trains, cars, planes etc that could be engaged who probably have very large back catalogues. My experience is that people who like taking photos of transport tend to know the names of makes and models so I can't see a huge amount of images being added to top level categories, I guess there will need to be some work on creating new categories for new things we don't have photos of. John Cummings (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • John, that's the thing, though. People who are already motivated to photograph and accurately record transport don't need WLT, though they might enjoy a wiki project. Huge WL* competitions just attract thousands of noobs and would indeed fill the top level categories and also end up with images in proportion to the popularity of a vehicle rather than in proportion to how much Commons lacks that model. Large competitions need to be designed to create optimal content, whereas I suspect this will actually decrease the average quality of transport images on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: , this exactly my point, a very small percentage of photographers contribute images to Commons, attracting 'noobs' (new contributors who may already accomplished photographers) is very good way of getting more images and the only way to grow the community. They are unlikely to 'fill up' top level categories, more create new ones for content we don't yet have images of. The success of the competition very much depends on who takes part, there are many existing communities who can be engaged with excellent images. John Cummings (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
And WLM achieved that? If you exclude the Commons regulars who contribute to WLM, and who would have contributed anyway, the quality of photos is generally poor. You get a handful of serious photographers who enter the competition with (usually downsized) images but don't contribute anything else. They treat it like someone entering any competition with half a dozen photos and then forgetting about it till next year. WLM made identification easy, whereas this makes accurately recording the subject (a vehicle) rather hard. I couldn't tell you accurately what precise model my own car was. Photo challenge is more successful at attracting and retaining noobs and it only needs a few people to run and organise it, rather than hundreds, and there's no prize money. -- Colin (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not a fan of all this inflationary "Wiki Loves..." copying (there is plenty of, but none of that has ever been as successful as Monuments; not even Earth). But who actually says that Photo Challenge topics cannot be repeated? Just run transportation challenge one time each year, that's the same. --A.Savin 14:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to rename account creator group to batch uploaders

Background:

Per COM:VP#Abolish the 380 images upload rate for non-admins, high content contributors can on occasion run into the 380 uploads per 72 minute rate limit. The right that overrides this is noratelimit. This right is currently assigned to admins/'crats/stewards as well as the account creator and bots groups. Currently there are only two account creators Fæ and Effeietsanders. This right is also only assignable by stewards at meta. This right is only assignable by 'crats or by stewards at meta.

Proposal:

  • Rename the account creator group to Batch uploaders
  • Add the ability to add and remove the group to the administrator group
  • Both of the current account creators are trustworthy enough to be grandfathered into this new group.

Requirements:

  • Batch uploaders need to show that they understand copyright through a history of good uploads.
  • Individuals looking for this right should show that they have use for it by having a history of batch uploading (via Flickr2Commons or similar gadgets).
  • A 10,000 edit minimum was mentioned at VP but I'm not all that convinced that that is necessary (please discuss this below).
  • A simple request at COM:PERM detailing why you need the right can be made for this flag.

Responses (rename account creator group)

  •  Support As proposer. --Majora (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Fully supported, note: while name change can be simply done by changing group name via MediaWiki NS config, granting/revoking permissions to sysops (currently 'crats) require config change. (I can do this. Just FYI.) Sysops, global rollbackers, stewards, crats, does not require this flag. — regards, Revi 04:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support, this is good. Artix Kreiger (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support As one the few people with this right, I'd like to point out that it makes very little difference to uploaders. I believe the 380 image limit has almost nothing to do with this right, based on the fact that I uploaded over 3 million images without running into the limit before being given the 'noratelimit' right. It might be that the problem needing solving (380 limit) is a bit tangential to waiving limits, and is probably better solved by such a person reading up on how to use GWT or similar tools. It should remain an extremely rare request based on need, and my need was based on moving pages not uploading images, plus I probably can be considered trusted to take a great deal of care over how fast I run mass actions or automation. Very, very few people have a good reason to exceed the normal limit of, I think, 8 images per minute upload - that includes almost every batch upload project I can think of. This basic upload limit means that an upload of 100,000 images takes just over a week. If someone wants to upload, say, a million images in a day or a week, that should require a proper community discussion and some testing before such a remarkably fast run that could make a huge mess even if highly experienced uploaders are doing it. Sorry to dampen the parade, but anyone requesting this should be able to demonstrate that they really do seriously know how to run a Commons project, and having a minimum 10,000 edits as a precursor would be a trivial part of that. --Fæ (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I say this as someone who doesn't see a need for this right personally. If someone wants to upload 100,000 images this can already be done in over a week as Fæ at aptly pointed out. So saying this will unleash mass uploads wouldn't be right. If someone wants too they will find a way. My real concern is for License Reviews being flooded with images. More then once I've spent the better part of an afternoon doing LR's, checking them each and following policy until I wake up the next morning and there are more then a thousand new images needing review in the PD images alone. As long as Fæ's words are taken to heart "It should remain an extremely rare request based on need" then I wouldn't have a problem with this. Honestly I'd rather see this limited to License Reviewers but I can see how this would be useful to some who have no interest in helping review licenses. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support This will probably also reduce the huge backlog at requested batches. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 11:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose in this form. "Batch uploader" is just as misleading as the current "account creator" name, as this user group also has some other limitations lifted that are not related to batch uploading or account creation (see answers to my question below). However, I'd  Support a re-name to another, more suitable name. As noratelimit seems to be the only user right assigned to this group, why not simply use that for naming the group? --El Grafo (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    You are correct. The name is completely irrelevant. The most important part of the proposal is assigning the ability to give and remove this right to admins and the actual requirements for obtaining the right. The name is secondary and noratelimit seems like a fine group name in my opinion. I just didn't want to change the header and actual proposal halfway through since people have already opined. --Majora (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    The new name sounds a lot better if it's "Noratelimit" as that name would simply explain exactly what it does. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, I think it is a bad idea to get rid of dedicated account creator group at least until there is a better solution provided for wikimarathons (such as a userright allowing to lift throttle for a specific IP from wiki interface on spot). I realise that the current history of actual usage of account creator group is small, but nevertheless. I am absolutely  pro a separate mass upploader flag. I realise that technically they will contain the same userrights, but I think semantics and entailment of different requirements for obtaining and usage matter. --Base (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
    Would you rather it just be called "noratelimit" and it apply to both situations, Base? This would also allow normal admins to apply and remove it. As opposed to the current situation of 'crats and stewards. Having two user groups with the same rights but different names seems a tad overkill. --Majora (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    we already have an example. German wikipedia already has two group example. de:spezial:listgrouprights shows account creator and a "noratelimit" group that has the same user right. Artix Kreiger (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    Look again. They have different rights. The "Limit Except" group also have autopatrol. And I stand by my statement. Even if the Germans did do that, which they don't, I find that a tad excessive and a waste of developer time to put that into the configuration when you can just call it something more general and catch all. --Majora (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    That is certainly an option to have a group called 'noratelimit' and have to separate sets of valid ways to get it — huge number of good faith contributions as proposed for the mass uploader group and evidence that user is involved in conducting some workshops (e.g. an active affiliate member) and has good enough understanding of policies while might not have a huge number of uploads themselves. That being said I personally prefer two flags option or Nemo's variant of lifting upload rate limit for non-new accounts (or even all accounts arguably). As to developers' time, come on, what are you talking about. Creation or changing rights is a matter of editing MW configuration file, and it is even possible to do it right on Gerrit. --Base (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd rather remove the rate limit for uploads than enshrine upload castes in user groups. --Nemo 13:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    •  Support large amounts of abusive uploads only exclusively happen with new accounts and can easily get mass-deleted with the current tools, there really isn't a use for the current rate limit, nor does it currently stop malicious bots from uploading a lot of bad content, I think that the only people ever disadvantaged by the current rate limit are good faith uploaders, if I'm wrong than anyone can feel free to correct me, but I can't remember the last time that I saw a malicious uploader upload a large amount of files, it's usually that they use Wikipedia-zero to upload films and such which only account for a single file 📁 each, despite their size. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose expansion of privileges of sysops (see also Fæ’s comment) – Commons has currently 8 bureaucrats. At least, do not allow sysops to turn on this privilege. As for naming, see the subsection below. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Incnis Mrsi: Do you support the proposal without the expansion of sysop privileges or still an oppose regardless? Looking for clarification for consensus. ~riley (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If granting this right will be strictly controlled and abuses promptly curbed, then I do not oppose anything. Let users with more experience in the field decide now to name this user group. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (rename account creator group)

