Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Wikipedia pages include text, graphics, and audio. Text is covered by official policies. Graphics is the pictorial information displayed by a computer screen and audio relates to the reproduction of sound. WikiProject templates may contain graphics request parameters. In addition, requests for graphics and audio may be made by one of four request templates.
Template:Reqphotographics - for material which requires some Wikipedian effort needed to create the graphics (Wikipedian photographs)
Template:Reqcreategraphics - for material which requires significant Wikipedian effort to create the graphic (animation, drawings, (chemical, engineering), diagrams, equations, line art, maps, paintings, video)
Template:Reqacquiregraphics - for material which requires no effort to create the graphics since the graphics already have been created but not yet added to Wikipedia (album covers, book covers, comic pages, emblems (scout), screenshots)
Are these intended to replace existing templates such as reqphoto and reqimage? If so how would they be replaced (in the template pages and in the articles referencing them)? I feel the distinction between types of requests by effort involved not useful to getting the request addressed, it just adds confusion to readers. I do see however some requests for graphics should be highlighted or separated so that specific project teams can see them; for example maps or diagrams are different from screenshots or photographics. On the other hand all requests for an image (no matter what type) should be listed by the subject they are related to (for example related to a country project). My main concern is the request graphics/image/photo template should be easy for occasional users to put things into a useful category without having to spend too much effort understanding the finer points of such a project as this. -- Traveler100 (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
My thinking was that once you and I and whoever else joins this discussion come up with a solution to the every growing and somewhat ambiguous, overlaping templates listed atCategory:Image request templates, we could then work to make it happen.
Q. Are these intended to replace existing templates such as reqphoto and reqimage? If so how would they be replaced (in the template pages and in the articles referencing them)? -- Traveler100 (talk)
My initial thinking was that WikiProject Graphics would come to an agreement on all the parameters needed for graphics request templates. Then we would create the above four templates using all the parameters needed, such as those used in those templates at Image request templates. Then use Wikipedia:Requested moves to rename all the templates listed at Image request templates to one of four templates. The renaming could be done at Bot requests. GregManninLB (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Q. I feel the distinction between types of requests by effort involved not useful to getting the request addressed, it just adds confusion to readers. I do see however some requests for graphics should be highlighted or separated so that specific project teams can see them; for example maps or diagrams are different from screenshots or photographics. -- Traveler100 (talk)
I see your point. Template:ReqMap is so much clearer than Template:ReqCreateGraphics. We probably will keep some of the request templates listed at Image request templates. Also, we might not need some of the above four proposed templates as the same results may be achieved through categorization. GregManninLB (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Q. On the other hand all requests for an image (no matter what type) should be listed by the subject they are related to (for example related to a country project). -- Traveler100 (talk)
Q. My main concern is the request graphics/image/photo template should be easy for occasional users to put things into a useful category without having to spend too much effort understanding the finer points of such a project as this.' -- Traveler100 (talk)
That can be addressed through the template parameters and the categories those parameters populate so that there would be no need for the occasional users to understand the finer points of such a project as this. GregManninLB (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:reqimage and Template:reqphoto (Moved from here)
Change reqimage to be same as reqphoto syntax and functions with following differences:-
Places requests in categories based on naming convention subject articles needing images to match that generated from most project template requests (image-needed=yes).
Additional field type with values such as photo, screenshot, cover, map. This could then also place the request in the categories based on graphic format.
This provides a simply way of making a request for occasional contributors, but is expandable for those familiar with the Wikipedia structure and projects. The main advantage is that there would only be one place for people active in a project to look at current requests. -- Traveler100 (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to rename to WikiProject Images and Media
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Currently efforts are scattered throughout many separate Wikiprojects and talk pages. This leads to many discussions not getting enough attention, and many small WikiProjects failing due to a narrow focus. I would like for this to be a centralized location for all efforts and discussions in this area. Images and media are handled much the same way, with the same policies, licensing and deletion forum.
Once this move is complete, I would like to start actively centralizing and consolidating efforts for images and media on WP. ~ JohnnyMrNinja07:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The definition of what an image is a little blurred and people's interpretation and views are widely varying. Photograph, scan of print, screenshot are all images. What is an animated gif - an image or an movie? I can therefor see some good reasons for merging requests, or at least the method. However I would not like to see a template that is so complicated that no one uses it; or going in the opposite direction a group of categories that are too general to be useful to specialist groups. Traveler100 (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little torn on this. As Traveler points out, it has it's good points and bad. However, at this point, I don't really think there's a whole lot of use outside of this project for the current templates that we have, anyway. It's also potentially taking on more cleanup for such a small group, too. I guess I can go either way on this and I'll support whatever decision is made. Jauerbackdude?/dude.12:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Apologies that it took me a few days to respond, I had some computer problems. I think there is a misunderstanding as far as what I'm proposing. I am not proposing a merger of request templates right now (which actually seems like a good idea that I wish I'd had), but a renaming of this WikiProject. So far the only collaborative work done by this project was on the req templates (a few months ago), but it was designed as a hub for all collaborative work relating to images. If you re-read my above proposal with this in mind, hopefully it will make more sense. I feel that the lack of members is likely just due to a lack of exposure. I didn't know about this project until I saw it mentioned on another project's page, and I had actually been looking for it (although I had assumed it would be called WikiProject Images). Hopefully once more people know about the project, and there is more activity, more people will join. ~ JohnnyMrNinja04:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
For that matter, so is text. "Images and media" is simply the way such files are referred to on WP (see Help:Contents/Images and media and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion). I would like for the title to be as intuitive as possible while still being accurate. I don't really like the idea of WikiProject Images Audio and Video, and WikiProject Media could easily be assumed to be about mass-media. I would like it to be at the best title, so if there is a better idea, feel free to suggest it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja08:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I'd recommend jettisoning the /left /right thing, and putting all page design into one page (with sections transcluded as needed). It also seems to need a 4th section: "Resources"? – Quadell(talk)03:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean getting rid of the that layout, or just how the two panels are transcluded? I'd support the latter, now that I've seen that it is actually possible to do that without too much additional work (I'd thought that having all of the various nested tables would cause problems, but it appears that they don't). I personally like the layout visually (if you couldn'ttell : ), and would oppose refactoring the page to be a single column.
Regardless, there certainly need to be more sections. "Resources" is definitely a good idea for one, and having a "task forces" section on the main page will be nice (by the way, great addition of TFP! I hadn't thought of that one). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I love the layout, but I'm starting to think there are too many colors. I'd recommend going will all purple (the main page's "Today's featured picture" color), like at this edit. Alternatively we could pick a pallet of 2 or 3 colors, and use just them. But too many colors spoils the design, in my opinion. – Quadell(talk)17:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't really like the grayish of the TFP color... I'd rather go with the green used for the main header. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Damn it's looking good. I think we're just about ready to actually discuss image issues, instead of just WikiProject layout and organization issues. Hurrah! – Quadell(talk)02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems that there's one other thing to work out right now... the noticeboard header looks all weird when you open one of the tasks & tips. I can try and fix this tomorrow unless somebody beats me to it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks fine in Chrome, but IE and Firefox both stretch it out. Should we just incorporate the "participant" info into the intro? – Quadell(talk)13:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if there should be a member list, or if the category would be enough... People always forget that they added themselves to the list, and then the awkward business of removing inactive users. I'm not totally against it, but I think if we just added the category to userboxes, or people manually added it to their page, it would be more helpful. If it weren't for the box I have on my page, I'm sure I'd forget about Stub Sorting. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja02:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that not everyone uses userboxes, and then they'd need to add the category manually. Having the list also lets people add comments. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Taskforces
Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion
Let's look at taskforces really carefully here. Are they useful? How or why? What can be better accomplish with a taskforce, rather than general discussion here on the talkpage (or at a specific policy page)? – Quadell(talk)17:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I know they can certainly be useful situationally. The taskforce for cleaning up the gastropod copyvio has been a huge help for Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. Aside from situationally, I would only think that a taskforce would be useful if the project grows so vast that the common pool of contributors can't keep up with everything...and especially if there are enough contributors to subdivide. When the project participant list is still small, centralizing efforts makes sense. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
As I explain below, my kind of plan with task forces here isn't as much that they'd be "coordinated efforts" the way that the project as a whole is, but rather subpages which provide more detailed information on what can be done. The tasks & tips section here is useful, but some of the things at pages like WP:MFIC would be useful, too. Maybe "departments" would be a better name? They'd really just be subpages with additional guidance and suggestions. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"Moving images to Commons" is a task. But "free images" and "fair use images" aren't tasks. "Renaming poorly-named images" is a task, but I don't think it needs a taskforce. I'm just not sold on the idea. – Quadell(talk)20:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts are that "Free images" isn't a task in and of itself, but it can be composed of tasks such as "verifying free status of images and ensuring that free images are properly tagged". Ditto "fair use images"... "Ensure that all fair-use images have valid fair-use rationales for all articles, that they meet the non-free content critera, and that they have proper copyright tags". In this way, different "tasks" could be broken up by topic. If wanted, moving images to Commons could also be subsumed into "free images" because they are in the same area. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe there's an issue of definition here? To me, the value of this project is that it is picking up functions of projects that are moribund through low participation. That's what I thought was meant by "more productive collaboration"—a collecting of tasks into a tighter group that might accomplish the goals without being spread too thin. A "task force" is "a non-independent subgroup of a larger WikiProject that covers some defined part of the WikiProject's scope." Do we have the manpower to form subgroups? If not, what is the value of demoting these existing moribund projects into taskforces? Quoting more from that document:
The major distinction between a task force and a fully independent WikiProject—and, indeed, the reason why the task force model was developed—is that the task force minimizes the bureaucratic overhead of its activities by relying on the parent project to provide as much of the procedural and technical infrastructure as possible. Thus, for example, a task force will use the core project's peer review and assessment processes rather than creating its own. This allows the task force to focus primarily on direct article-writing activity, without the need to devote extensive resources to maintaining its own internal structure.
