Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2020/09

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

Consolidate Template:Videos from/of X by year

I am proposing to consolidate ~100 templates for countries into a single {{Videos from country by year}}, and then delete them. Please state your opinions at Commons:Deletion requests/Videos from X by year.--RZuo (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

Hi. Just like we have at day-to-day "Commons:Deletion requests" we should also have at "Commons:Deletion requests/Archives" a tool to move around different dates. Example: When we look at Commons:Deletion requests/2020/08/10 we can easily move forward to Commons:Deletion requests/2020/08/11 or backward to Commons:Deletion requests/2020/08/09. We should have the same facility at "Archives" pages. Can someone have a look if that is feasible? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove Template "Inaccurate-map-disputed|South China Sea dispute/Nine-Dash Line" from [File:Taiping2.PNG]

I already mentioned my idea in the File talk:Taiping2.PNG. Here are my points:

1. It's the old Chinese map (about Taiping Rebellion), so the South China Sea dispute nowadays doesn't apply to that.

2. The map did not draw (at least did not draw most part/the dispute) Nine-dash line part on the map. So put "Inaccurate map disputed' on something which not exist on the map is not the way how the template works.

UserGreenknight dv have a different idea with me, which is the Qing did not claim any part of Nine-dash line, so he wants to keep the template. He already undo the remove of the template once, so I think I'd better through this problem in the Community portal 1st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangmingxyz (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)--Tangmingxyz (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The template says that the accuracy of the map is disputed, which is correct because Greenknight dv disputes the accuracy of the map. Moreover, I think he's right to do so. The map is not an old one: it may purport to show the situation in 1820 or 1854, but it was created in 2008. While it doesn't show the whole of the nine-dash line, it part of it, both as part of "frontières chinoises de 1820" and as part of "frontières chinoises acutelles". It's clear that the map is drawn on the basis that, both in 1820 and the present day, China owns the South China Sea. That makes it pretty solidly disputed in my book. Remember that the point of this template is not to make any final judgement on the map, but to remind people using it that there are political implications to the map that they might like to pay attention to. --bjh21 (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete/Deprecate categorisation of videos by file format

I made a proposal to delete such cats as Category:WebM videos. Please discuss at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/09/Category:WebM videos.--RZuo (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan categories are categorized under Category:Republic of China subcategories

