Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/04

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

Treat all logos like US logos

This goes directly against policy (files must be free in the US and the home country), but this is largely already the practice here and enforced in an incredibly inconsistent manner. Somewhere between creating Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naft Novin Tehran.png and today I learned about Commons:Threshold of originality#Iran. Today that file popped up on my watchlist again and the result was that Ruthven changed the license to PD-textlogo. That's fine with me, but completely nonsense if Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo FC Schönberg 95 (2001-2002).gif ends up being deleted. I am giving only two examples here but this happens all the time.

Putting a warning on all logos that TOO varies wildly by country is fine with me, but currently half of the admins are enforcing a nonexistent policy. (which I hereby propose to turn into actual policy) - Alexis Jazz 16:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose As you just wrote yourself, "TOO varies wildly by country", so we can't just assume that all logos can be treated by US standards. If we were at Wikipedia, I'd say that this proposal and your responses at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo FC Schönberg 95 (2001-2002).gif look a like a case of IDONTLIKEIT. Judging what passes the TOO in one specific country is a complicated business and may even vary from time to time as local legislation or jurisdiction changes. So there is no point in comparing TOO-related cases of different countries. De728631 (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: Proposal withdrawn. The kind of judgemental response like De728631 has provided here as an administrator, bordering on a personal attack, says enough. - Alexis Jazz 21:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: - Alexis Jazz 21:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Add alamy.com to spam blacklist

Add alamy.com to spam blacklist so nobody can speedy delete images with a link to Alamy. Okay that may be too much. Please see new suggestion below. - Alexis Jazz 02:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Any issues with these sites does not discount the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of actually copyrighted images on them. Something that would require a link to. The spam blacklist is an extremely blunt tool for something that requires a more surgical strike. --Majora (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Fair point, but I don't think there is any way to blacklist a domain from being used for speedy deletions? - Alexis Jazz 08:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose as per above. Also it doesn't solve anything and goes against the purpose of the spam blacklist. Bidgee (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, the proposal is extremely poorly considered. An abuse filter against deletion requests linked to alamy.com may be discussed, but setting a spam filter would, as was noticed above, go against the purpose of that tool. It would interfere with future reports about attribution problems on Alamy which may escalate well beyond attempts to sell public-domain pictures, a marginally legal busyness yet. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: my idea was a bit more to do this as a stop-gap solution until we can find a better way to handle this, but I now agree it's too much. I will make a new suggestion below Jeff G. - Alexis Jazz 12:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz, please remove the profanity, thanks. Artix Kreiger (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
If it bothers you, you are free to create your own essay, copy mine and remove everything you don't like. There is also Commons:Deleting images based on stock photo sites as an alternative. - Alexis Jazz 12:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