Is this what you mean by taskforces? If so, I'm afraid we may have a very basic problem in that these groups all already have their own procedural and technical infrastructure; they evidently don't just have enough people doing them. I think if you weren't planning to merge these groups into one group of active contributors but rather to reorganize them under a central governance, where each group persisted with its own members, then I may have misunderstood your proposal. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I was unclear. I meant that we should have a single group and a single members list, with the "task forces" actually being "departments" (I know this contradicts something that I said below; I was being stupid then :) ). These "departments" would not have their own members list or goals, but rather provide further guidance and information on how to achieve specific parts of the project's overarching goal: maintain images and media. If you look at the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, you'll see a similar set up... it has a number of departments which can be used to help coordinate and improve the usefulness of the main project page. (WP:DND/R and WP:DND/M are examples). One example for this project is that the list of categories containing images eligable for copying to Commons wouldn't fit on this page, but it could fit nicely onto a separate page containing both that list and the content at WP:MITTC. If you'd rather not do this, I won't object further, but I think that having this kind of thing would be helpful. If you'd like, I could come up with a mock-up of a department. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I've got you, I think. Are you suggesting that we incorporate the existing project pages (or at least, perhaps the task-specific portions of them?) as subpages to this group setting out procedures, but not subdividing the labor? We'd all still be the same pool of contributors at this project; it's just a method of organizing materials? If I'm understanding you, then I think that would probably work. I'm a bit nervous about the language being used, though, since both "task force" and "department" do suggest separate staffing. :) I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/References is probably a good example of how it could work. Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Mergers might be a bit difficult, since it is basically a separate talk page. If my own experiences at launching Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup are any indication, it's challenging enough getting responders to the main page. We might not want to subpage active discussions until we know we have enough active people to cover all our bases. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I was planning on having things more like the references subpage rather than the mergers subpage; I was just giving out some examples. And you're exactly right; it's a way of organizing materials. I think that "task force" is right out as an option with that scope in mind. My feeling is that "department" works, but I see your point too. Would "guideline" be okay? That's really what they would be, but just not in the "official Wikipedia guideline" sense. They'd have more information on tasks that can be done and guidelines on how to do them. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I dunno. "Guideline" has a specific meaning here. What we would produce would be How-tos, or essays, or helpfiles. But even so, I think we should wait to split things up like this. If there's a need for a specific document (e.g. "How to move a file to Commons", then we'll hash it out on talk and figure out where to put it later. I really see the value in keeping things simple, until it is evident that the added complexity would be helpful. – Quadell(talk)22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to say I think it is a good idea to get a list of all image resources listed together. When I have an issue with copyright or placing images in articles it is very difficult to find the relevant information and help pages. Making information that is already available more viable and locatable to people would be beneficial to all contributors to Wikipedia.Traveler100 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Getting all the different project tasks into one location (although maybe different pages) is a good idea. Could you maybe create an example of how you see sub-tasks being organized and displayed? Also although I like the visual look and layout of this project, please do not get to clever with templates, hidden options and tables as it will get too difficult for people not experts in mediawiki to edit and contribute to the project.Traveler100 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that the layout is about as complicated as its going to get, and uses transclusion for a lot of the things on the main page so that you don't need to worry about table code to edit the content. Anyway, there are a few such "subpage-taskforce-department"y things accessible from the tabs at the top of the page. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 11:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Merging and subsuming
Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
Well, it's been six days since it was proposed. For the sake of pretty numbers, I'd give it one more. After it's been posted a week, I'd put another notice saying that barring disagreement the project page will be redirected; perhaps a link could be provided to a merge discussion here? I'd be happy to whip up a courtesy notice to drop on the talk pages of categorized members of those projects to alert them to the discussion. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hm, looks like this task requires tact and patience. Well then... Acting on behalf of no authority whatsoever, I designate you, Moonriddengirl, as Temporary I&M Project Merge Ambassador. – Quadell(talk)17:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
As you can see, immediately below, I have an intro to the concept. :) I plan to drop a note at the page of each participant pointing them to it. Language seem all clear? Any confusions or problems? (By the way, I decided a few hours less than seven might be fine, since I noticed there's no wikilink to this page. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did not yet exist. :)) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
My plan was to make them into task forces/departments. Each of those subpages would then contain additional information on specific tasks related to their scope than the main project page can contain. I hope to do that over the next few days if there isn't objection... I was actually going to move those two subpages here and redesign them, but keep their "membership" lists and overall scope. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
My apologies... moving those projects here and making them subpages. This is really being discussed more above, however. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
All right; I am done. I have to the best of my ability notified almost every member of these four projects who has edited since the start of 2009 unless they have retired, "vanished" or been indefinitely blocked. The few exceptions are individuals who have edited once or twice since 2009 and give other indication that they aren't likely to show up (such as the individual who hasn't edited more than five times a year in 2006, 2007 and 2008 and only edited once so far in 2009). --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect proposal
Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments10 people in discussion
Unfortunately, I am no longer able to find motivation to do any work in Wikipedia (other than update a few things here and there). Therefore, I agree that any move done in order to keep the free spirit going is a good one (even if I would like not to have a WikiProject Fair Use around). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Since commons has different copyight standards for PD-US works compared to en there is the risk of issues with regards to bringing in WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons.Geni17:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Having the project there and having its goals listed on this page doesn't really make much of a difference in what is done... WP:MITTC has information on this, so I'm not sure that it would be a problem. (my personal opinion on this is that Wikipedia's free content policies should reflect Commons', but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Correction: MITTC does not specifically say that, although I think that the pages that it links to do. WP:MFIC doesn't say it either right now, as far as I can see, so redirecting that here won't get rid of that information or anything, since it already isn't there. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It'd be good to have that info somewhere easy to find. The main categories of images that shouldn't be moved to Commons are:
Non-free images (obviously)
Works considered "free" in the U.S., but "non-free" in their country of origin (e.g. free photos of French buildings, or pre-1923 photos where the author died less than 70 years ago)
Works of exclusive interest to en.Wiki, where the creator has requested we keep the image here.
So far as I can tell, that's all that should stay here. And only category #2 really needs much explanation. – Quadell(talk)18:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This was why I proposed having "departments" originally; there was a small amount of opposition. I still fully support having subpages here for each of those projects (nice work locating those others, BTW) that would contain the guidelines and things like the list of move-to-Commons categories, but not the members list (since there would be a single "Images and Media" participants list). I can start getting that kind of thing set up if you'd like... I feel that it can only help the project (see #Taskforces for previous discussion on this point). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree about the members (as long as those users are okay with it). I don't know that "task forces" are needed, but resource pages are needed. Even if all of these old project pages aren't super-useful, mark them as historical or inactive. Someone can do something with them someday, and history is a good thing in a project. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja19:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. It could use a little additional cleanup to have the project's formatting, but I can probably work on that a bit later today. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Based on input at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags/Public domain/Mistagged images, I have created a new tag: {{PD-US-suspect}}. You can place it on images tagged {{PD-US}}, but where there's no evidence that the image was published before 1923. (Many people confuse creation date with publication date.) This tag places images in Category:Images needing PD-US verification, which contains some good copyright info for works created before 1923. If you want to help, you can go to that category and see if you can find evidence that the images are actually PD. (Note that this is not a deletion category -- this is a clean-up category. If you think an image is probably not in the public domain, you can list it at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.) – Quadell(talk)16:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed on the merge, but isn't "WikiProject Images and Media" a proper name? I know that a lot of WikiProjects only have the first word capitalized, but that seems kind of weird to me because it is a name. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Note that JohnnyMrNinja (talk·contribs) said just yesterday that it might not make sense to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography with this one. I'm a member of WP Photography and it sounds to me like the merge would make sense, but it might need some more discussion.
This project looks very promising. I have been trying lately to coordinate more work around cleaning up abandoned or stale image requests, but it seems like most of the work has been done lately by Traveler100 (talk·contribs) and myself. I would love to get some new energy for those tasks. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I take it back! I didn't realize that it was currently inactive, and for some reason I was thinking that their focus was article space. Having actually looked at it now, I'd say it'd be ideal for a merge.
As far as the capital M, why not? Isn't the title of a Wikiproject a proper noun? I know that other projects do whatever, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and just because they're doing it doesn't mean it's correct. I'm honestly asking, because this really does look to me like the correct formatting of a title. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja17:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! (that having been said, I've created a redirect from the alternate capitalization, just in case). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to merge all these projects. Hopefully a larger group of people can get more tasks addressed effectively. What does need to done is better co-ordination of tasks from these many projects, as sometimes they work against each other. For example WikiProject Photography aim is to address request for images but other projects tend to discourage people from contributing: over enthusiastic users tag photographs as non-free because somewhere in the photo is a company logo. This in its self is, although annoying, not a big issue. However the image is then picked up by OKbot (or maybe in future NeuRobot 2) and is reduced in size, even thought the copyrighted part of the image was already small.Traveler100 (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Old deletion discussions
Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion
I do a lot of work closing deletion debates at Wikipedia:Files for deletion and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. But there are a few discussion I don't feel comfortable closing, either because I am conflicted about the outcome, or because I have commented enough that my closing might appear biased. Could an admin here who is well-versed in policy take a look at the following old deletion discussions and close them? (If you need help knowing the technical method for closure, just ask.) (Please don't feel biased toward closing these in the way I advocated in the individual comments, just because I asked here. I'd rather someone close them "the wrong way" than leave them open indefinitely.) – Quadell(talk)22:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"Could an admin here who is well-versed in policy..." Well, when it comes to the slightly more complicated (than usual) areas of copyright, that admin is definitely not me. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay then; I'll see what I can do. Hey, if I make a mistake it's easy enough to revert. :) (not to say that I don't care about making mistakes, but you get the point :) ). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Is there a bot that removes already-deleted images from articles? I'm sure I've seen some around, but I just can't think of they're names. I'm just asking because it would be a lot easier to work through some of the deletion categories if you didn't also need to worry about removing the images from articles. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't remember which one does this. User:OrphanBot does something like it. Anyway, you never have to remove images from articles anymore once you delete them. (If you're curios, just delete an image an put an article it was in on your watchlist. I did that, but I can't remember which bot it was.) – Quadell(talk)23:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I was going to make something like this already, but this question forced me to do it. Wouldn't it be great to have all of the bots that perform file tasks on one list? Presenting (the barely-formed) Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Bots. I know that a table would be great, but I'm not good at those. Please add to it, and hopefully it can be complete sometime soon. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja00:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The reasons I requested these is that files with a Information template are "easier" to transfer over because they useally have a descriptive file name if they need it and so that others knows what it is displaying, and the second report is because {{Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons}} which is a combination of both those templates puts the file into a seperate category so that people can work on those seperately.
So perhaps we could:
A. Work on getting the files tagged with the Information template so they are easier for people to transfer over to commons (and rename if needed).
B. Put in a BOTREQ for the second report so that a bot move all the files with both the templates to the combined template ({{Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons}}) so they are put in the seperate category since they need work completed first before they are transfered.
