Commons talk:Village pump/Proposals

Village Pump 2

@Rd232: Thank you for all your efforts with this ... but aren't the last two topics ("Tracking template internationalization") contrary to your self-made scope of this page? These last topics seem to be a Village Pump 2 or Village Pump/Policies, Project and Meta for me. If people would make more use of the HD then the VP wouldn't be as crowded as it is. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems to me exactly the sort of thing that belongs here. Village Pump 2 and Village Pump/Policies, Project and Meta don't exist and conceptually would seem to cover similar territory. Rd232 (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pages I mentioned do not exist, I know. Anyway - I thought this page should be reserved for polls and important discussions. Maybe I did misunderstand the intention of this page. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well for me the intention is to have a place to discuss things of wider significance to changing how something is done. That sort of thing needs more time and should not get mixed up with more day-to-day content discussions at COM:VP. These sections fit within that conception. Rd232 (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Centralized discussion is a kind of de:Vorlage:Beteiligen right? Well, it does catch the idea I had above - providing a place for links to really important stuff. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well it's borrowed from en:Template:Centralized discussion, which has a narrower scope than Beteiligen, but there's no need to stick to that en.wp scope - whatever seems useful here. It's very early days, it can evolve. For me the main interest was something that could be placed on lots of pages in different languages (especially the various Village Pumps) with translation of entries. Rd232 (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it needs more time, I suggest that archiving should be made in 15 days, rather than in 7 like the normal VP.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 02:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered - it's currently set at 14 days. Rd232 (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures

I think the procedures to use on this page should be clearly stated (or linked) at the top of the page. Is the page for discussing ideas or for establishing consensus for a change?

I feel frustrated with proposals on important matters being voted on when in totally immature shape. I do not want to have to follow the page and take part in discussions on everything that somebody finds would be an improvement, no matter how silly the idea (no silly proposals yet, but very immature proposals indeed).

Either there should be a well worked out proposal, the issues of which are well known, put here for a final discussion easy to find for anybody and for a poll in due time - or this would be the place where ideas are discussed, issues are found and the proposal made ready for a wider discussion. Those two functions must not be mixed up.

--LPfi (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have a page where final polling-pages are transcluded. One page per polling, like COM:RfA. Then, there is only one edit per per polling and the watchlist remains clear. -- RE rillke questions? 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

en français s'il vous plait — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.4.221.20 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 8. Sep. 2011 (UTC)client using France Telecom Orange

Qu'est-ce exactement? -- RE rillke questions? 16:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well on en.wp I created a separate Village Pump "Idea Lab" for ideas that are still being developed; it is better to keep these things separate. But given the current volume here, that's not justified. Possibly a simple solution would be to move proposals which are widely advertised to their own subpage, so that it's easier to keep up with the main Proposals page. Shall we add that to the instructions, and set an example with the My Uploads proposal? Rd232 (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might work for subpages, individual proposal watchlisting, and permanent links:

en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for one Village Pump using DPLforum or other subpage discussion software.

en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Support or oppose a test Village Pump based on Portuguese VP. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we make a proposal for a new Wiki idea? Like a new Wiki project?

I was advised by info@wikimedia.org to voice new ideas, projects etc here. So what should I do, because I have a whole new idea, WikiTunes. Not actual music, but information on a song, lyrics, song meanings, translations, and discussions. Please point me in the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LunaNunca (talk • contribs) 10:28, 8 February 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

If you want a new wiki, you must request it on meta:. If it should be just a project that fits the project scope of Commons, you must be more specific and announce it on COM:VP. The same is applies if you want to extend the project scope because you believe Commons is the best place for it. -- RE rillke questions? 12:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The precise link is Proposals for new projects on Meta. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for that 2012 idea @LunaNunca re WikiTunes .. great suggestion. --Peter Vid2vid (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If song lyrics and music notation are in copyright (and not freely licensed, which is highly unlikely in most cases) then we cannot reproduce them. If they are not, then they can go on Wikisource, where they can also be translated. Similarly, audio files that are out of copyright can be uploaded, here, on Commons. Wikimedia generally does not host social discussion projects. There are other sites that do this for songs, already. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English

It it certainly not the correct place, bug I've found a bug that I cannot correct. When using:

{{#language:fr}}, the result "français" is lower case
{{#language:en}}, the result "English" is capitalized

I have never been a nationalist, but this...;-).
Of course, there are other language with the same problem.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2=fr	français	anglais
	1=fr	1=en
2=en	French	English