User:Pbdragonwang has discussed with me in the past few days in what I consider an uncivil manner but being called "認同問題" goes a bit to far (see: special:diff/447514179). And you can see what he said here about Taiwan categories, saying that “金門縣是否算是「臺灣」的一部份恐有爭議，應此才把「Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Kinmen 」從「Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Taiwan」的分類分出來。（馬祖地區也一樣）就算現在「省」實質上廢除了，金門、馬祖也是直屬於中華民國而非臺灣。”. What he means is that Kinmen and Matsu that directly belong to “Republic of China” instead of “Taiwan” so Kinmen should be categorized under Category:Republic of China subcategories. Actually the key point is that his idea about categorizing Taiwan by his political views since Taiwan, or Taiwan Province, is a territory under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China which is not an island of the Republic of China. For example, this edit shows the "Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Taiwan" category page is categorized under Category:Historic Buildings of the Republic of China. To avoid such a waste of time and energy, it is the best to only discuss the issue about categorization: Taiwan categories are categorized under Category:Republic of China subcategories.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I thinks the easiest way would be to just categorize it in both like Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Sevastopol what is in the Ukraine and Russia Tree. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Do all categories related to Taiwan follow this way?--Kai3952 (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kai3952 and GPSLeo: Largely not. What I seen is that most of the categories are categorized under "Category:XX of/in Taiwan" or "Category:XX of/in Republic of China", in which these kind of categories are categorized under "Category:XX by country".廣九直通車 (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@廣九直通車: The problem we really want to solve is "Category:XX of/in Taiwan" and not "Category:XX of/in Republic of China". From this edit by User:Pbdragonwang as well as his comment on my talkpage, I'm pretty sure he can't accept Taiwan as a part of China because he said “金門、馬祖也是直屬於中華民國而非臺灣”. I have to seriously consider again about the special circumstances which have occurred from the categorization of Taiwan-related subcategories and the resulting difficulties.--Kai3952 (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, and what I forgot to say, he also emphasized that Taiwan and the Republic of China are not the same.--Kai3952 (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Taiwan is a part of the Republic of China, therefore anything in Taiwan should be a sub-category of “in the Republic of China”, but something “in Taiwan” should never have the sub-category “in the Republic of China”. For example “Temples in Taiwan” should be a sub-category of both “Temples in the Republic of China” and “Religious buildings in Taiwan”, with the latter also being a sub-category of “Religious buildings in the Republic of China”. This would make all these categories consistent. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
If we go for who actually controls an area, all Crimea categories would have to become removed from the Ukraine Categories because the Crimea officially belongs to the Ukraine but is controlled by Russia. And Category:Afrin is in Category:Cities in Syria but the Syrian state does not control it, it is occupied by the Turkey. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't aware of that. It sounds like we should have a standard and consistent way to deal with disputed areas, as the People's Republic of China views its Taiwan Province as an integral part of its territory (like Ladakh and South Tibet / Arunachal Pradesh), with the only difference being that the entire area of this sovereign state (the Republic of China) is being claimed by the People's Republic of China, but for practical reasons however we handle other politically disputed areas should also apply here. Because while the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the Ukraine) is currently a fantasy, the international community recognises it and not the Republic of Crimea (the Russian Federation). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the general opinion in international politics (by most countries, and the UN), is that Taiwan is a province of China, although not currently controlled by China. The Australian government's opinion, for example, can be read at [1]. International politics is not generally friendly to communities who don't want to be part of the state they've been assigned to. --ghouston (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan is different for several reasons. Note that the Republic of China's claimed territory is the full equal of the People's Republic of China's claimed territory; they both claim to be the rightful government of all of China, and neither has ever administratively controlled the entire area. I'd say that Australian page Ghouston links to is very friendly to Taiwan; they even have their own embassy in nation, which DR Congo, the 16th largest nation in the world can't claim. It's not officially an embassy, but that's a polite fiction. It's very clear from that page that while Australia officially walks the PRC's line, they're not letting that impair Taiwan-Australia relations. ALso note w:Chinese Taipei, a name under which Taiwan participates in the Olympics and WHO; as far as I can tell, no other unrecognized government participates in either. I'd say the general opinion in international politics is that PRC is too powerful to offend, but Taiwan is too valuable to ignore, and it would be easiest if the situation just didn't change.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Paste templates from categories for protected monuments and buildings into the pages for all images in them.

Templates for protected monuments (i.e. Template:doo are expected to be placed in both categories and the pages for each image of a relevant object. It would save uploaders time if they wouldn't have to search for the template and copy that but rather have that copied a bot. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that would help. A major purpose of categories is to extract and express the commonalities between images contained in them. In particular, for at least Listed Buildings in England, applying {{Listed building England}} puts the category or image into Listed buildings in England with known IDs. A glance at that page suggests that it is so diffuse that the commonality should be expressed in only one place to avoid redundancy. If that is true also for protected monuments, that's a mess we should live without, I believe. If only people foresaw the effects, we wouldn't have crackpot ideas like this. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Should UploadWizard automatically add Template:LicenseReview?

I just used the wizard to upload File:Maria Kalesnikava Координационный совет 2020-08.jpg. It should be marked with {{LicenseReview}} but it was not done automatically nor was it possible manually within the wizard. I think the wizard should do it for all files that are not the uploaders' own work. What do you think?--RZuo (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