I'm not quite sure that I see the benefit of the Information list, but the other is definetely a great idea! A bot to fix those would be really nice. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You can't excatly use a bot to file fill in {{information}} because many differnt things could be the file description, the date that can be used (i perfer using a date from the image data over the upload date) ect. Peachey88(Talk Page ·Contribs)12:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The proposal wasn't to have a bot add an {{information}} template, just to mark which files don't have one. That would make it easier for editors to identify which files need them, and add them by hand as necessary. That seems like a fine idea. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
In my experience, it's no more difficult to transfer images without an Information tag. If they have a description and valid tag (like this one), then the FileScripts tool will create an Information tag on the Commons version (like this). So adding an Information tag on the local version would just be unnecessary work. (But B is a great idea, and you should definitely request it.) – Quadell(talk)14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Tim, i never said anything about a bot to do them, that was Drilnorth, I was just pointing out why it in theory wouldn't be the best concept. Quadell, The reason information makes it "easier" to transfer files is that so people can more easily categorize/rename them, eg if someone was to move File:100_2157.jpg over, they might just categorize it as a blue car where as if it had a filled in information tag, someone could categorize it into the make of car, model of the car and ect. Peachey88(Talk Page ·Contribs)05:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
My apologies if I was unclear; I meant that a bot could do task B. Task A would probably be impossible. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Free tab
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
What you you call it and the subpage? I couldn't think of a better name (or are you saying that there just shouldn't be a tab to the subpage?) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we need a separate page (or tab) on free media. There's really no information on that page that isn't better covered elsewhere. I don't think we need a separate page or tab on non-free media either. – Quadell(talk)23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what Quadell means, but I do think that there are going to be too many pages to all have tabs. I think a sidebar might be appropriate. Also, I think for now we should hold off on moving all of the subpages of the projects (like these), until we are done with the main pages and have a complete list. Some we can re-purpose, some we'll need to delete/merge/archive or whatever. I'm just leaving them there for now. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja19:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
For copyright concerns, it's not always easy to get good info on whether images are in the public domain. The best offline resource I've found is Stephen Fishman's "The Public Domain: How to Find and Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art, and More". Available at finer libraries everywhere. Well worth looking into. – Quadell(talk)21:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair use images question
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
What is the policy concerning use of fair use images for games with multiple ports? If a game is made for the Gamecube, PS2, and Gameboy Advance is it acceptable for articles to have screenshots from all versions or is one version acceptable? WP:NFCC doesn't really mention this scenario so I am asking here to see if somebody knows what I should do. Thanks, much in advance. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master22:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that if the game versions are significantly different, it could be valid depending on the rationale (for example, the difference between console and handheld or Wii and PS3). Multiple images from the same console can also work, but they'd also need strong rationales. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There's no hard-and-fast rule, but the best way to answer this is by example. The original Donkey Kong game of 1981 was ported to many home computer systems, and back then the differences in graphics and processor capabilities was enormous. Note the different looks of these ports: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Barely recognizable as the same game. And yet Donkey Kong (video game), a featured article, shows two screenshots of the main arcade version (fully described and relevant to commentary on characters), and a screenshot of a single port (the very different "Game & Watch" version), as well as a pseudo-screenshot of instruction on a cocktail port. I think we can safely consider this an upper limit on acceptable use of screenshots. So yes, if merited by differences in play and extended text description, you can show a screenshot of a second port. But don't overdo it. – Quadell(talk)00:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Bot discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Now that Category:Articles which may no longer need images is coming up on 10,000 articles, it may be time for me to start throwing out the ideas that I've had for improving Wikipedia's image coverage:
Step 1: Remove unneeded image requests. A lot of those 10,000 articles may still need images, but quite a lot of them do not. If we can get that number down close to zero, we may be reasonably confident that every article under Category:Wikipedia requested photographs really does need an image of some kind. If we can find 100 editors each to update 100 of those articles, we can knock it out in no time at all.
Once that work is done, we can proceed to:
Step 2: The Wikipedia 2009 Photo Drive. Even after clearing out stale image requests, there will be, by my estimates, some 50,000 articles in need of images. I propose that we organize and promote a friendly competition among editors to fulfill as many of these requests as possible by some date -- say, September 1, 2009. I think that making it part of an organized push to improve Wikipedia image coverage would help get people excited about taking part and would encourage them to join in. I would love to see how many outstanding image requests we could knock off that queue in three or four months.
Comments and suggestions welcome. I have a few more ideas about how to do this but would like to hear initial responses first. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea. I'd by happy to help in step 1, but probably wouldn't be able to do much for step 2. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
What about a Commons drive in addition or instead? Basically, have a friendly competition to see who can move the most images to the Commons correctly. I think that having free files stored locally is a pretty big problem. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure! I confess this has not been a big issue on my radar but it seems like a fine thing to organize a party for. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Most articles in Category:Articles which may no longer need images no longer need images; but currently it's a bit difficult to check. When one looks at the category, one has to click on a talk page in the category, then click to see the actual article, visually inspect it, click back to the talk page, edit, then either find and remove the template (which could be in several forms) if it has a good image, or remove the category (which could be anywhere on the page) and change the template if the article still needs an image, and save. It seems like one should be able to make this easier with a script, where when you're on the article page you can click a button and have it find and remove the bits from the talkpage. Is this something that someone here could whip up? – Quadell(talk)17:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I could probably come up with a script to do this without too much difficulty in these next few days. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have spent some time placing requests in sub-categories with the intention of making the requests visible to people in the right WikiProjects. I have also just started to add {{Howtoreqphoto}} to the categories, hopefully to help people to sort through the lists. So one task is to do this for all photo request sub-categories and then try and get the Wikiproject members for specific subjects to help.Traveler100 (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Some projects use special template logic to determine if a page needs an image. For instance, chemical compounds use the {{Chembox}} infobox, which has an "ImageFile" parameter. If that parameter is empty, the page is automatically included in Category:Chemical pages needing a structure drawing; otherwise it's not. If someone adds an image, it is automatically removed from the list. This seems to me to be an excellent way of doing things. Of course, not all articles can do things this way; Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of environmental topics, for instance, doesn't have a standard infobox that can be counted on to be used in all circumstances. But it seems to me that people do. Every biographical article should use an infobox, either {{Infobox Person}} one of the myriad descendant infoboxes for everything from Belgian economists to left-handed lepidopterists. And it seems to me that if there's an image in that infobox then the article doesn't need a new image, and conversely, if there's no image in the infobox then we can assume the article needs a primary image of the person. I think it would be a great thing for Wikipedia to convert all {{Infobox Person}} and descendant infoboxes to put the article in a "needs image" category, and then we can remove all "reqphoto" (and similar) templates on biographical articles. The thing is, this would be a lot of work. (Like I said, there are umpteenbajillion different person infoboxes.) Thoughts? – Quadell(talk)20:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
In general, I prefer {{reqphoto}} very strongly to the "needs-photo" and "needs-image" parameters in infoboxes. {{reqphoto}} is much more flexible -- it can be added to multiple subject and location categories, and can be used when an editor is looking for a very specific image on a page. Infobox parameters generally are just "yes" or "no".
At the moment, when PhotoCatBot finds an article that carries an image request and has an infobox with an image, it will add it to Category:Articles which may no longer need images, following the reasoning you describe here. It seems like a good heuristic (but people do enough funny things with infoboxes that it would not be safe to take any more drastic measure). Tim Pierce (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Image upload proposal
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wait... there is such a thing? :) Okay that's an exaggeration... I've heard of it before, but never really taken a look. I haven't really gotten involved in any of the "quality" picture reviewing processes yet. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know myself! I've watchlisted the page, and I want to get an idea for their pace and how things are done. It seems to be just one (dedicated) reviewer right now. At some point, well... I've always felt that any good WikiProject needs a Peer Review department. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja17:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons dupes backlog -- gone?
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Anybody know where all the Commons dupes went? This tool now shows just 2500 dupes (down from 23,000 a few days ago), and most of those are local duplicates. Did some bot make quick work of them? – Quadell(talk)21:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't find anywhere near that many in the deletion log. Luk and Athaenara both deleted a fair number and there were others here and there, but nothing really stands out. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a raster image, which is very undesirable for a diagram that could be better-illustrated using vector graphics. Wikipedia strongly encourages the use of scalable vector graphics wherever possible.
Since it's a raster image, it's impossible for others to edit or update it without recreating it (for example to adjust the font size and placement, or change the colors, or add a new sensor size).
The text is very crowded and poorly placed with respect to the labeled rectangles.
The text uses the comma (,) instead of the period (.) as the decimal separator. This is not standard usage in any English-speaking country, and is likely to confuse anyone who views this image.
The image uses color excessively and unnecessarily, not only hurting the legibility of the image, but also making it next-to-impossible to print a legible hard-copy of this image.
I have tried to convince Wispanow that this image should not be used in its present form, that he/she should not have replaced the previous image wholesale, and that at a minimum he/she needs to recreate it in SVG format for it to be useful on wikipedia. But to no avail. So I'm asking for a third opinion from some of the other image gurus on Wikipedia. Can anyone help me convince Wispanow of the problems with the image and the need to return to the previous version. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The image has a lot of advantages. The discussion about it goes on. Simply answer. The idea was a drawing which:
Shows all currently used sensor sizes exept medium format (very similar sizes not shown)
Show all sizes in one stack, identified by color, to make it clear.
Show exact calculated figures
That are the points. Comma can be changed. Originally a german version, forgot it.
In some points you are right. I will change colors to increase readability. Change Comma. Change size. SVG could not generated because of limitations of the format and by the program used. For printing old svg could be used. Okay?Wispanow (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Based upon what you both said here and a bit of talk page discussion, I'm inclined to agree that the original is better. First, it is nigh-impossible to read the new version at thumbnail size, and even at full view it isn't easy. I don't think that any changes to color will fix that; words going over the various lines like that is difficult to read no matter what the colors are. Secondly, it seems a bit blinding... some color change could fix that, but to do enough color change would negate the benefits of having different colors. When scrolling down an article, this new image kind of jumps out at you like "Hey! Look at me!" while the original doesn't as much, which is IMO a good thing. Finally, the ability to edit the image is important... if the new version can't easily be edited by another user, it is probably a bad replacement for one that can. What if you leave the wiki? Then the only way to update it would be to start over, since you wouldn't be able to update it. The original also seems to be more useful because the text on it is easier to understand; I, with little knowledge of sensor sizes, can much more easily figure out what the original is trying to do and understand the relations between the sizes, but this is much less clear on the new version. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Drilnoth. Those are basically the issues I had as well. If Wispanow's new version were easily-editable (= SVG format), I'd simplify and rearrange the text and reduce the glaring colors. But, as you've, if the original is easier for someone to understand without any prior experience in this area, then it ought to be used in articles for now. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It is easier to change colors in a gif than in a poor svg. SVG released. You are free to change fonts and colors. Please upload changes under the same name as a new version or:Digital camera sensor sizes comparison.svg. Wispanow (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
That being the case, what would you suggest changing the colors to so that the text is readable? (although that still wouldn't solve the confusion problem that I mentioned). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Wispanow, please stop saying that SVG is "limited" or "poor quality" or that it's hard to do things with SVG. It just shows your ignorance of the format. From what I gather, you made your SVG version using the SVG output feature of Photoshop. That usually works pretty well, but isn't the most powerful way to create SVG images since Photoshop is mainly a photo editor, so that is probably part of the reason you find SVG difficult to work with. As I suggested before, try Inkscape for a very powerful vector graphics editor.