Question. has the account creator group been used in upload marathons? Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Since 2004 the right has been assigned a total of 8 times. Information per https://tools.wmflabs.org/steinsplitter/gr/?wm=%25%40commonswiki --Majora (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia has a right just called "noratelimit", aside from account creator. Would that be something to consider? also, special:listgrouprights says that bureaucrats can assign account creators. Artix Kreiger (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Well then. COM:Account creators lied to me. I've modified the background and I'll have to do some more research to see if this right was ever assigned here by 'crats. Give me a moment. --Majora (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Yes. It was assigned twice here by a 'crat and removed twice by a 'crat. One of which was a self-change (by a 'crat to themselves). So it has been assigned a total of 10 times either here or on meta since 2004. My personal view on the matter is that a right called "account creator" isn't all the necessary here on Commons. We aren't creating accounts here. The only useful thing is the rate limit override and having two different group with the same set of rights seems a little silly. The idea of a "batch uploader" group on a project that deals with multimedia uploads seems much more logical. I'd also be ok with just changing the name to "noratelimit" and be done with it. --Majora (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Yes, crats can do it, and there was new accountcreator this month. I think renaming accountcreator to something 'noratelimit' blah blah would be sufficient. — regards, Revi 04:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Question What's the "normal" purpose of making someone an "account creator"? Commons:Account creators says "The account creator user right alleviates restrictions in relation to creating new accounts." What exactly does that mean? That doesn't sound like something a batch uploader would need? --El Grafo (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a rate limit on how many accounts you can create. I don't know number. However, it gives the noratelimit which removes rate limits of everything, not just accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artix Kreiger (talk • contribs) 20:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@El Grafo: There are various speedrate limits, to protect wiki from users (with good or bad intention) changing stuff too quickly. One of them is account creation limit, others include move limit (including file move), rollback limit, etc etc. — regards, Revi 16:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Right. The name of the group doesn't really mean anything. You have to look at what rights are assigned to that group to really understand what someone could do with it. The only thing assigned to account creators is the noratelimit right per Special:ListGroupRights. That is what would be helpful for individuals who batch upload large amounts of files. --Majora (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Wikimedia projects only allow 6 new accounts to be created per IP address per day, Account Creators can also bypass the blacklist and create accounts with similar names to existing usernames. This right is essential if you are running Wikimedia events (i.e. workshops) and will be having several people creating accounts in one day or if you assist with the Account Creation process for people that cannot read CAPTCHAs, have a name that hits the blacklist (i.e. JamesSteward; steward is blacklisted) etc. ~riley (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that is true on this project ~riley. Per Special:ListGroupRights the only right account creators currently have is the rate limit bypass. The ability to override the blacklist is contained within the tboverride right. Which account creators on this project do not have. Account creators on other projects do have that right however. --Majora (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh and the ability to override the similar name check is the override-antispoof right. Just for reference. --Majora (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fæ: You have license reviewer, and license reviewers have different upload limit (virtually none) — regards, Revi 02:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, though I cannot remember any issues before having 'image reviewer' and it may have come without other rights back then. It seems a long time ago. --Fæ (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Results (rename account creator group)

Discussion extended: 30 days to gain further community consensus due to current lack of community input. ~riley (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Change in Scope - Art & the education of intelligent machines (& people)

RFC/ PROPOSED CHANGE: ART AND THE EDUCATION OF INTELLIGENT MACHINES (& PEOPLE)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Considering art's unique role in education, how do we make space for paintings, drawings, non-photographic interpretations of what words mean within wikimedia? One suggestion would be to remove “Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills” as an example of something that is not in scope and allow artwork to be removed on other grounds.