No. It's only worth automating when the LR can be done by a bot because the images come from a standard recognized source, like Flickr. Otherwise, I can upload 100,000 images, and the backlog will still be waiting for human review 5 years later. --Fæ (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
you use Special:UploadWizard to upload 100,000 images? in your last 10,000 uploads there was only 1 via UploadWizard: File:Palmers Pausen.jpg, and it's exactly a case whereby the licensing is not evident because you didnt copy the OTRS ticket from File:Thorsten Zwinger, exhibition, Palmers Pausen.jpg.--RZuo (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Kind of interesting tangent, (1) I can and sometimes do add the LR template to batch projects, (2) since the system was changed c. 3 years ago(?) were I to add an OTRS ticket to that upload it would be flagged as if it were vandalism. Commons OTRS volunteers used to be managed from this project, that's long ago been "centralized" and is not accountable to, or governed by, this project any more, so folks doing nothing but working on the Commons OTRS queue, are neither appointed by the Commons community or voted out by the Commons community if they are incompetent. It's a bureaucratic and opaque system that is quietly ignored. --Fæ (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
No one is uploading 100k using the cumbersome wizard. Very often people who upload other people's works are actually uploading instagram/facebook/website photos that have no permission.--RZuo (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
It's unlikely the current Category:License review needed backlog will ever clear, so we just automatically trust the uploader until the actual copyright holder finds out and reports it. Special:AbuseFilter/205 shows how impractical it would be.--BevinKacon (talk)
  •  Support adding {{LicenseReview}} if it is from a website unless the file is PD old etc. If uploader claim it is own work the template should not be added. It is a problem that there is a backlog for reviewing files but files need to be reviewed. I think the bot(s) will archive the link in archive.org if there is a license review template. --MGA73 (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
If anyone have ideas to speed up license reviews feel free to speak up! I have a suggestion at Commons talk:License review#Should we put all old files in a sub category? but I do of course not know if it will really help. --MGA73 (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly oppose unless the main license review backlog ever drops back under 10,000 files. Until we have more people performing license review, it doesn't make sense to significantly increase the backlog. Until then, the template should mainly be used for high priority images. Kaldari (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kaldari: you have a good point that we should priority work on Commons. Personally I find reviewing files more relevant than renaming files and sorting files in categories like Category:People by quantity. But I doubt it will work if we tell someone to work on something else than what they find interessting. I would however like to hear how you think we can sort images by priority?
User:Eatcha did a lot of work to try to make reviewing files more easy by sorting them in different ways. I think that it could be a good way to do it. For example some users make it super easy to review files (for example if they take a still image from a YouTube video and fix it so the video starts at the right moment).
I'm afraid that the first files in the review category are hard ones to review for some reason. Personally when I find hard files I often think hmmmm I will look at that later and then I go do something else. Perhaps someone feel like me and do not want to delete files that could have been saved if it was reviewed shortly after upload and thats what keeping license reviewers away. But how to sort the files? --MGA73 (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support It is possible to develop more and more tools to automate the process of licence review, currently we do have it for Flickr and YouTube, but perhaps in the future we'll have more. Not adding a template, fearing that we have too many files in a queue hides the problem, rather than solving it. File:Kulning.ogv, for example, did not have a template at all. It would be posible to write a tool for Vimeo, but there was no such tool, which could lead to the file being deleted, if not reviewed in time. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 03:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral, but leaning towards a weak oppose, the idea is completely right, but as this will grandfather in existing files a large problem would be for free files uploaded from sources which have not been archived to the Internet Archive. I’ve successfully petitioned a proposal to archive all external links on Wikimedia Commons but due to technical limitations this hasn't been enabled yet and what's worse is that many websites and/or images are beyond salvaging. This means that many (if not hundreds of thousands of) images will simply not be able to pass license review, the reviewer will add a copyright violation tag, and after a week a free image from a now defunct website is now lost forever. I know that users Fæ and Alexis Jazz (now permanently banned) had suggestions for grandfathering in a large number of these files. The backlog isn't an issue, I’ve seen “Check categories” backlog pages with thousands of files from over half a decade ago last week, Wikimedia Commons backlog is unsolvable by humans (in the future I imagine that highly sophisticated bots could solve this, but that’s a different topic). A good solution would be by “Whitelisting” websites, but this will also lead to the counter-productive “Blacklisting” of websites as well, Blacklisting can cost us free files from otherwise largely unfree websites. Possibly if this gets implemented we’d need hidden categories for “Un-reviewed as of 21 September 2011” and “Un-reviewed files from Randomimages.sv”. I like the idea, but however it's implemented will unfortunately sacrifice thousands of free files simply because of both human error and link-rot. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I only recently realised this problem, that the wizard has ZERO info informing users to provide verified permission. Then files should be default kept when their sources suffer linkrot, because we should assume uploaders were responsible and acting in good faith. The no permission tag should not be applied either, since it's entirely not the uploaders' fault that they did not know about COM:LR or include the template.
The uploadwizard should at the very least has an option that lets uploaders select to include a LR template, and a link to COM:LR to make them informed.--RZuo (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral (perhaps a very weak oppose) I totally agree with the purpose behind the proposal. However, we can see more than 15,000 files are at the backlog and waiting for review. Since there are not much users are willing to review the files, I'm worried that we will increase the backlog after passing this proposal. Donald Trung also raised an important point that some files have been waited too long on the backlog, the source provided may be expired, and we can't find them through Wayback Machine. Sadly these files are likely to be deleted due to COM:PCP. Unless there is somebody (most likely a bot. We have User:FlickreviewR 2 and User:YouTubeReviewBot) that can resolve the backlog, I'm reluctant to support this proposal. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2020/09&oldid=510812963"