And I would concur with others that the flaws of your image make it pretty hard to get it to be as readable and useful as the other one. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I seems unlikely to me that this "stacked" approach with all the colors can be made as clear and informative as the original; even making the text legible will be a challenge. Let's put the original back until we have a consensus that we have a good replacement (not all articles that use it need to use the same one, of course). Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The first image clearly show the diferrences, the second image is just a blur of colours and texts and does not convey anything to the reader. I am pretty sure any amount of fiddling with the second image it still will not convey the same clear message as the first. MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Here I've made an SVG diagram along the lines of what Wispanow is doing, but visually consistent with the previous diagram and with a goal of legibility. This is just a first draft. You'll notice that I don't include many of the smaller sensor formats. I simply don't think there is room for them, nor are they particularly relevant to the articles in which the image is used, which I believe is an important criterion for a useful image. I did include the 1/2.5" sensor size, since it is the most common size of image sensor for compact cameras today.
Thoughts? I could add sensor dimensions and crop factor to this version, but want to prevent the text from become overwhelming. I'm planning to take a break from Wikipedia for a few days, but let me know what you think. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As it will look scaled down to 300px. Already getting hard to read, so I probably need to tweak the font sizes and text placement.
Sized the same as svg
This is definitely better. Some text placement and adjustment would be good, but this looks like a good way to present some of the visuals of the original without the difficult reading of the previous proposal. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I enlarged the text and added 1.6", 1.7", 1.8" compact camera sensor sizes. I have not added the 1/6" size, since I can't find any reliable source that gives standard dimensions for it. But I agree with Wispanow that it is a very common size for camcorders and cell phones and ought to be included if I could get dimensions for it. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
@Moxfyre: Your new image:
is even not printable. Use different greys or better colors
What??? The shade of gray matches that found in SensorSizes.svg, and is pretty visually consistent with Wikipedia's monobook style. What do you mean by "better colors"? It's much better for printing than the GIF which uses very bright colors right up against each other. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
includes nearly only DSRL and medium-format, only one compact format, which are the most sold.
Leave away the very few used medium-format, which is not a standard-one, even on film: there is 60x45, 60x60 and 60x90mm. And a lot of digital formats. Too many "medium-formats" to show and too many to list here
Include most used compact formats and even 1/6" camcorder and cell-phone format, which are common.
Two things:
Did you read what I wrote above? About how one of the main criteria for a good image is whether it is useful and relevant to the articles in which it is used? Most of the articles using these images are about DSLRs, or comparison between DSLRs and compact cameras.
There's not much room to list all these compact sensor sizes and give them clearly readable labels. This is one of the reasons why comparing sensor sizes in this visual format is problematic, and why many of us like SensorSizes.svg. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with Moxfyre and HelloAnnyong: the original SVG is easier to read, conveys more information, and matches the Wikipedia monobook theme. I like the idea of overlaying the sensor sizes, but it is hard to fit that many data points in a single rectangle. -- Autopilot (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I modified Moxfyre's image slightly to move the text to inside of the frame and faded out the lines where the text crossed to make it easier to read in the reduced size. As a comment on vector versus bitmap, since the original work was in SVG, it was trivial for me to re-arrange the elements to make this version in Inkscape, compared to trying to edit a raster image. Any thoughts on this layout? -- Autopilot (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I second that. Good idea. I tweaked the text and arrow placement slightly (cause MediaWiki renders it *slightly* differently from Inkscape) Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 00:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Images with promotional and licensing queries
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'd be grateful if you experts could run the rule over this for me.
The images appear to have been nicked from a website and posted with a creator's release by a SPA. I suspect promotional reasons.
The admin ability to rename files, its called "movefile" in the software (I think?). BTW, Quadell, I added a shortcut to the top of this page but couldn't make it not-weird-looking, mind taking a look? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja04:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It breaks up the green for me in Firefox beta-whatever. I'm fine no matter where it goes, as long as people can see it. I brought my question to VPT. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja04:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the shortcut problem with some table syntax. I also went ahead and added some images; more are needed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
PUF timeframe
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. There's a question at Talk:Johnny Eck regarding the usage of non-free images of deceased individuals and how many are necessary to stand as the "Primary means of identifying a notable person." Additional feedback would be most welcome. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Great Copyvio Purge?
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
Would there be any interest in an organized effort throughout July to track down and get rid of all the copyvios and other problematic files that have slipped through over the years? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, sure. Such a project would undoubtedly help Wikipedia, but is likely to create some backlash, so it's best to plan on being overly communicative when need be. How do you propose to proceed? – Quadell(talk)13:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Over the last month I have been doing a sweep of the non-free stamp images. While there has been some backlash with heated arguments in favour to try a justify their use, most have been deleted without too much drama. I am continuing the sweep which has so far deleted 80+ stamps, mainly US stamps being used in biographies. Keep an eye out on the daily deletion pages. ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed; good work. I'll try to get a page set up to organize a large-scale project in the next day or two. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that "The goal of this project is not to delete as many images as possible. The goal is to find honestly problematic images". But bearing that in mind, there is a danger if too many fixable images are listed all at once, that may swamp the resources available to fix them. If large categories of images that need attention are discovered, that might then require discussion as to how as many of them as possible can fixed, and how that can be scheduled, rather than people just seeing it as their duty to put as much as possible on the fire.
Also, IMO it is important that this is not seen as a revivalist crusade to open up past discussions that have gone quiet. The aim of deletion should be restricted to images which really are "copyvios", not those that are legally permissible fair use per U.S. law. Some care is needed to be clear on this. Jheald (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely; the page is still being worked on, but the emphasis should be that if something can be fixed it should be fixed before deletion is considered. I chose the name "Great Copyvio Purge" because it was kind of catchy, IMO... it will include all "problematic images", like fair-use images lacking rationales or with insufficient rationales, but there again, the focus should be on fixing up and adding rationales where possible, and opening discussion on some of them. Anyway, give me another day or two to work out the page's setup and the project's organization... I think that working on fixing or removing fair-use images which fail WP:NFCC is (almost) as important as fixing or removing unsourced images, for example, except that extra care must be taken with them, which I hope to provide more information about once the page is done. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! Of course, you can feel free to start at any time. :) I'll probably spam this to a few of the announcements-type locations and WikiProjects to try and find some more interest. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You might want to mention somewhere that just because an image is tagged {{GFDL-self}} doesn't mean that it's not a copyvio. Running through the migration procedure I've come across several images that looked suspicious, and sure enough were straight copyvio rips or slight crops without attribution. Admins, since you can see deleted files, please watch out for and be suspicious of files that were re-uploaded under the same or slightly different names with a GFDL tag appended. Photos of celebrities in particular are prone to this kind of abuse, as people seem to be offended that their favorite celebrity doesn't have a photo, and don't bother to read about promo copyright templates or fair use. "If I tag it GFDL-self it will go through!" Bad. --RabidDeity (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
lists of requests for photographs
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. There's a request at WT:COPYCLEAN for review of an image uploader who may have placed extensive vios on the project. If anybody has time and inclination to help out, the matter is listed here. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Original research in images
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Do we have any policies on including images that are OR? Apparently these can't be deleted from Commons for this reason. As far as I know, we have no policies on these images actually being used; all of our criteria are for inclusion on content, not usage or linking. Am I wrong about this? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja01:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Petition
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hey all. As knowledgeable people, I'd like to know what you thought about my petition (regardless of whether you can sign it or not). Cheers, - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]16:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, no-one's complained yet. "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals". Given the similarity of goals, I think this flies cleanly under the radar. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]19:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This certainly seems reasonable to have information about on-wiki, because of the whole dispute with the NPG and 2,000(?)+ images on Commons. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
RfC on the Rorschach test: fresh eyes needed
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Is there a way to include very wide image such that the horizontal scrollbar starts at the right (not left) end of the image? An example where this is useful would be Japanese handscrolls like File:Hell Scroll Nara.jpg which are read from the right to the left. bamse (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Upper Murray Football League was tagged for copypaste concerns. The text is sufficiently clear, but I'm really confused by the number of logos. These are not being used under FUR, but are uploaded (by the same user) on Commons as "public domain, self." Now, if I could find variants of those elsewhere on the web, I would tag for copyright concerns. I suppose it's possible he's making up his own logos? Since I'm not that active in images, I would appreciate an additional set of eyes. :) His Commons gallery collects everything nicely. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Image issue update
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Apologies for failing to post a notice to this project earlier, when the RfC on thumbsizes was launched at IUP; WPIM seems to have been born while I was on a wikibreak but it's good to have found it at last.
After years of wrangling and inconclusive discussion, we finally have a consensus to increase the default image markup thumb size from 180 to 220px. I expect the change will be implemented in the very near future and will hopefully inspire a flurry of image-related gnoming, as countless articles have been populated with often random forced sizes over recent months and years. In many cases, thumb sizes have been forced to 220-250px anyway; it's also true that a considerable number of registered users may have already set >200px in their user prefs. This notwithstanding, it's going to be good not only to remove this forcing in mainspace use, there's an opportunity here to initiate a taskforce charged with auditing image use and placement in general. I was kind of wondering if this might be a good place to base that activity... looking around, I think it would be very happy here :-)
As forced thumb markup has (more often than not) been done to improve article layout and image visibility, some sensitivity, combined with a good eye for layout is required in our gnomery. A taskforce probably needs to agree standards and methodology, discuss scripting and bot potential, and possibly coaching wannabe gnomes in the best practice, with more than half an eye on IUP and MOS.
I'll leave it there for now to hopefully spark some discussion along those lines.
I second what Mick says. I believe one of the developers will look into changing the default for the whole site next week. Brion Vibber (CTO) has given the OK. Tony(talk)11:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
RfC: Image use in infobox
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On a regular basis someone gets motivated to tag images with {{Non-free reduced}}. There is however no advice with this template on what is a good size. How big can an image be that contains fair-use copyrighted content? More to the point when only part of the image contains copyrighted content how many pixels are acceptable. Could someone point me to simple and clear guidelines on this? --Traveler100 (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Protected file pages
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Non-admins can't update the description pages of protected images. This means that such pages usually lack links to other versions of the image, and they lack categorization etc. This can also lock out the uploader himself from updating the description, which can be very frustrating and might discourage further image uploads. (I know from personal experience.)
I have a solution for this. It is the same solution that we have used for protected templates for years now. I would like to start using and promote using the {{documentation}} template on protected file pages. I have done the necessary code updates so all the technical stuff is in place. See the technical details, a live example, and discuss it over at Wikipedia talk:Template documentation#File pages.
just simply reference it like an image uploaded to Wikipedia. The image will automatically be copied over from Commons to Wikipedia. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
Right now I'm constructing a robot that will process recent uploads and check them for problems. The following is currently or planned to be checked:
If the image description page is empty, tag it with {{di-no source no license}} and notify uploader
If the image description page is missing a copyright tag, tag it with {{di-no license}} and notify uploader
If the image is tagged as a non-fre logo and is an SVG, the image is tagged with {{SVG-Logo}}
If the image has an appropriate FUR but not a matching license, it is tagged with {{di-no license}} and the uploader is notified with a special template telling which tag needs to be added. (By default, the upload page fills out the form for the FUR, but never adds the right license)
If the image is properly tagged and is fair-use and not used, it will take note of the image and go back an hour later to see if it is used. If it's still orphaned, it is tagged with {{Di-orphaned fair use}} and the uploader is notified
The part of the bot that can identify problem images is nearly done, it's currently running in userspace. The templates used in notifying users are going to be made soon. I would like everyone's opinion on the process so far, and input as to what could be changed. Thanks. FinalRapture - †☪20:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable idea at first glance.