Full context of proposal
Background & Context: #SettleForBoth

I was recently at The Long Now Foundation where members were discussing, “What books would you want to rebuild civilization with?” Most of the contributions were scientific in their practicality with the great tombs of philosophy and government mixed it.  It’s a fun exercise that asks, “What knowledge is important?” But no number, size or weight limit had been placed on the library and I found that, without any constraint, the discussion was sort of useless.  Given the chance wouldn’t we want all books? All forms of knowledge? Even as an artist I’d not argue that Grapes of Wrath is more important than An Edible Guide to Plants but in this theoretical exercise, why not both (#settleForBoth)?

This is a form of the question facing Wikimedia Commons, a community whose purpose is tied to that of the Wikipedia Foundation's to encourage the, “growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual, educational content.”  Specifically Wikimedia Commons’ purpose is as a, “a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to all. It acts as a common repository for all Wikimedia projects, but the content can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose.”  It’s scope is defined with the restriction relevant to this discussion defined as, “Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative."

Purpose & Goals: Art's educational value as applied to the removal of "self made artwork without obvious educational value."

I’d like to make an argument for an expanded view of art’s educational value with the hope of having this view formally adopted by the community particularly as applied to the current practice of removing, "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills.”  

I make this argument in part because I have had my own images, most of them paintings, removed for this reason.  But the relevant context is much larger.  In making this argument I touch upon the purpose of art, art as knowledge, the relationship of art to language and art’s unique role in education while questioning the de facto supremacy of photography as truth’s and education’s medium of choice.  I also argue that this preference for photographic form perpetuates the internet’s product-focused content through which the internet’s great educational and creative potential is increasingly confined to a shopping mall.

Art & Knowledge Gaps

The question is whether or not my paintings, and others like them, constitute what Wikimedia Commons refers to as “obvious educational use.” The community's current interpretation of “obvious education use” is limited by a preference for text and photography that leads to a less diverse and therefore less complete set of contributors and contributions.  Especially as Wikipedia investigates the demographics of its contributors, one purpose of this writing is to make more obvious the educational use of art and its role in the Wikimedia Commons’s mission.

Artwork Marked For Removal as "non-educational."

On June 16th, 2017 53 of my images were marked for deletion off Wikimedia Commons as, “Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills.”

The cultural/educational vs the commercial internet

If not to “showcase [my] skills” why was I putting these paintings on Wikimedia Commons? Compared to Google and Facebook, Wikimedia Commons does a decent job of reflecting the diverse and complex world in which we live.  For example, within Google “girl” means a sexualized woman but on Wikimedia the definition is more accurately reflected.  Search engines are getting much more content from sites that are trying to sell us something than sites that are trying to teach us something.

Companies Over Communities, Products Over People and Commerce Over Culture

Within search engines Amazon is more relevantly a company than a river. Cherokee more relevantly a car before a tribe of people. An internet made for discovery within Google will favor companies over communities, products over people and commerce over culture.  As more of the internet flows through Google and more content creators are incentivized to become relevant, companies with large search engine optimization resources outpace the ability of non-commercial concerns to surface. The results remind us to question: What makes up the internet, where does it comes from, who makes it and what are their motivations? Who is favored? Left out? Ignored?

Wikimedia Commons & Search Engine Optimization

Images on Wikimedia Commons are correctly structured for search engines in a user-friendly way and therefore have strong presence within search results.  This means Wikimedia Commons is playing an important role in the non-commercial internet through its ability to make content competitive within search engines.  This is especially important now as Wikimedia Commons is involved not just in the education of people but of machines.

Language & Images

If you feed enough photos of a platypus into a machine learning system it can learn to identify a platypus. It is one thing when you are discussing a word for which a definition is binary, something that either is or is not a platypus.  But what about man? Woman? House vs Home?  When conducting an image search when do you stop getting "yellow" and start seeing "orange", or stop defining as "black" and start saying "white", or "rich" and "poor", "beautiful” and “ugly?”

#accordingToTheInternet: human

When you search for “human” within images.google and see mostly white men, you can’t say that Google is technically wrong, these images are of humans. This visual mapping of every word to a set of most relevant images is something old encyclopedias never would have attempted in part because the complexity of many words is failed by visual definition.

Through machine learning and artificial intelligence search engines like Google are learning to identify who is and is not a human based on the current, widely non-diverse data set of online content. Any holes and bias that exist within language are getting automated through machine education into how the world is being defined. Putting content on Wikipedia Commons is potentially one of the most powerful ways to get diverse, complex and minority perspective into these definitions.

Photography & "Truth"

We need to encourage and allow much more diverse set of images on high-value content sites such as Wikimedia Commons to aid in the education of machines, but why not just more photography? What is it about the presence of art-images, especially in non-photographic mediums, that makes them uniquely valuable in the education both of people and machines?

Search Engine Art: Internet Imperialism

My research has so far led me to conclude that one important approach is to add non-commercial, non-product images online that are structured in a way pleasing to search engines. Part of this initiative involves my method of Internet Imperialism where I create paintings about targeted keywords and then spread these images online with the express goal of modifying universally returned search results.  For example,  when you search “malignant epithelial ovarian cancer” Google now returns my paintings as top results.  

Painting & Perspective

It is not that within themselves my paintings contain the sole and correct definitions but that the painting medium, as compared to photography, is a great reminder of bias and perspective.  The potential for a diverse and complex interpretation is high. When we, and maybe so with machines, see a painting, and especially a painting within a search engine, we remember more easily that this images is one person’s perspective, not some techno-endorsed truth.  

By preferencing photography over other mediums such as painting and drawing we are drastically over estimating its relationship to truth. Photography too is a form of art through which conscious and unconscious bias are presented. Manipulating photographs is common and easy.  Computer generated graphics and photo realistic painting blur the confining lines of the medium.  Even medical diagrams often convey deeply seeded beliefs in their attempts at impartial truth.  