New suggestion to achieve the same goal: whenever somebody starts a speedy delete with Alamy link, have a bot converting that instantly into a normal DR and add a comment about Alamy. When a normal DR is started with an Alamy link, let the bot automatically add a comment about Alamy. - Alexis Jazz 12:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The main shortcoming of the bot proposal is that known wiki bots are not real-time. Should Commons develop a new software solution for a problem of very localized significance? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
A manual template text can do the same thing, plus it's easy to search for all open DRs with mentions of the site. However Alamy is not the only mindless aggregator guilty of making money from constructive deliberate copyfraud.
A WMF funded project to engineer a group lawsuit to sue for damages, for a failure to give legal attribution, would be a more politically effective step. --Fæ (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: What kind of template could ever stop anyone from adding {{copyvio|https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-alice-in-wonderland1-jose-de-creeft-166890602.html}} to File:Alice in Wonderland1-Jose de Creeft.jpg? Or do we have to add some template to millions of images that Alamy took from Commons? - Alexis Jazz 17:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: we can modify {{Copyvio}} using Module:String#find. It can refuse to work when the argument matches a blacklisted pattern. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: And I assume the same could be done with other speedy templates (speedy, no permission, etc)? That sounds okay. And the regular deletion template would automatically have to insert a warning that Alamy can't be trusted blindly. I assume that could be done the same way? I suppose I should create a new proposal for that, or if you can perhaps you could make a proposal as you can maybe word it better. But if you don't want to or don't have the time I will also be happy to. - Alexis Jazz 17:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
In it, and do not expect that adding this functionality needs much deliberation. Watch {{Copyvio}} for an upcoming edit request, and see {{Sane mind}} for a filter prototype. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This all seems like a solution to a problem we don't really have. I live among the copyvios and deletion nominations, and I see far more nominations referencing Alchetron, Mashpedia, Popflock, Readtiger, Revolvy, Wikivisually, Wikivividly and Wikiwand (and every other stupidly named Wikipedia clone in the universe) where the nominator hasn't realised that they are Wikipedia clones. (Clones that often hotlink the very file on Commons that's nominated for deletion.) Is there any evidence that speedy deletions referencing files from these two dodgy accounts on Alamy is something that happens a lot? Often enough to justify obstructing tagging of actual, unambiguous copyright violations from the same site (of which there are plenty)? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Excellent idea, @Incnis Mrsi: would it be possible to add those wikiclones to the blacklist as well?
@LX: If there is a list of redlinks somewhere (a long list) I could search them. But I could only find something if the deleting admin left a note with Alamy link. At this moment I simply don't even have any usable list of redlinks. - Alexis Jazz 20:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, please, do add this filter. A dozen sites that are known copyright thieves are manageable. Thank you Alexis and Incnis! --GRuban (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If I knew this was happening before today I would have said something. I've responded on template talk:copyvio but I have a lot of issues with this. Primarily the fact that this can all be done with an abuse filter. On the other front, who is going to monitor this new category for the inevitable "lost" images that just sit there because people will tag them and then move on? A change to one of the core templates on the entire projects would need community consensus to implement. --Majora (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Abuse filter says suggestions can be made on the talk page, but the talk page is just a long list of reports and most don't seem to know what they are talking about. I personally wouldn't suggest a new category, but would force speedy (copyvio/no permission/etc) deletions to instead be made as (or get converted to) a regular DR as these cases are never obvious and require some investigation. - Alexis Jazz 22:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Any admin that knows what they are doing can create a new filter. That talk page seems to be for reporting false positives (or at least attempting to report but in reality is just a black hole for things that will never be looked at). Forcing DRs also shouldn't apply to everyone. Admins and license reviewers (people whose sole purpose is examining licenses) should be exempt. Deletion requests is already a wasteland with requests going back months. Force adding a whole bunch more when a good chunk of them are probably actually copyvios seems like a massive waste of time for everyone involved. Which is why we also need statistics. How often is this actually happening? An abuse filter can tell us that via the logging feature. Charging head long into this without examination is the wrong way of going about it in my opinion. --Majora (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: But that is part of the problem. I'd love to tell you how often this happens. And if everyone reporting an image would have done so using a DR instead of a speedy deletion, I could. But the result of speedy deletions is that too often there is no way to tell what happened. If Alamy/Granger/Wikiclone links would automatically be surrounded by a warning when used to request deletion (speedy or otherwise) and that link plus filename is automatically copied to some place that is searchable it would make quite a difference for me. I'm not so sure you should exclude admins from this, if every admin perfectly understood all this and was aware of all copyfraud sites perhaps.. but that's not the case.
The simple fact that I can't tell you how often this happens should be a writing on the wall by itself.
And as for the DRs piling up - we all know why that's happening. But there is very little force that tries to fix it. Sadly it's basically just me and my time is limited. - Alexis Jazz 00:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
And the abuse filter would tell you how often. With a permanent log. Abuse filters can also display warnings. Just like you mentioned. Again. Altering the copyvio template is not the way to go about doing this. --Majora (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
There is also the fact that most copyvio tagging is not done manually but is done with MediaWiki:Gadget-QuickDelete.js. If not the abuse filter route, that should be altered. Not the actual copyvio template. In fact, it would probably be possible to make it so any copyvio tagging done with that gadget defaults to DR. I still believe that we should do an abuse filter though. Again, the rush to alter the copyvio template does not seem very well thought out. There are numerous alternatives to doing that that would be much more effective. --Majora (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Before this discussion I didn't even know about abuse filters. I'm not saying we must alter the copyvio template. I don't really care if this gets realized through an abuse filter, gadget, a template or some other way. So I think we are agreeing with each other. - Alexis Jazz 00:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: both template(s) and gadget(s) should support the blacklist, of course. I can implement it, but not in nearest days because am busy with other tasks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
you are seeking a technical solution to a human problem (misuse of speedy) how about some training and warning of wrongful deletions? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Afaik there is no central place to educate admins and you would also have to somehow introduce that training to every new admin that ever gets appointed. Also all admins interpret the policies in different ways. And Alamy is not alone: every admin would somehow have to memorize all the bad stocksites and wikiclones. @Majora: are you working on the abuse filter, or are other steps needed before that can happen? - Alexis Jazz 13:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It is being worked on, yes. --Majora (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Please can FormWizard be installed on Wikimedia Commons