First thing that springs to mind: is something like this already in use on Commons? Might avoid wheel reinvention, or, alternately, be of use there. Of course, Commons has an upload wizard that tries to steer people in the right direction. But Commons still gets something like 10% of uploads that are shoot-on-sight policy violations. At worst, a complex upload procedure puts off those of good faith and doesn't impede those of bad faith in the slightest (WP:PRAC - you can't regulate stupid or evil out of existence), so a bot that tries to help after upload may (to my mind) help us keep more n00bs.
Hi. Commons does not have an efficient upload watching bot. AFAIK, only the pictures missing a license are automatically tagged as such, and of course the unfree license tags (fair use, etc) automatically result in a speedy deletion template. What is proposed here seems very specific to the unfree content policy of Wikipedia, and is not applicable to Commons, as unfree content is out of scope there. Automating the recent upload watch on Commons seams a bit difficult, since it relies mostly on the trained eye and research capabilities of a few admins, but we are of course open to suggestions... Tagging images with empty source fields may probably be considered interesting, but it would also lead to false positives and pissed occasional users. --Eusebius (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The information template on commons automatically detects empty source, permission and description fields (no bot needed). Assuming of course the information template is used, which it automatically is when the image is uploaded through our modified upload form. --Dschwen15:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion
Admins: Huge numbers of files have been moved to Commons in the last few days, and more are likely in the coming days. Please take a look at the following categories and help by deleting the (now-redundant) images:
Maybe if the Commons hadn't desysoped so many admins for inactive periods, then there might be more help during times of need. Cliques are such a problem. Most people don't want to be fulltime admins like some admins. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Commons admins? Only enwiki admins can delete images on enwiki. As far as I know there are more admins on enwiki than on Commons. If you find bad transfers (fair use perhaps) just tag it with a speedy and we will delete it on Commons. Some of us do not mind to help you of course but 1) we have enough backlogs on commons and 2) we need an admin-flag to do it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I think they used a script or AWB to do this, and moved every image with a "move to Commons" tag. This user is blocked for 3 days there for moving these images, so don't expect these categories to grow too much any more. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja08:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Quick question. So its not advised moving images from en wiki to commons in bulk? I thought I was helping the community until I saw the block notice. --Sreejith K (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. From the point of view of a Commons admin (it is I who have blocked you), no, it is not desirable, because the files should be checked manually prior to the move: some are missing a source, some are credited to a person other than the uploader and therefore missing an OTRS permission (these issues are more easily resolved by local users while the files are still on their home wiki), some are actually fair use pictures, some are copyright violations for reasons more or less obscure. It is ok to make mistakes of course, you're not expected to know everything about everything (neither are we, I hope), but "blind" bulk uploads don't help. In your case in particular, it is pretty hard to watch your file moves (because they don't appear in your contribs), so it is difficult to check all of them (and we're not done). It is really time-consuming for the few admins on the case... Also see the note I've left on your Commons talk page about unblocking. --Eusebius (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it's bot assisted moves, but a lot of times, I'm seeing images moved to Commons that are crediting the person who moved it to Commons in addition to or instead of the en uploader. Didn't there used to be a bot that would correctly generate the description pages and copy everything, including OTRS, etc? --B (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It is true that the moving bots do not generate image pages in the proper final format. However, to the best of my knowledge they do not lose any information (when properly used), and they provide a reference to the user having moved the media. The latter is needed in case there is an issue with the file. But the "cleaning up" of the bot output is indeed tedious, and not automated (I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be, but it generates a huge and pretty much ignored backlog). --Eusebius (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I sometimes move images with a bot. You still have to check images before and after the transfer. Bulk uploads can be ok because you can use the bot to fix errors that are on many transfers (fixing syntax and removing bad templates). The best thing would be that uploader scans the uploads and start tagging fair use and copyvios for speedy deletion. That will ofcourse demand a unblock but if normally we do not block users that are willing to cleanup.
It will take some time to cleanup but as long as enwiki admins do not delete the originals then everyone can help. --MGA73 (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
About unblock: certainly, I have explained on his talk page that he can be unblocked on request. He was blocked because otherwise it would have been impossible to deal with the mass moves (he didn't react to messages and warnings). EDIT: block now lifted. About bot moves: why move a file on Commons and then tag it as fair use, instead of checking the file on WP and removing the "move to Commons" tag? But of course, as soon as one checks the files at some point, the bot in itself is not a major issue. --Eusebius (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Files that are (possibly) fair use (non free) should of course NOT be moved to Commons unless you are really sure it is really a free image. But now that they are on Commons we should try to find and fix them fast. --MGA73 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Also many images are listed as "no source" when they were take by the uploader (File:Don't panic.JPG). Please keep in mind that the images were uploaded with all of the info that they had on WP, and that each image had already been tagged to be moved to Commons, so severe problems should be the exception here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. The first two are bot actions, and like all bot actions they must be checked before any deletion. They were checked, and the files weren't deleted of course. The "don't panic" file was tagged (by me) as missing a permission because the credited author was not the uploader's username, and I could find no "identity claim" on his user page. MGA73 removed the problem tag because the link seemed obvious to him. This is exactly the kind of issue that should be solved (or cleared) on WP before the move, because working cross-wiki is not automated and may lead to too undue deletions. --Eusebius (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
My bot found almost 200 images that was identified as possibly fair use. So far it seems that it is better than expected and many (most?) images are ok after all. That is good news. Question is now if we should check those 200 images manually or we should make the bot remove the speedy-tag again.
As for the no source/permission problem tagging with a "no source/permission detected" is in many cases the same as a speedy deletion because if it was uploaded ages ago then original uploader might not be active and see the problem or in cases like this the original uploader is not the same as the person who transfered the image to Commons. So with these old images it might be better to start a deletion request because that way more users are involved and will debate the status. In many cases PD-self has been used by uploaders when it is own work. Now we would like users to write "own work" but in 2005 or 2006 that might not be the case. Therefore we should either nuke it or AGF and asume that is own work. I removed a few "no xxx" and changed one to a deletion request. If someone thinks that my removal was a mistake I suggest a formal deletion request so that "no source/permission" is only used in obvious cases. --MGA73 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to let people know that I've been working on the following list of images at User:Chzz/dsc (which I also cross-posted at WP:AN) which contain images starting with the prefix "DSC" – a common format used in file names for Sony digital cameras. There are about 2300 files total, and I have been moving a few of them to Commons using the Move-to-commons assistant under more descriptive filenames. I also have nominated a few of them for WP:FFD and a couple for WP:PUI. If I am doing something I should not be doing, please let me know. –MuZemike23:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Image display without copyright release
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I would like to include one of my works 'Spirit of Spring' [9] in the article for Light painting, but I am not prepared to release my copyright. Is there anyway to overcome this?
Can anyone help answer the question above, which was posed to me? The answer to my knowledge is no, but my knowledge on this subject is scant. Thanks in advance. - Draeco (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Following a my reply to a question at RSN from User:Frugivore(talk), he has decided to upload a large number of his photographs of Maylaysian flora and fauna, but as you can see from the discussion at my talk page, he is very new to Wikipedia and also needs some help in identifying the fauna (his expertise is flora). Can anyone here give him some help and encouragement, and perhaps some advice on batch uploading - I know that it's better to have a descriptive filename for each image, but other editors won't be able to identify the subjects until the images are uploaded – any advice? I really don't want to discourage him from contributing the photographs, simply because he may find the procedures too complex. --RexxS (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, that is done. I have no experience of batch uploading, so could I ask if anyone here would be willing to spend a little time to coach User:Frugivore(talk) on the process, please? --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Improve NowCommons
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Anybody with good photoshop skills or experience with tone mapping / HDR imagery?
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ok so, what I need done probably isn't nearly as complicated as a true HDR. I've taken two pictures of the same location (three sets of two pics actually, for three locations). Each of these sets has one photo that illuminates ground objects and a second that shows the sky at proper brightness. I want to combine the sky and the ground photos to create a photo that shows both at proper contrast.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The list of requests for photographs of people has become too large to be of use to anyone. I propose to split the main categories into a number of smaller and more specific categories so that people will be more willing to attempt addressing and reducing the list.
Proposal documented here: User:People-photo-bot. Comments welcome before I start working further on the task.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Images and Media for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Can someone take a look at this article please - the image is appearing at the bottom of the page, and not in the section it should be in: John Barnett (rugby). I looked for help in the WP pages where I expected it, and nothing seemed to discuss this.SauliH (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not positive, but I think that what is happening is that the image is being rendered as soon as possible after the infobox, and since the entire article is shorter than the infobox, that's the first place the image can appear. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Outreach to media organisations that are likely to be positive?
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi,
Having just read the profile of WikiProject Images and Media in the latest Signpost, I happened to stumble across the article on the new BBC TV show Rev., which, like many articles on TV series or episodes, has only fair use images (and often with dubious fair use rationales). It occurred to me that the BBC and other state broadcasters (e.g. NRK) have aims that are at least somewhat compatible with the goals of Wikipedia and Commons; being state funded, some times with some sort of licensing fee levied on television equipment or similar arrangements, they have goals like furthering culture, education, and arts. In other words, there are several reasons to think they should or could be positive to some sort of collaboration with Wikipedia and/or Commons. So I wonder, has any effort at outreach been made towards these organizations?
As one example, I'd envision it might be fruitful to approach the BBC, possibly by way of its graphics department, about setting up a long-term partnership wherein they routinely and actively supply us with promotional images of TV production title screens, images of principal cast (typically promotional images), and individual actors in a role, all, of course, under a free license. In a perfect world one might even hope to see short video clips or audio segments released under a free license for similar reasons, but I imagine that would be a much harder nut to crack. The broadcaster, in this case the BBC, would ensure the graphics accompanying the articles on their productions are of good quality and well represent their efforts, which will probably repay the (hopefully very small) investment of resources in the form of positive exposure ("public relations" is not only advertising!). It would need to be a long-term strategy because the process on both sides would need to be fleshed out and established to ensure smooth running, and because I imagine there are any number of practical and legal hurdles the BBC would need to clear before being able to put such a system into practice even if they're immediately enthusiastic about the idea. The biggest problem there, I would imagine, is that the BBC in many cases would be not the producer, but a licensee, of a particular production; and thus would need to get various releases and such from the actual production company. However, long term, if something like this could be got off the ground, this might be a sufficiently positive arrangement for all parties that standard terms and contracts are amended to facilitate such an arrangement as a matter of course.