Art & Education

This is to say that my purpose for putting these removed paintings on Wikimedia Commons was not to, “showcase [my] skills.”  My purpose was educational.  Having these paintings on Wikimedia Commons allowed me to aid in the education of search engine algorithms, contributing some of the human complexity they are missing in their current product-focused training set.  They also contribute to the education of Wikimedia Commons’ and search engine’s end users.

Art constitutes a unique form of knowledge that often conveys its information through the productive introduction of uncertainty instead of the firming of facts.  When we look at a painting one of the important and often unconscious transmissions that occurs is that the way the world is seen and understood is subject to personal interpretation.  Through art we receive a jarring and expanding awareness of otherness.  Through art we can make machines less sure that they have a complete handle on what it means, and looks like, to be human.  Art can do the same thing for us humans.

Art is educational, outside of it’s contextualization by experts, in large part because through great art we gain a way of seeing the world that is not our own, that which by definition we could not have understood through our own direct experience. Art is the gift of experiences that we ourselves could not have had directly. Through “Starry Night” we get to know the world as Van Gogh knew it, and in that experience we are extended beyond the constraints of our own way of looking and by extension, understanding.

Subject vs Object & "better than words"

In the same way, Edvard Munch created paintings inspired by personal anxiety that we ourselves did not have to suffer, and in doing so he allowed us to feel, if only obliquely, what he experienced.  For examples like this, some in the Wikimedia Common’s community have argued for keeping images on a “better than words” basis.  

In Art this is the difference between a work’s objects and its subjects. In Munch’s The Scream we see a distorted human figure on a bridge, the objects, but read the subject to be anxiety or fear.  In another example, a painting of an apple (the object) may be about temptation (the subject).  Much of art’s educational value is in what it is about, in its subjects.  My images that were taken off of Wikimedia Commons were paintings about my hometown of Bow New Hampshire, what it was like to grow up there and return as an adult.  These images replaced and live among the top results on Google that were once dominated by for-sale real estate.  

The Difference Between "Of" and "About"

By allowing only images “of” instead of images “about” words on Wikimedia Commons we limit everything to its lowest common denominator and apply a lens that is fraught with bias on what the essence of something truly is.  When community deals with abstractions, such as emotions, artwork is highly present is submissions acceptable by the community.  This is likely because “sadness” has no image equalicant of “home.” But can not home be both a subject and an object? Isn’t home as a concept complexly related to cultural expectations and feelings? I believe this is an important place for art.  It says, “to the artist, this is a home” instead of, “this is what home is.”  This is central to art’s educational value.  

What is knowledge and how is it conveyed and by whom?

Ultimately to accept artworks more broadly on Wikimedia Commons is to more deeply consider what is knowledge and how is it conveyed. I believe that art, even poorly skilled attempts at art, tell us something essential about the uncertainty and complexity of things, the variety of ways the world can be seen and understood.

I think there is great complexity and diversity to be gained by the inclusion and encouragement of art within Wikimedia Commons. Especially as we consider its unique presence in the training sets being used by search engines in machine learning. & like with the books to rebuild civilization, why not #settleForBoth and consider these contributions, "useless by harmless." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretchenandrew (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Open for discussion. This is important. What do you think?

See updated summary below

Considering art's unique role in education, how do we make space for paintings, drawings, non-photographic interpretations of what words mean within wikimedia? One suggestion would be to remove “Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills” as an example of something that is not in scope and allow artwork to be removed on other grounds.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretchenandrew (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Gretchenandrew (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)gretchenandrew

Initial debate
  • I think TL;DR. It may or may not be a good proposal, but it's hard to understand with all of that text. Any chance you could shorten it by 99%? --GRuban (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • would Takeaway who orignally marked my paintings for removal comment? --GretchenAndrew(talk)
  • Would this basically change the scope to be all freely-licensed files, since everything can be considered "art"? Can Commons users even change the scope of the project significantly, or is it set by the Wikimedia Foundation? --ghouston (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Right. I think we get enough drive-by narcissists dumping their low-quality selfies in Category:Art as it is. No need to legitimise that. So  that's a no from me. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Hello --ghouston & LX, I understand your point. It seems that we might discuss and potentially agree on something that would be better executed by a different change. I do not believe that images should be removed BECAUSE they are art, or that images should be removed because they are not photographs or diagrams. Considering art's unique role in education, how do we make space for paintings, drawings, non-photographic interpretations of what words mean within wikimedia? Gretchenandrew (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello --ghouston & LX, In retrospect it may not be so much that "everything can be considered art" but whether art or not mediums other than photography & diagrams have a role in education. The argument is that photography does not have a monopoly on defining what something is and that drawing and painting may better convey / document. We don't even really need to decide if we think it is art or not. This addresses your self example you are concerned about. I drawing of depression may not be categorized as "art" but should be allowed. What do you think? Gretchenandrew (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think we need to change the current definition of scope. IMO, art reproductions by non notable artists are in scope if 1. the reproduction is of high quality, 2. if the reproduction can be used to show a specific technic or style. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Hi Yann, what about the educational role of art in portraying non-object concepts like emotions? Could art by non notable artists be possibly useful in expanding under represented world views? My experience is that notable artist come heavily from certain demographics and often become notable by making art that appeals to a problematically non-diverse world view concentrated in hands of very few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretchenandrew (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Gretchenandrew (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Gretchenandrew: For which under represented world views, techniques, or styles would you want to make the playing field more level?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I find the dead/famous use very restrictive because of the structures through which artists become famous being heavily western and male. Consider how relatively few images of nude women in art were made by women. By allowing only dead/famous artists into this visual definition we get a very constrained, limited, non diverse view of what a woman looks like. Gretchenandrew (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Gretchenandrew: Yes, but the representations have to be of good quality. BTW, this is already covered in our scope: we don't need to change our scope to upload images like this or this. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: I disagree because images like your example are sometimes removed. The presence of images that have not been removed is a solid argument to show the inconstant application of the interruption. I think making this clearer would benefit the community. Do we or do we not allow images by non-famous artists? Gretchenandrew (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Gretchenandrew: AFAIK, all images by non notable artists were deleted either because of copyright issues, or bad quality. If you have a different case, please bring it up here, or on COM:UDR. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Thank you for pointing out how to address images that were removed for reasons other than, "copyright issues or bad quality." But if, as you state, these are the reason to remove images from non notable artists why is this an explicit part of the Wikimedia's not in scope: Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills? I think we may agree! That art is removed for reasons other than the fact that it is art. But when my images have been removed they have been removed and flagged as, "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills." What value, in your opinion, does this add on top of the existing image quality and copyright qualifications? Gretchenandrew (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Could this whole proposal be shortened to the words Gretchen used above: "Considering art's unique role in education, how do we make space for paintings, drawings, non-photographic interpretations of what words mean within wikimedia?"