It is not a bug. Language dependent capitalization is a feature. Use {{Language}} if you want to name some language in another one. See {{Translate SVG}} for an example of usage. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Liné1 Actually it depends on the grammar. In French, français is a common noun (nom commun) and is not capitalised. In English, you should capitalize the names of languages because they are proper noun (nom propre), thus French. So, it's good that English works in that way :) Ruthven (msg) 08:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the way "content pages" are counted

This is kind of a proposal with no proposal [wink], hence my posting of it here. (Still wanted people watching this page and not the main VP page to see it.) I just posted in the general VP about a change that has already been made which now requires the Commons community to decide how we want to count content pages. Please see Commons:Village pump#Should content pages consist of galleries only or also include File pages? and respond there if desired. - dcljr (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sections aren't collapsible on mobile

The sections of this page aren't collapsible on mobile (like they are on the main village pump), this causes users to of the "Mobile view" mode to have to scroll a lot to get to a single section. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Commons can do anything about that. The mobile app seems pretty clearly to be designed for readers as opposed to contributors and contains numerous serious flaws if one tries to use it as a contributor. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Trung That's usually a lint error somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/589569791 Darnit, I thought I had got all those already. Anyway, fixed. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue related to Open letter to the Foundation about Wikimedia Commons, 2022-10-11

I am following up on a discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Open letter to the Foundation about Wikimedia Commons, over disappointment with the WMF programming team.

I am unaware of any fora where the programming team tell us which "improvements" they plan on implementing, or where they seek feedback on the desirability of those improvements, or how they should be implemented.

I am not aware of any fora where regular people should report bugs or other dissatisfaction with their changes.

I am not aware of any fora where regular people can request new features or bug fixes.

User:Davey2010 voiced his concern over the new visual editor sucking.

I voiced some concerns over the moronic upload wizard.

I have raised a problem with how the standard image description pages are rendered, and how the {{Information}} templates on those pages are rendered.

I have raised this issue a number of times.

Currently, our information pages render in a way that tricks good faith third parties who want to properly credit the owner of the IP rights. I routinely find good faith third parties crediting me as the author of images I merely uploaded.

This is a very serious long-standing human factors problem.

I am a prolific uploader of both images I took myself, and free images I found elsewhere. Once or twice a year I do a google image search for images that include my wiki-ID, 90-95 percent of the images good faith third-parties credit to me are images I didn't take, that I merely uploaded.

I regard this as a serious problem, one that could be fixed, by changing how we render images. We need to change how we render images so the rights holder gets much more prominence.

When a movie has one really big star play a small role in a movie that actor gets listed LAST. Is it a mistake to list the uploader last? Do we have to list them last? If we do could we put the name of the rights holder in a bigger font?

Anyhow, I believe this is solvable, and the programming team should have started considering a solution the first time I raised this, a decade or so ago. Geo Swan (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no perspective on a lot of your points, but to respond to "I am not aware of any fora where regular people can request new features or bug fixes.": phab: is the place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another place to make requests will be meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2023 (As of 11 October 2022, yet to be created).

Here is last year's link: meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2022.

Here is some other relevant links:

Peaceray (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As others have pointed out, there's places. Personally, I don't think it helps that they are all on different parts of the site and involve different people/representatives of the WMF/ways of communicating/interfaces..Etc. Etc. It really just makes the whole thing needlessly obtuse and hard to interact with. Like apparently I can't use Phabricator without it making my email address public. Which is just dumb. Then it's hard to find issues or a particular section on there specifically related to Commons. Not to say I have a good answer to any of that, but this whole is way to spread out and half put together for it's own good. Commons is clearly a second class project to Wikidata and Wikipedia. It's like you have to go through a dresser in someone's closet to find or interact with anything having to do with it. I don't even think it comes up on the first couple pages of Google Search if you search for "Commons" lol. Not to put that on the WMF but it seems like the project isn't even optimized for search engines at the basic level for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Person InfoBox Commons Photo B&W if deceased

A conversational proposal/idea/suggestion for Commons photos used across wikimedia / Wikipedia, especially in the "Person" InfoBox; if a notable person is no longer living, and has information at all (i.e. a date entered) in the optional, "Died" built in category, my concept is that the photo could be displayed as grayscale AKA black and white AKA B&W. If a user wishes they can click or tap on the image, of course, and wiki Commons will show other versions and sizes and resolutions of the photo, as it functions now, so they can download a color version if they so choose. (Apologies if this is not the place to suggest changes in policy or tech suggestions / improvements / new feature requests.) --Peter Vid2vid (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would be problematic for living people, where all we have is a b&w photo. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]