Anyways, it struck me—and I may be wrong of course—that state broadcasters such as the BBC have, if a mutually beneficial partnership can be established, enormous potential for long term benefit for Images and Media on Wikipedia and Commons, for a relatively small ongoing labour cost (for all involved); could potentially have very positive secondary effects and raise awareness of these issues; would serve as golden examples to use in discussions with other kinds of media organizations (commercial broadcasters, Hollywood in general, museums, etc.); and might be very effective "low-hanging fruit" for the project to invest in. A "win-win" situation, in other words.
I'm not sufficiently versed in the issues involved to be much help in such an effort, and the random thoughts above may be hopelessly naive and lacking in relevant history—so do feel free laugh derisively at my expense, I promise I shan't be offended :-)—but I figured I'd drop a note here to see if anyone thought the idea worth pursuing. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia and FBI in logo use row
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As you may know by now there is an issue with wikipedia's use of a scalable FBI seal. Wikipedia's attorney, godwin, defend's its use. But there are several issues, 1- unwanted attention, 2- the tag on the image page states that it is insufficient. I am wondering if it is better for users to propose a consensus on making a lower image res. either way yall's input is desired. two conversations here and here. Some thing (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
photo requests
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The list of requests for photographs of people has become too large to be of use to anyone. I propose to split the main categories into a number of smaller and more specific categories so that people will be more willing to attempt addressing and reducing the list.
Proposal documented here: User:People-photo-bot. Comments welcome before I start working further on the task.
The two very large categories have now been reduced to below 10000 article and I can see how I can make further impact on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople, however I am finding it difficult to identify templates that will have an impact on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people. Does anyone know of a tool that will go through a category and summarise the template used in the pages. What I need is a list with how often each template is used in the people category, can then add this to the program and move those pages to a subcategory. Any other suggestions on identifying pages? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I tried to revert File:Alkhalid.jpg back to the original uploaded image as it has been overwritten by a different image that doesnt now match the release and source details. Tried to revert but obviously didnt do the right thing if anybody can advise how to do it it would be appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Following the recent debate over the non-free policy, I've started a new essay - Arguments to avoid in non-free image discussions - to have something as a rebuttal to the most common misunderstandings. At the moment it's partially in quote form, however at some point, I'll probably convert it to prose. Anyway, comments welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Photography (already/soon part of this Project)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I know that watermarked images are discouraged. Is there a method by which an editor may request the services of an expert on image manipulation? Specifically, to clean the watermark off an image which has already been uploaded.
I am asking on behalf of Drnsreedhar1959 (talk·contribs), who asked me "I have posted a few more pictures. But they contain watermark. Unfortunately, all the images I have in my album have them and I am unable to remove. It is welcome if someone is able to do that." --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
How do I find my uploaded images?
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I uploaded some images to Wikipedia and now cannot find them. Is there an entryway somewhere to get into the collection of images? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not quite the best place to ask but when you are logged in, just click on "my contributions" at the top right of any page to see your edits which includes all file uploads, so long as they have not been deleted. ww2censor (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
That will list edits in all namespaces. There are two ways to restrict this to files only (whether image files or sound files):
In the "Search for contributions" box, find the "Namespace" drop-down menu, and select "File", then click "Search". This will list both uploads and subsequent edits (amended descriptions etc).
At the bottom of the "my contributions" page you should find a "Files uploaded" link, which will show just the uploaded image files, omitting all the subsequent edits.
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
How do I add an image from a Wikipedia article in an other language to English Wikipedia? I will like to add an image that is on a luxembourgish article to an English article.--MFIreland • Talk21:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
What is the luxembourgish article concerned, and which image in that article are we dealing with? The thing is, whether you can use the image easily or not depends upon where it's held. To find out, go to the relevant article page, and click on the image to get to the image description page. Immediately below the image itself is the info on its resolution; just below that, there may be a box stating something like "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. ...". If there is nothing like that, it's almost certainly on the local wikipedia.
The Luxembourgish image is Fichier:Arméi oofzeechen.jpg from the article Lëtzebuerger Arméi and its not on commons. Im not sure now to copy it to commons. I tried adding the tag {Copy to Wikimedia Commons} to the image page but the English language tag does not work and I cant find a Luxembourgish tag.--MFIreland • Talk00:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is there a place in this project to discuss video uploads? I am trying to make the process of transcoding and posting snippets of full-length course videos easier, so that MIT OCW videos can be better incorporated into the projects. –SJ+04:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there an illustrator here?
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The difference between lossless (top) and lossy (bottom) in images, dramatized. You can tell that both are butterflies, however the quality of the lossless version (top) is much, much higher. The same concept applies in sounds, you can tell what a composition is, but the quality of a lossless track is much, much higher.
Featured Sounds has need of a musopen professional account in order to acquire lossless versions of free use music. There are two purposes to this. First, we aim to replace currently uploaded lossy versions of musopen tracks with lossless versions, and second, we aim to expand the number of lossless files hosted on Commons. In several cases, we have the first part of a several part musical composition, and are in need of the other parts. Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata is one such case, where we have the first of three parts from Musopen, but not the second or third.
Musopen music is all public domian, and the lossy versions of the music hosted there can be accessed for free. However it costs $4 a month $50 a year (which they advertise as $4 a month, but is paid for by the year) to have a professional account, which would allow us to download the lossless versions from Musopen. As you can see by the above link to the Sonata, Wikipedia already uses Musopen as a source of sound files, with no problems.
The difference between lossy and lossless is illustrated in the image to the right. While that is an image, not a sound file, the basic concept remains the same, in that lossless is much better quality.
I believe that this would be a good use of WMF funds, as it meets the Foundation's goals of acquiring a large depository of free use files (i.e. what Commons is) and of improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia (because you can read about the Moonlight Sonata, or you could read about it and listen to it.)
I'm cross posting this on several places where it would be of interest. If the community thinks it's a good idea, we can begin thinking about which budget it comes from and who has access to the account. (To the second point, I would volunteer my time as the/an account holder, and upload from Musopen upon request.)
(Re-adding after comment was deleted) Sounds good, but the money would have to come from the WMF, I think. Still, it'd really help the sounds we've got, and add a nice new media feature to lots of our articles. Two questions: How long would we need the subscription for, and how many files do they have? The Cavalry (Message me) 1:22 am, Today (UTC+0)
There are hundreds of pieces (but not thousands), some in multiple parts. The full list can be browsed here. As to how long we would need it, the only option, it appears, is a $50 US a year subscription using paypal. I'm sure we'd pull 50 files from it at least though, possibly multiple times that. Sven ManguardWha?02:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
So we want to pay for their 'premium service', download all their premium files, and then republish them on a site that anyone can view without any subscription fee at all. How does that fit into their business model? That is, why would/do they allow us to do that? Happy‑melon10:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Seconded - I would like to avoid another National Portrait Gallery but as they offer their listening services for free we may not have that problem. A little clarification would be appreciated. PanydThe muffin is not subtle14:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, all of the works are public domain, we can't steal them. What we're paying for is not the work, as much as the costs of keeping the site afloat. Bandwidth costs money. Moreover they make it explicit that we can do exactly that, as seen in the disclaimer and OTRS ticket that goes with Musopen uploads on Commons (again, link is above.) Sven ManguardWha?19:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
They don't have a "business model" - they are a non-profit charity. They charge money for lossless because they can't realistically give away that much bandwidth based on their donation levels. Wikimedia can afford it. Jujutaculartalk14:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Four dollars a month? Are we sure someone doesn't already have a subscription for that cheap? This seems like relatively small money; also, why not make a deal between them and the WMF directly, e.g. pay a one-time fee and they send us their whole collection? /ƒETCHCOMMS/03:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I just clarified that, sorry. They actually charge $50 once a year for a whole year, so it's really just advertising. As for the one time fee for the collection, that might work, except for that their collection is growing, so we'd have to have an account to get the new stuff anyways. If we negotiated a partnership, it would have to have a stipulation allowing us free lossless access to the new works as well. Sven ManguardWha?04:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Before you guys go out and purchase anything, if you're expecting to get reimbursed from the foundation for this, you should clear it first with the appropriate people (Philippe or Christine would be the first level contact, and they can pass it along further if needed). Just sayin', that might be important -- $50 doesn't grow on trees for anyone. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender17:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Files for Discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I noticed that File:Quaternion_Plague_on_Broom_Bridge.jpg is in quite low resolution and hard to read. I went looking for a better image of the plaque on the Web, and found that there is already one in the Commons: File:William_Rowan_Hamilton_Plaque_-_geograph.org.uk_-_347941.jpg. If this had been used just in the one article where I saw it, I would have just changed the link, but it's being used in five English-language articles and about two dozen globally, which made me wonder whether there's a better approach in this situation, something like redirecting the image page instead of changing all the links? Joriki (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
One thing that is technically possible is to download the better picture and re-upload it as a newer version of the image that's currently in use. I would check on Commons to find out if there's a procedure that needs to be followed to do something like that, however. —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Both suggestions are not realy what we like at Commons. Probably easiest to use the delinker to just replace the image. That is what I just did. The delinker will replace all usage. multichill (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Find Image
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I had uploaded a bunch of images on Wikipedia and now that I am trying to find them for uploading on their respective articles, I can't find my uploaded images. Where and how can I find them ? Nefirious (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
To find your uplaods, just click on the "My contributions" at the top of any wikipedia page when logged in and then you can filter all you contributions by selecting "File" from the drop down menu to only show edits to images. All the images you uploaded or edited are listed here though any images that did not comply with our copyright policy have already been deleted per the post on your talk page that notified you they might be deleted. BTW you don't upload images to articles, you just place them there by adding the necessary code. You may find it useful to read WP:EIS. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
In both cases they are distracting, unprofessional (is that needed?) and may be of dubious merit as a means of soliciting for images. I don't know what should be done about the second example but I would like to see them removed from the infoboxes. The "req photo" parameter for the WikiProject can keep track of the articles that need an image. I would like to think that a WikiProject is a better way of getting images added to articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Totally agree with your comments. The image does not look good in and article. Any requests for improvement should be made of the talk page. If an article on a person does not have a picture of that person it is very apparent without having to add something. The reqphoto is a better method of bring articles to the attention of people, particularly if the sub categories are well used. The question is how to fix this? There are tens of thousand of articles using these images. Before fixing this (with a bot) consensus is needed, which is not apparent from previous discussions. As for solution, there are many pages using this image that do not have a WPBio need-photo or rerqphoto template on the talk page and quite a few that do not even have a talk page. Adding, if required, a template to all the articles I think is something that could be done with little discussion but removing the image on the article page is. Should the image be removed or alternatively replaced with a smaller, less in your face, image?--Traveler100 (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Dont think they are needed they just look unprofessional and it is normally obvious the infobox does not have an image. But agree with Traveler that if the placeholder is deleted we need to make sure the talk pages are tagged with an image needed template. MilborneOne (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with a proposal to remove the placeholder images from biographical article infoboxes. Talkpage photo requests can be more easily categorized and found by photographers. —Tim Pierce (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking of tagging the pages with {{WikiProject Biography|needs-photo=yes}} but some articles are not about people. For example Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. A challenge to automate. How does adding need-photo=yes if the Biography template already exists and reqphoto if no Biography template on the talk page? --Traveler100 (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