@Colin: I really like this. My original post was much longer because I wanted to make it clear the variety of ways and motivations from which I had considered the issue. But I am adding this at the top as an executive summary. Thank you for pulling it out! Gretchenandrew (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Gretchen is right that amateur photographic art is more acceptable on Commons than painting. For example: Category:Intentional camera movement. For myself, I think File:Bluebells ICM, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpg represents an old woodland in spring, for British observers at least. A more conventional photograph File:Pryor's Wood Bluebells 2017-04-26-4.jpg has its own qualities, and certainly from the reviews at Featured Pictures, many Commoners thought the latter had more educational value. But the latter image is not representative; it simply is. And that can limit its use if in fact one just wants to convey emotions and memories of old woodland in spring. One might want to do this though art for art's sake, but also to accompany another work, whether fiction or non-fiction. High quality published writring is often accompanied with high quality images, whether photographic or painting, whether realistic or representative. It could be argued that Commons goal of being an educational media repository includes images that convey concepts, words, emotions, memories, etc, and not just provide an illustration of a particular species of bird or the facade of a historic building.

@Colin: I agree. I believe that Common’s educational goals extend beyond the direct illustration of words. If it did not there would be many images that need to be removed. Considering it’s prominence in the visual internet, to not consider this in scope would be the seed creative and educational control of these issues to commercial interests. There is a defensive use of art in education. Gretchenandrew (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

But where to draw a line? An artist might create almost anything in their "interpretations of what words mean". One only has to visit a modern art gallery, and read some of the curator guff written on a card next to works of art. A large sheet of grey card means XYZ. Another vague arrangement of tones, with a torn corner means ABC. "If you say so". Does any art become educational because the artist, a curator, or some random observer claims it means, represents or describes a word or concept?