Hi

I hope this is the correct place to ask, I would very much like to use FormWizard to create proformas for photo essays for the Wiki Loves photo competitions. Photo essays are becoming more popular (e.g Wiki Loves Africa) however they are currently very complex to construct for new editors or take a great deal of time by organisers to make. I think FormWizard would be a very nice way of making this easier to accomplish. It would allow us to create a new page for each photo essay and provide a proforma for the formatting of the page, allowing users to much more easily create the pages themselves.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks like a good idea, let's do this. Might turn out to be useful for other things as well (Photo Challenge, maybe?) --El Grafo (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC) PS: I guess someone calling this "very complex" is a strong sign for the times when Wikitext was considered a super-simple alternative to html & CSS finally being over. I guess I'm getting old.

WebM

Would it be possible to include already-transcoded WebM files as mainspace pages for wikilinking? For example, this 1910 Frankenstein film is only available as OGV in mainspace, but there is a WebM version available at file:Frankenstein (1910) - Full Movie.ogv#Transcode status. The problem with this is that some MediaWiki video extensions (for use outside of Wikimedia) support WebM but not OGV, so that only WebM videos can be wikilinked to. If the transcoded WebM videos can be included as mainspace pages (e.g. file:Frankenstein (1910) - Full Movie.webm), it will allow both video formats for wikilinking. The files already exist, so all they need is associated wikipages. I could manually download the WebM versions and re-upload them to Wikimedia Commons to make wikipages for them, but I am not sure if that is permitted. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nicole Sharp: this would be better suited as a feature request on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/, but it may already be there. - Alexis Jazz 05:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

I'm wondering whether Commons should adopt a guideline comparable to en:Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. We certainly have enough of the sort of problem it was intended to address, particularly for gender. - Jmabel ! talk 15:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Such a guideline would greatly help in case of disagreement. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose without modification. We don’t have the concept of “non-diffusing“ categories here and I, for one, would oppose its introduction—at least not without separate discussion, and COM:OVERCAT would need modification to accommodate it. Users’ wanting to put things in parent-&-child cats is already a fairly common cause of conflict. On that question in general, I think a solution more natural to the way we usually solve the ‘burial problem’ is instead to have (Topic) by (secondary property) cats, which keep the over-categorization at arm’s length.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please write a specific proposal based on past cases on this project. --Fæ (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, here's a draft. Would anyone like to help hammer it into shape? (Since it is my proposal, currently in my user space, I retain the right to revert what I might consider hostile edits, but help with getting it to be a more appropriate proposal for Commons would be greatly appreciated.) - Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Maybe better to live with the mess for a little longer and hope (I think it should) COM:Structured data will solve some of these issues. This proposal would probably lead to less (specific) categorization which might hurt structured data in the long term. - Alexis Jazz 05:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the draft is not helpful since it is based on the english encyclopedia section that is about writing an article. In commons we discuss media, it does not make sense to request reliable sources to use a category since sources are not used in commons. --Neozoon (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Well to comment on "For example, most sportspeople should not be categorized by religion, since being Catholic, Buddhist, or another religion is not relevant to the way they perform in sports." ehhh... It could happen that someone in a certain sport that is only performed in countries of a certain religion could be controversial because of their (ir)religion, comparatively one could make the exact same argument for ethnicity because it doesn't matter if you're German-American, Irish-Canadian, Russian-Brazilian, or whatever as these things don't influence their ability to perform a sport while discrimination based on race has historically been a very common topic in sports and removing the ethnicity of a sportsperson could ironically remove why they were notable playing thatdd sport (think of negro Vs. white baseball leagues), and race and ethnicity aren't always clearly defined, for example the famous US American actor César Romero was considered to be "White" for most of his career but after the "Hispanic and Latino" race was created in the United States of America during the 1960's or 1970's he became regarded as one at the end of his career winning awards in categories related to "Hispanics and/or Latino's". I'm personally neutral either way, someone's religion could be irrelevant to one context but notable in another. If someone is notable for being an African-American baseball player in the 1930's doesn't mean that an African-American baseball player in the 1980's is notable for anything other than their talent. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Hence "most sportspeople", not "sportspeople". Obviously Jackie Robinson's ethnicity is relevant, and probably so is Sandy Koufax's ethnic/religious background (Jewish, and he chose not to pitch Game 1 of the 1965 World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur), but does it really matter whether a random player is Catholic? - Jmabel ! talk 06:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/04&oldid=312532045"