(sorry about the annoying indentation) That should be pretty easy to automate with a bot. In pseudocode:
if (!talk_has_photo_req) {
if (talk_transcludes_bio_project_template) {
add_reqphoto_param();
} else {
add_reqphoto_template();
}
}
And I think regex could be used to create the two variables and used to determine where to put the new parameter/template if needed. It shouldn't be too tough for any of the bot coders who have done much with more customized page editing already. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
My comment was more to do with how to identify articles about people when it is not tagged with WPBio. On the programming side though. I use AWB to run bots but this has a limit of 25000 on image where used lists. Can anyone suggest a method of creating a full list of where used for these two images? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
And besides, even if a bio article gets tagged with the generic {{reqphoto}} template, it isn't a big deal. Tagging non-bio articles with the bio-specific one would be more problematic. I really don't think that this would be an issue for a lot of the more prolific bot coders. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion For the pages that have images in the page or in a gallery can replace with a not so loud image. Alternatively change the existing graphics with a new one. For example:- --Traveler100 (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
New essay
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm sure your gallery removal project is very worthy and all that, but simply removing a gallery with all its contents, as happened on ine of the articles I curate, may do more harm than good. Whilst it satisfies an objective, simply deleting all gallery content along with the gallery seems arbitrary and not conducive to good relationshps between editors. Is there such a hurry? Why not tag articles you want to amend with a two week warning or the like? hjuk (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
OK I did some digging through user contributions. I do not see a project to remove galleries but there is a guideline that Wikipedia is not intended as a repository of images without textual content WP:NOTGALLERY. I tend to agree with you that User:Mattbuck as been a little enthusiastic with interpretation of this guideline. I would suggest if you disagree with this edit to simply undo it (but only once). If the images are removed again then bring the edit up with other members of the wikiproject related to the article pages for there thoughts.--Traveler100 (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
zoom and movement control
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I was wondering if there was any coding available on Wikipedia to allow zooming with an article? Sometimes there are quite detailed images (where zoomed out, you can't see much at all but they're too big to show full size) that it would be good for people to be able to look more closely at them within the article. I'm thinking if an actual zoom in and out isn't possible... maybe like with the panorama images, you can scroll left to right along it; perhaps there is a way to also have it scrolling up and down at the same time and maybe set a default start point?- J.Logan`t: 09:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Did not think it was that difficult to find, but I think it would be good to make more prominent. I have added it to the tab bar at the top.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Old image version as thumbnail
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I recently found an image File:P3B6P55COAN.jpg on the Lockheed P-3 Orion page that had an image credit, looking at the source at commons it has been edited in 2009 to remove the credit. The thumbnail in the article continues to show the older version of the image. Doesnt look right but I am not sure what is wrong, any idea, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I went to the image's page on commons: and clicked the "purge" link in the down-arrow menu toward the right of the tab bar. This should have fixed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The featured-article candidate Shapley-Folkman lemma would benefit from a review of its illustrations. The article has 3 supports and no opposes; the supports did not discuss the illustrations. A FA-specialist editor asked for a review of the illustrations.
There are two new images for the page, as well as an animation.
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have some questions on moving files to Wikimedia Commons. I see a significant number of files I have uploaded to Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia Commons. I have some questions:
File:AbandonedDraft1.png is no longer needed. I uploaded it. Can I just delete it, and if so, just how?
File:PhiladelphiaWaterDepartment logo.png is in the public domain, along with a number of other logos that I have uploaded to Wikipedia. I have the impression that it is harder to get such public domain logos accepted on Wikimedia Commons. There are many more, done when I was working on various Philadelphia organizations. For example, File:Fpaa.gif.
File:Public Record leader.png was uploaded with a claim of fair use, like several other newspaper leaders. I have the impression that it is harder to get such fair use newspaper leaders accepted on Wikimedia Commons.
I know that these questions relate to either keeping a file here on Wikipedia, or deleting it as no longer needed, or deleting it when there is an equivalent in the Commons.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Some images on English Wikipedia need to be rotated. If they are published under a free licence, they can be moved to Commons where they can obtain the {{rotate}} template. Fair use images needing rotation (e.g. File:CityofJoy.jpg and File:HMS Diana Crest.jpg) can't be moved to Commons, so what do I do with them? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It's probably a good idea to specify how far to rotate, and in which direction, because it might not be obvious. However, I would say that the basic idea is good: that's what I did just under a year ago, and nobody complained. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Question on Image Tag
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I was searching, but really, I couldn't find it neither at Commons nor here at enwp a page which explains how to convert files to a suitable format for enwp/com. In my case I need to convert a mp3. Won't you want to create a howto page? mabdul12:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Huch? The howto page is related to mainspace articles, but not for Help pages. How should we build and improve an encyclopedia without the needed tools? This is not a problem for and about newbees, this is a gerneral problem. I found an option in CDex which helped me - a really useful application although not longer in development. MP3s can be edited by many tools because it is somehow the marketleader and ogg/vorbis is mostly unknown for even experienced PC users. mabdul19:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! I have a little problem with "File:BillyAndMandy.png." As you see, it is a transparent image. However, there is a large empty transparent "chunk" on the right, and I can't get it away, as I am quite old-school, as I still use Paint (software) as my main tool, and I would really appreciate if someone would "cut it" away, along with the little "TVY7" logo on the left. :) All the Best, --Khanassassin☪19:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm mindful of the need to enhance articles with images, but a bit daunted by the CC licensing requirements. I need some info on what to say when requesting a photo from the subject of an article. I requested a photo from a singer-songwriter recently and she sent me a standard promo picture of herself. Is it enough that she sent it to me, knowing that it was for a Wikipedia article, or do I have to get her (or the photographer) to sign off on CC? What is a simple way to make the request? Sunray (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately no, just being sent an image without a specific licence will not work because we try to respect all copyright images. You need to get the copyright holder to verify their permission by email by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Examples you can refer to are at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Maybe one will suit your needs. ww2censor (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I figured that was the answer, I guess I was just hoping for something easier for folks :) Sunray (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
RFC on image categorisation
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Well, using other peoples images could be controversial, however, I found that a large number of images found on Wikipedia are taken by others, normally from Flickr. There's even a page for that. Now, the Photobucket terms of use goes:
You are also giving other Users the right to copy, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and create derivative works from it via the Site or third party websites or applications (for example, via services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content, and via social media websites).
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I want to show pictorials of the processing steps in making different Printed Circuit Boards from jpg's or png's I will make. Is there away to do a slide show. I think that be more efficient space-wise than a series of images across the page. Thanks. -- :- ) Don05:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
You could create an animated gif file. Pack the individual images into one image file with a time stated for the display of each. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
That is an option I have thought about, but it would be nice if the user could go at their own pace or backwards. Is there any kind of reasonable software you know of to do the gif sequence? I have photoImpact, it will do gif's but I think just single images. -- :- ) Don06:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have set up {{WikiProject Images and Media}} ( I was surprised to see that one did not exist). I have to get my head around all the parameters to finalise all the features. 00:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Several of the maintenance, cleanup, and process wikiprojets/wikidepartments don't have project templates, so its not so surprising. Most of them that do have banners don't have any features turned on. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Potential collaboration/taskforce/WikiProject
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
There are a huge number -- tens of thousands at least -- of geographic articles that lack photographs, and which are also either tagged, or eligible to be tagged, with coordinates. In many cases, these articles can be located geographically to the country level, or in some cases to the state/county level, allowing the identification of relevant WikiProjects.
I could easily adapt my coordinate tagging bot code to identify articles which meet these criteria, but do not have a photograph (based on a variety of heuristics involving scanning the HTML code of the article -- eg. no image bigger than an icon that is not identifiable as a map image -- and erring on the side of caution wherever possible), and then add a {{reqphoto}} tag to the talk page, with an appropriate "in" parameter if a relevant WikiProject exists. If needed, I could filter this activity using other category data or metadata, to prevent overwhelming the reqphoto systen: or I could possibly add an extra parameter to reqphoto to allow the expression of priority, or other type information. It would seem logical to start with a small subset of these articles, to prove the concept without creating disruption.
The question is, would this help get more people to upload picture? Experience show not necessarily. Just take a look what this process does example here - Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Italy (and I filtered Sicily and people out of that large list). If you which to write some code, then a tool to help find photographs for pages would be more useful. For example cross checking coordinates on Wikipedia articles with coordinates of photographs on Commons.--Traveler100 (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a really interesting thought. Over at the WP:COORD WikiProject, we've had really good results with the tagging process. Starting from a very low number of tagged articles at the beginning. Over time, we've seen article tagging rise from almost zero to the point where the rate of tagging is currently actually slighly greater than the rate of article creation, with the backlog of untagged eligible articles slowly trending downwards toward zero.
One big factor in this was the establishment of a virtuous cycle: since the majority of geographic articles have geotags, new article creators now tend to tag new articles as a matter of course, and un-tagged articles stick out as exceptions to be cleaned up, with some editors treating this as a challenge, and working steadily to chip away at the backlog using the missing coordinate categories as to-do lists.
A big part of getting this to happen was pump-priming the process through bot-driven geocoding, using a large set of heuristics to match over a hundred thousand articles to external public domain coordinate datasets. I had previously considered doing something like this for UK article images, mashing together the set of UK articles without photos with the UK Geograph database of free-licensed images, using a combination of proximity and keyword matching to find plausible matches. However, in the case of adding images, I can see this adding a couple of false-positive incorrectly-matched images for every hundred good images added. Of course, these edits could easily be reverted by human editors, or, even better, function as just sufficient irritant to make them find or make a better photo, but I've not wanted to make large numbers of edits to potentially tens of thousands of articles without getting community approval first.
I can see from looking at commons:Category:Media with locations that there are currently over 3 million images with coordinates on Commons. That probably means that quite a few articles currently without images might be eligible to have images added automatically, either though using coordinate/keyword matching, interwiki image inclusion matching, or both.
If this is something that would meet with community approval, I'd be happy to take another look at this problem, with a wider focus beyond just the Geograph database. -- The Anome (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I was not thinking of something that would add images automatically but a tool that displayed suggestions. Ideas here:-Locating photographs for articles.