The Wikipedia article on Major depressive disorder is illustrated by several artworks created by famous artists, which we can only use because they are no longer under copyright. The Wikipedia article on The Shard is illustrated by a photograph created by a non-famous photographer and is under copyright, though freely licenced. Why can an amateur Commoner create an illustration for the latter with a camera, but an amatuer Commoner cannot create an illustration for the former with a paint brush. One problem perhaps is that the attibutes that make a photograph high quality for use in an article are relatively easy to determine. Is the exposure good, focus sharp, is it very detailed, does it capture the whole subject, is the camera level, are there few distracting elements, etc, etc. But how to determine what a high quality image on "depression" is? Our restriction to only famous works by dead artists, make the choice easier but sometimes is too restrictive, or the images available are unnacceptable to modern sensibilities. The article on Epilepsy, if published by a commercial publisher, would certainly include artwork representing overactive brain stimulation or neurons firing excessively, but we have none. Perhaps if the artwork is high quaity enough and has an obvious meaning or representation, it would pass our current restriction on "realistically useful for an educational purpose". -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @Colin: Though to some extend I have made the argument, I am not arguing that artwork should NEVER be removed. At the heart of this I am arguing that “Artwork” should not be called out as a reason for removal. Could we just remove artworks that also fail to meet some other aspect of scope? For example, remove artwork just as we remove photography that is not educational useful. If artwork were to be de facto accepted, as is photography, the contributor still has the opportunity to contest a removal, documenting and sharing the maybe non-obvious reasons why the artwork is tagged with certain words as themes/ subjects. Current scope language has the effect of discouraging the addition of artwork. As pointed out, this is inconsistently applied but definitely used to remove images BECAUSE they are not photographs. This suggestion would mean removing “Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills” as an example of something that is not in scope. Gretchenandrew (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we should remove "self made artwork without obvious educational value" from our policies, but more add something like "self made artwork without obvious educational value, without illustrative interest, or without any visual qualities". Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think "without any visual qualities" is useful because all visual art has visual qualities, and qualities can be both good and bad. I'm not clear on what "without illustrative interest" means if it isn't illustrating for educational purpose (e.g. a diagram of how a cell works), which would pass already. I think the simplest solution would be to stop applying a stricter rule "obvious educational value" to self-made artwork vs self-made photographs beyond the policy scope of "realistically useful for an educational purpose". The former implies such clear educational value that surely nobody would disagree and thus even sending the file to DR implies it is not obvious to at least one person. The latter implies a consensus opinion where people can argue how realistic the chances of educational use is. I appreciate some of the latter arguments can be ridiculously lame (I have seen people argue that a snapshot of a person with white skin, brown eyes and brown hair is educationally useful for an article on white skin, brown eyes or brown hair, and go about aggressively adding a stupid number of such categories to the image to prove their point). There also needs to be an awareness among deleting admins that Commons does not exist simply to illustrate Wikipedia, and that artwork (photographic, painting, drawing, computer generated) need not be a direct illustration of some notable noun, but may be educationally useful if illustrating a mood, emotion, memory, concepts, arguments, beliefs, etc. We can have contemporary art illustrating sadness, joy, childhood, equality, environmentalism, holiness, love, etc, etc. -- Colin (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Webcartoonist's depiction of his own nervous breakdown
@Colin: I agree, we should probably strike the "obvious". I think the image on the right is an excellent example of contemporary artwork by a non-famous artist being able to convey things no photograph ever could. I'd like to see much more of this on Commons, but I'd also like to make very clear that Commons is not DeviantArt. --El Grafo (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: , @El Grafo: Looking at what makes Wikimedia Commons different from deviantArt is a good place to start. To me, it is content be added with the intention and potential for educational use that makes Wikimedia different. I believe art has a role in this. The contributor applies educational use potential not just by adding an image to the other images online, but in applying labels, words, categories, meta data that allow it to become educationally useful. As long as this step is done properly by the contributor, the image is not restricted in its copyright, and the photographic image is of high quality, as well as meeting all other standards applied to images on wikimedia why do we care if it is a a painting or drawing by a non notable artist? Given this, what do you think we should do with, "“Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills.” Gretchenandrew (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Yes, these paintings are a good case in point. The paintings are themselves of bad quality (i.e. File:"Parlament Català".jpg), and the photos are not very good either. We can certainly have this kind of artwork if it is done properly: photographed with good lighting and a DSLR, of high resolution (12 Mpixels), etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Pinging @Dvdgmz: you might have some more thoughts on this discussion based on WikiArS...I recall that project had some similar experiences with drawings being deleted or considered lower-quality just because they were not photos, but I'm not sure whether you think that's a result of the policy or people's bias in interpreting policy. What Commons considers "educational" definitely feels like a somewhat murky judgement call to me at the moment. Some contributors persist in gathering hundreds of freely licensed images of naked women in specific poses - e.g. Category:Nude or partially nude women facing right - and I'm still not sure why those should be considered inherently more educational than drawings of people, things, or concepts that we have 0 photos for! Seeeko (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
This point of @Seeeko: 's is central. Why are we considering drawings and paintings to be artwork, and not photography, and applying a different standard or application of what is educational to these mediums? Those opposing the removal of, "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills," I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this! Gretchenandrew (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment the Scope of Wikimedia Commons is as vague as it can get, for example File:Sikh man, Agra 10.jpg is a featured picture 📷 (and rightfully so, I might add), but if this same image was uploaded with "Abeer Hassankhan posing in front of a camera" thus file would've been deleted as being "out of scope", I think that there should be a more general discussion about Commons:Scope to address these double standards and idiosyncracies. I believe that pictures with educational value should be permitted but what constitutes "educational value" is often left to the whim of the closing admin which is why almost all "pornographic" images get deleted by default even if they are fully within scope. Art is no different, sure Wikimedia Commons can be used as a medium for self-promotion for new artists but the same can be said about "amateur photographers". --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Donald Trung: Hello - what is the best way to, as you suggested, have a more general discussion about scope's idiosyncrasies? To me, with medium, it is an easy win to remove "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills" maybe instead adding, "Images uploaded for self promotion." Gretchenandrew (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ruthven: Great point. Thank you for bringing to my attention. Can we remove "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills" on the grounds that all artwork that should be removed within this category can be removed for another reason? Gretchenandrew (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
      They are redundant, but I think that's better recall that Common's is not a free hosting website (for art, but also for all the rest). --Ruthven (msg) 16:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposal. As already said, anything can be considered "art" and we would have to keep everything on that ground. There is plenty of famous "in scope" artwork that suit our purposes. Moreover, the proposal is made by a user who has an ulterior motive: to influence the discussion of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gretchenandrew. Not sure why he is going through such extent trying to publish on Commons when there are numerous other sites for that. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support. I think this proposal has merit, though it needs to be focused a little more.
The policy being discussed comes from here: COM:EDUSE and COM:NOTUSED, where "educational" is very broadly defined there as
"providing knowledge; instructional or informative".
With this definition in mind, the example given further down the page
"artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills"
should be softened a little bit more as per the comments above from Colin (talk · contribs), El Grafo (talk · contribs), Christian Ferrer (talk · contribs), Donald Trung (talk · contribs), and Ruthven (talk · contribs) to something like
"artwork without realistically useful educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills"
or even
"artwork without educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills".
I think the "obvious" part of that example becomes too high of a standard for non-traditional media that is not photography.
I think this starts to get controversial because, in theory, any seriously considered artwork, regardless of the subjective opinion of the artists' skills, could then be argued to be kept as long as there was a reasonable instructional or informative educational rational for the artwork in question. It is important to recognize (and properly justify) that by proposing this change, some editors think it is a fairly radical change to Commons policy compared to how most people have interpreted the policy historically. I think the concern is the change could lead to a large increase in the number of images hosted on the Commons, but I don't think that concern is a fair reason to dismiss this proposed change. I think it is important to emphasize that all other policies would still need to be followed for these potential new images, including COM:ADVERT. Beyond the reasonable educational explanation, each image would need to be appropriately categorized according to that explanation and otherwise presented and described properly.
Unfortunately, I'm not very active on the Wikimedia Commons, and so I'm not able to point to any other specific policies or guidelines that support this view. But based on this rationale, I think the example should be changed to better reflect the potential educational value of non-photographic images when explained appropriately. ~ PaulC/T+ 15:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

NEW SUMMARY OF DEBATE ART & WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

Art is an underrepresented knowledge form that has an important role in the education of people and intelligent machines. Its systematic disclusion and deletion from Wikimedia Commons, both as a matter of official scope and dramatically different interpretations of official scope, perpetuates knowledge gaps that serve to limit the usefulness, diversity, and impact of Wikimedia. Mainly for this reason I believe we should remove “Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills” from OUT OF SCOPE.

Those that oppose this change have argued that:

Such a change would legitimize, “low-quality selfies in Category:Art.”@LX:
Not true. Low quality selfies could still be removed for “bad quality” or as “Private image collections.”
Wikimedia is not a Deviant Art like site and should not become one. @El Grafo:
REPLY “I think the concern is the change could lead to a large increase in the number of images hosted on the Commons, but I don't think that concern is a fair reason to dismiss this proposed change. I think it is important to emphasize that all other policies would still need to be followed for these potential new images, including COM:ADVERT. Beyond the reasonable educational explanation, each image would need to be appropriately categorized according to that explanation and otherwise presented and described properly.” @Psantora:
Anything can be considered art! @Ghouston:
While this is true it is not relevant. I am not suggesting that we keep files just because someone calls them art but that we not delete files because they are in a non-photographic medium, particularly when they address a subject in a non-immediately illustrative way such as when emotions/ mental illness are portrayed via paintings. This debate is not about what is and is not art, and who does and does not get to decide. This is not about allowing anyone’s and all drawings being uploaded and tagged as “art” but about drawings/paintings being tagged with their subject.
Images are not removed for this reasons, @Yann:
Not true. The debate on my recently uploaded images show this is not true.

Those that see the current status as an issue have argued that:

“There also needs to be an awareness among deleting admins that Commons does not exist simply to illustrate Wikipedia, and that artwork (photographic, painting, drawing, computer generated) need not be a direct illustration of some notable noun, but may be educationally useful if illustrating a mood, emotion, memory, concepts, arguments, beliefs, etc. We can have contemporary art illustrating sadness, joy, childhood, equality, environmentalism, holiness, love, etc, etc.” @Colin:
Category:Nude or partially nude women facing right - and I'm still not sure why those should be considered inherently more educational than drawings of people, things, or concepts that we have 0 photos for! @Seeeko:
I believe that pictures with educational value should be permitted but what constitutes "educational value" is often left to the whim of the closing admin which is why almost all "pornographic" images get deleted by default even if they are fully within scope. Art is no different, sure Wikimedia Commons can be used as a medium for self-promotion for new artists but the same can be said about "amateur photographers" @Donald Trung:
I think the "obvious" part of that example becomes too high of a standard for non-traditional media that is not photography. @Psantora:

Gretchenandrew (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Updated summary of Gretchen's proposal:

  • Thanks for the summary, Gretchen. This hopefully will make it easier for others to comment. An even more concise summary, if I may:
    Proposal: Remove Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills from the second example given under the header Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: in COM:NOTUSED.
    Rationale (as described by @Gretchenandrew): Art is an underrepresented knowledge form that has an important role in the education of people and intelligent machines. Its systematic exclusion and deletion from Wikimedia Commons, both as a matter of official scope/policy and dramatically different interpretations of official scope/policy, perpetuates knowledge gaps that serve to limit the usefulness, diversity, and impact of Wikimedia.
    Arguments against (with rebuttals):
    • Paraphrased from @LX: Such a change would legitimize, “low-quality selfies in Category:Art.”
      Rebuttal from @Gretchenandrew: Low quality selfies could still be removed for “bad quality” or as “Private image collections”.
    • From @El Grafo: Wikimedia is not a Deviant Art like site and should not become one.
      Rebuttal from @Psantora (me): I don't think that concern is a fair reason to dismiss this proposed change. I think it is important to emphasize that all other policies would still need to be followed for these potential new images, including COM:ADVERT. Beyond the reasonable educational explanation, each image would need to be appropriately categorized according to that explanation and otherwise presented and described properly.
    • From @Ghouston: Anything can be considered art!
      Rebuttal from @Gretchenandrew: While this is true it is not relevant. I am not suggesting that we keep files just because someone calls them art but that we not delete files because they are in a non-photographic medium, particularly when they address a subject in a non-immediately illustrative way such as when emotions/mental illness are portrayed via paintings. This debate is not about what is and is not art, and who does and does not get to decide. This is not about allowing anyone’s and all drawings being uploaded and tagged as “art” but about drawings/paintings being tagged with their subject.
    • Paraphrased from @Yann: Images are not removed for this reason.
      Rebuttal from @Gretchenandrew: The debate on my recently uploaded images show this is not true.
    Arguments in favor:
    • From @Colin: Commons does not exist simply to illustrate Wikipedia, and that artwork (photographic, painting, drawing, computer generated) need not be a direct illustration of some notable noun, but may be educationally useful if illustrating a mood, emotion, memory, concepts, arguments, beliefs, etc.
    • From @Seeeko: I'm still not sure why those [Category:Nude or partially nude women facing right] should be considered inherently more educational than drawings of people, things, or concepts that we have 0 photos for!
    • From @Donald Trung: I believe that pictures with educational value should be permitted but what constitutes "educational value" is often left to the whim of the closing admin which is why almost all "pornographic" images get deleted by default even if they are fully within scope. Art is no different, sure Wikimedia Commons can be used as a medium for self-promotion for new artists but the same can be said about "amateur photographers"
    • From @Psantora (me): I think the "obvious" part of that example becomes too high of a standard for non-traditional media that is not photography.
  •  Oppose Wikimedia Commons is not for private/out of scope. I oppose the proposal. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