Doesn't that already exist, as Para's "Proximityrama" tool? If you go to the geohack page for an article by clicking on a coordinate link, and go down the page to the word "Proximityrama" and click on that, it will give you a proximity search for images near, or overlooking, those coordinates. -- The Anome (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The map plot is good but you have to go through each article one at a time. I was thinking more like the output of FIST. Alternatively is there a way to overlap the GeoCommons plot with the Map photo request plot?--Traveler100 (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Proper copyright tag for old family photos of Notable people?
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've been helping a new editor with his draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bob Lilley; subject is a British soldier who was one of the first members of the Special Air Service, and is clearly discussed in SAS history books and news articles, so Notability established.
We're still fine-tuning but it's a definite eventual article, but there's a copyright tag issue with the image File:Sgt Bob Lilley SAS founder member 1941.jpg (subject deceased in 1981). The editor has stated it's a family photo, but currently has no copyright template selection so it's pending deletion. I'm moderately familiar with finding out-of-copyright dates, US federal gov't images, and things like that, but I'm not quite sure how to classify "family photos". Is there some clear guidance written somewhere on that? I would imagine it would be a WP:OTRS issue where the uploader would be requested to contact Wikimedia privately to provide some substantiation that he is a descendant of Lilley, but I have zero idea how one figures out which descendant is authorised to release an image by Creative Commons licensing. Unless there's some horribly involved thing like "the photo was taken by cousin Roger Lilley, who passed away in 1983 and left the bulk of his property to his daughter Sarah Lilley, thus she owns the rights to the image..." That's assuming we even know the photographer, and it's not just "Lilley handed his camera to some chap he was stationed with in Egypt and asked him to take his picture."
Is there any reasonable way for a well-meaning editor to properly release a photo of a deceased Notable relative? As a fallback option, should the Fair Use template be selected under the "deceased, irreplacable" clause for the time being, and later a discussion on whether it should/could be moved to Commons? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have been thinking of writing a tutorial to help users browse media collections and develop them either by categorizing them or inserting them into articles. Has anyone ever done anything like this before? Is this the most appropriate WikiProject into which to integrate something like this? I wrote a bit about this here and also there are large media collections at Commons:Category:Biodiversity Heritage Library and in the uploaded collections of various other museums and archives.
I want to do these things:
Make a list of large media collections, typically uploaded by a single project or entity, so that people can more easily browse a project's uploads. Probably this list would be links to Commons categories which are by default hidden categories, such as the category for the BHL I noted above.
Make tutorials of what people, especially new users, can do with these collections. I think that new users are capable of inserting media into Wikipedia articles, perhaps even through multiple languages. Categorizing media is more difficult but I want to make that an option too.
Advertise the tutorials in outreach efforts. I think that browsing media is a great way to acquaint new users with Wikimedia projects and that media development is an appropriate introduction to Wikimedia for the outreach:Wikipedia Education Program, editathons, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Libraries, and other outreach events to new users.
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not sure where to ask the question, so I hope someone here is willing to suffer my ignorance. I have a nomination in WP:DYK and the photo that goes along with it looks terrible at 100 x 100 pixel resolution, but if it was cropped, would be very suitable. However, in the article itself it looks better uncropped (it is a full body shot of a person in the fashion industry dressed in designer clothes). It would be redundant to have two versions of the same picture appear in the article, however. Is there any good solution? I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I presume you are talking about the commons hosted image commons:File:Ingrid Go Fashion.png. However, I see the image is claimed to be taken by the subject, which is unlikely, and there is no evidence of permission for the licence you gave it, so there may well be an issue with that. If the image is really freely licenced you could upload the cropped image under a slightly different name and use that in the DYK but keep the original in the article and make sure to have a link between the two in each image by using the "extracted from" and "extracted" templates. I actually don't see any problem in using the existing image. ww2censor (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You need to get the copyright holder, who is likely not the subject because she most likely did not take the photo of herself, to verify their permission by following the procedure found on the commons OTRS page. While the subject may have given you the image she may now own the copyright, unless it was work for hire, but you need to have the OTRS team and the subject iron out that issue. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WP:Editor review is a process that allows users to have their behavior and contributions to Wikipedia evaluated by peers. The reason I am here is because of the type of contributors the editor in question is doing - that is uploading images ....lots of them and believe people from here may be able to help - pls see Wikipedia:Editor review/Sfan00 IMG.Moxy (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
odd error
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Check the last diff. there seem to be any unicode/special character in and thus breaking the thumb parameter of the height/width. mabdul22:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
RfC notice: Photo credits
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
{{bsr}} appears to be used in an improper manner. I keep seeing it tagged to files where the source is listed without a URL, but the template is only for generic base URLs or direct image URLs, not for the name of the source that is not a URL. Since Wikipedia is not restricted to using only online sources, this seems like a way to remove anything not found online by making a false claim. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Question
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. I do not know if this is the right place, but I need an answer. The assertion on bio pages photographs are preferred over artist portraits is true? Also in the nineteenth century?--EeuHP (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
copyrights, US, and international
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is tagging files to move to Commons when you know that Commons will delete them, but for which it is deemed acceptable to keep on Wikipedia, the proper course of action when the files are licensed in a commons compatible manner?
To me, it seems that the user should instead tag it as do not move to commons, and give the reasoning in an image cleanup tag.
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I'm in the final stages of development of a {{reqphoto}} article tagger bot. After initial testing, I believe that I can provide around 500,000 articles with reqphoto tags, tagged by country and by general feature type (buildings, places etc.) The bot is designed to be very cautious, and applies numerous tests before considering an article as both needing a photograph, and not currently having one available: these tests include looking at the article wikitext, categories, template use, generated HTML, and image filenames. Testing suggests that the bot has a very low false positive rate, so I believe that it should be OK to run on very large sets of articles without creating any significant load for other editors. I'm now looking to get permission to run this bot. I'd appreciate any support and advice you can give me. -- The Anome (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This sounds potentially awesome. I'd definitely support it.
Yes. The logical follow-on from this bot-tagging activity would be a mobile website / app which can be used to identify requested photographs near the user's location. This could be as simple as a Google Maps / OSM overlay layer. -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Will the bot be able to remove as unnecessary or modify WikiProject banners on article talk pages that contain the field "image-needed=yes"? ww2censor (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it could, but I'm not keen on doing so without first establishing with the WikiProjects involved that they are OK with my bot doing this to their template entries. Because this would involve a lot of communication with around 100 individual sub-projects, and I want to make progress sooner rather than later, I'd prefer to restrict the bot's activity to adding reqphoto tags for now, then make that removal a separate task for later on, to be performed on a WikiProject-by-WikiProject basis. -- The Anome (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
That sound reasonable enough. I see some editors moving the image requests from project banners into a reqphoto tag instead, so it is a concern for some. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
RFC: File naming
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A task force to "extract" images from PD documents
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I have been on Wikipedia for years but haven't been focused much on images. When I wrote my latest article, I needed images to help readers to visualize. I thought of requesting the Graphic Lab to create an illustration for me, but I found a pretty good vector image from a public domain document. Newer PDF files published by the US federal government nowadays are pretty good with vector images. We just need to extract and clean up a bit. I also found good bitmap images from pre-1923 documents published in the US. I think there are many Wikipedia articles on history of things but without images. I will continue to hunt interesting PD documents and extract images on my own anyway, but I'm thinking that it will be great if we have a group of participants who like to locate these interesting old documents or newer US government documents. We can then extract those diagrams, illustrations, pictures, put them in Commons and add to relevant articles to improve the overall experience of Wikipedia readers. With a group we can share ideas on finding the documents, etc. I read through details of sub-projects/task forces of this in a hope to join one, but I couldn't find the match to what I explained. The "Commons" sub-project seems to focus on moving existing media from Wikipedia to Commons. The "Photography" and "Illustrations" are pretty close, but the approach seems to be based on what are requested/needed then trying to come up with some, or try to improve existing images. Should we have a task force to "extract" images from PD documents and work backward as I described? Z22 (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Crown copyright file category
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry I have not a clue how to start.
The object is to improve the Misha B (a UK R&B/ Hip Hop etc singer) article.
Many bio pages about singers have media music samples. I would like to add at least a couple to this artist's page. She has been active since autumn 2011 and produced 3 charted singles and two free mixtapes and 2 rap freestyles, a dozen covers - but how do you find free samples.
Samples of her raps would be good, but samples of her singing vocals would be better.
I am not even sure if this is the right place or how to complete a proper request on WP:RREC if that too is the right place -- BOD -- 11:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Request for comment on Commons: Should Wikimedia support MP4 video?
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team seeks community guidance on a proposal to support the MP4 video format. This digital video standard is used widely around the world to record, edit and watch videos on mobile phones, desktop computers and home video devices. It is also known as H.264/MPEG-4 or AVC.
Supporting the MP4 format would make it much easier for our users to view and contribute video on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects -- and video files could be offered in dual formats on our sites, so we could continue to support current open formats (WebM and Ogg Theora).
However, MP4 is a patent-encumbered format, and using a proprietary format would be a departure from our current practice of only supporting open formats on our sites -- even though the licenses appear to have acceptable legal terms, with only a small fee required.
We would appreciate your guidance on whether or not to support MP4. Our Request for Comments presents views both in favor and against MP4 support, based on opinions we’ve heard in our discussions with community and team members.
All users are welcome to participate, whether you are active on Commons, Wikipedia, other Wikimedia project -- or any site that uses content from our free media repository.
We look forward to a constructive discussion with you, so we can make a more informed decision together on this important topic. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikidata images
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi all,
I have started a mini project on several Wikipedias. If you have time, come help. It will be introduced on en.wiki in due time if it is wanted.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear graphics experts: This draft was never sourced or submitted for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This is certainly a well-known graphics format. Should this be kept and improved? Or should some be added to the GIF page? Or should it be deleted as a stale draft?I wondered if it may have been copied from another document, but I haven't found the text on line anywhere. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I don't know if this is the right place for this, but could someone experienced maybe take a look at this logo: File:Ciech logo.svg and remove the extra whitespace and make it transparent? That would be great! --rayukk | talk10:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Matthew_hk I've fixed the issue with the file. Please make note of the notice at the top of this page, this project is defunct, please make future requests at the Graphic Lab. - Offnfopt(talk)21:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
External image
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
BTW, Osplace did you not read the note saying this project is inactive? I don't see any images in the article you mention. If you mean a hotlink to images on another site, then NO per MOS:HOTLINK. The image must be uploaded here. ww2censor (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
There is no way of knowing what an internet stranger smells like, but I imagine you absolutely reeking of professionalism. G'day, GoodDay. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Swansea University coat of arms is up for deletion
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Swwwwwweeeeet! – Quadell (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Damn it's looking good. I think we're just about ready to actually discuss image issues, instead of just WikiProject layout and organization issues. Hurrah! – Quadell (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Only 3 left! – Quadell (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
--Traveler100 (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vice_Admiral_Harry_Harris.jpg){kind=link}
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#NFCC exemptions - Category:Images that should have transparent backgrounds. -- Trevj (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
Template:Don't know has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
-- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)