End of summary

  • The way I'm reading this, there is too much variation and unfair judgement for what is determined to have an "obvious educational use" and it is used as a catch-all for practically any file to be deleted. In general, this is more obvious with files that are not photographic images. As a result, non-photographic images (and art in particular) are more likely to be casually deleted without any real debate or discussion as to their merit on Wikimedia. Amending policy by removing or softening Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills will force these discussions to have more substantial arguments for why these underrepresented images should be removed from the project. It is also important to again emphasize that this does not mean that Wikimedia will turn into Deviant Art or an image host. All other policies and rules regarding content would still need to be followed, it just would require an actual argument as to why a questionable file doesn't belong beyond just relying on the crutch of it needing to have "obvious educational use".
  • In addition, I contend the example in question does not actually support the policy it is supposed to represent. The policy as currently written is Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and "educational" is defined according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". There is nothing about the use being obvious.
  • Given these points and the argument summarized above, I think it is reasonable to change the example Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills to something that does not include obvious or even remove the example entirely. Here are some options:
    My suggestion (1):
    1. Remove the example entirely.
      Suggestion (2) from @Colin:
    2. Artwork without realistically useful educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills.
      Suggestion (3) from @El Grafo:
    3. Artwork without educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills.
      Suggestion (4) from @Christian Ferrer:
    4. Self made artwork without obvious educational value, without illustrative interest, or without any visual qualities, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills.
  • I think any of the above changes would benefit the project, though I would prefer one without "obvious" in it. ~ PaulC/T+ 16:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per all the opposes above. Also, to be in scope, a file has to be realistically useful in another WMF project. Where would such files be realistically useful?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Without weighing in on any other issue here, @Jeff G.: I believe you are wrong at that. While use in another WMF project is sufficient for a file to be in scope, even the potential for such use is by no means necessary. For example, we're more than glad to have thorough photo documentation of the public activities of a member of a national legislative body, even though typically only a fraction of those have any potential for reuse on another WMF project. - Jmabel ! talk 04:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jmabel: Wikipedia has articles on such bodies, their members, their legislation, and their indiscretions. There is no such use case for the OP's works (and the works of others similarly situated), I'm afraid.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    • To be clear, while this proposal was raised by Gretchenandrew, it is not about their "works". It is about correcting ambiguous and inconsistently applied policy. Whether Gretchen's work would qualify is a completely separate discussion. Striking "obvious" from the example wouldn't then mean that anyone could upload anything for any reason. All other guidelines would still need to apply, including "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose", as you noted. A very generous reading of your comment could be seen as being in support of option 2 above: Change "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills." to "Artwork without realistically useful educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills." ~ PaulC/T+ 05:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support El Grafo’s variant. The word “obvious” obviously prompts deletionist trolling. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support El Grafo’s variant. Clarification: Support language such as "Artwork without realistically useful educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills." Commons shouldn't be a Deviant Art type repository for artwork with no credible purpose, however the word "obvious" is clearly incorrect. Content is in-scope if there is a legitimate and credible in-scope purpose for re-use, even if that purpose was not immediately obvious. When content is challenged as out-of-scope, a credible rationale is required for how the content is in-scope. Non-notable artwork by a non-notable artist does not, in itself, have any credible purpose for re-use. I'd also like to note that diversity and topic-coverage is relevant. For example the content in Child art is clearly valuable, however there is diminishing value in each additional drawing. In particular, there is approximately value in retaining multiple drawings by the same child. Alsee (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question Sorry, still not clear. Can proponents of the change give an example of a file that would be allowed with their change that is not allowed now? --GRuban (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    • My understanding is that the arguments for deleting these files are too general. I don't have any specific examples, but I'm sure others that are more familiar with image deletion on Commons can bring some up. I'm hesitant to point to anything uploaded by Gretchenandrew, since that would cloud the debate further. My point is that all other policies would still apply, so why not remove the ambiguous and contentious example if it isn't necessary? ~ PaulT+/C 02:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • After thinking about this, I don't see the problem with the word "obvious". In fact, this makes the example more restrictive, meaning artwork can only be proposed for deletion if its lack of educational use is obvious (e.g. a personal doodle). By removing this word, any artwork lacking educational use can only be proposed for deletion, not just the obvious ones. So the problem is not the word "obvious" but the subjective term "educational use". We likely can never agree on what is educational or not, so it is better to discuss this on a case-by-case basis. For this reason, I  Oppose any change. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Well said, the current wording allows a human decision on a case-by-case basis, and that's fine. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Here is the full text of the example in question: Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills. The key here is "not realistically useful". The word "obvious" makes the example more expansive. That is, it purports that the file should be deleted if it isn't obviously educational. The actual policy states the opposite: The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". There is nothing about the use being obvious. It is a little confusing because of the negative, but that is exactly the point. The example is a poor one and I think it should be removed. ~ PaulT+/C 02:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I see why you would read it that way. But even if we remove the word "obvious" (or rewrite it to "obvious artwork without educational use" - the way I read it), it won't change anything. Educational use would still need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis... --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how your rewrite is any better, P199. The word "obvious" is not part of the policy, but "educational" is. Since "obvious" is not policy it should be removed from the examples. It is not any different from having a policy that states "only colorful flowers are allowed" with an example that states "flowers must have obvious color" and then people argue if a flower with shades of light-blue/grey "has obvious color" and since it is not obvious it is therefore against policy and should be deleted. Technically light-blue/grey is a color and the flower is therefore colorful, it just isn't obvious.
People by nature will use the easier to cite (and more restrictive) example instead of the policy, defeating the whole purpose of the broad policy in the first place. In this area the policy is intentionally broad, as stated directly in the explanation of the policy: The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". There is nothing about how obvious the providing of knowledge needs to be, just that it is being provided. Having said that, "realistically useful" is part of the policy. This is not the same as obvious. Lots of things can be realistic but not obvious. (Sadly, I'm currently too tired to find a way to extend my colorful flower analogy to cover this distinction as well.) ~ PaulT+/C 04:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not see why an unknown (and potentially bad) artist should have his place here; at least this is what I read in the sentence "…including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills." If it's Picasso, fine, but if it's the husband of my cousin, I'd rather not have his artworks here. --Ruthven (msg) 20:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't see an argument based in policy. How well known a creator is doesn't really matter as long as the file has an educational use and is allowed under other policies (see also child art). ~ PaulT+/C 02:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Happy that is has been pointed out, and I echo, that the debate about whether or not my particular paintings are educationally useful is a separate, though related, conversation. Removing "obvious" would be an "obvious" first step. Unresolved would be the preference for photography, subject vs object, and the connection to the education of intelligent machines. Maybe another way of raising that would be to say that not all painted images are "art." But I very much support the taking of a first step and removing "obvious." Gretchenandrew (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
With an interest in bringing this discussion to consider again an more abstract example of why non-photographic mediums have educational value, I am adding 15 new images for the word Ubuntu which is an operating system but also roughly means:

Ubuntu (Zulu pronunciation: [ùɓúntʼù])[1][2] is a Nguni Bantu term meaning "humanity". It is often translated as "I am because we are," and also "humanity towards others", but is often used in a more philosophical sense to mean "the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity".[3]

It is a strong word to show how photography will fail us. It is an important concept that wikimeida currently can only accept in its commercial, product form. It also happens to be the theme for Wikimania 2018 and therefore a good philososphy over which to debate the question: what images should be accepted as relating to this word? In this process, does anyone know how to change the title of this page from "ubutu" to "Ubuntu Operating System"? See discussion on this page started in 2006 OR how to add Ubuntu philosophy to this page? What's the best move? You can see the images over which I want to discuss re: ubuntu in its category: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ubuntu 

Gretchenandrew (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/01&oldid=357204983"