2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Multimedia and Commons

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

2017 Community Wishlist Survey

Multimedia and Commons
29 proposals, 312 contributors, 815 support votes

Go-previous.svg Mobile and apps  •  Programs and events Go-next.svg

Here are the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results!
The voting phase has ended. Thanks for your participation :)

Contents


Improve support of interwiki links on Commons using Wikidata

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: While interwiki links on Wikipedias are now all handled by Wikidata, Wikidata's support for Commons interwiki links is far more patchy. Wikidata does support Commons interwiki links by a link in "other sites", however it also has commons category and gallery properties and these aren't kept in sync. In addition, Commons only allows one link to Commons, and conflicts can happen about whether this is to a gallery or a category. There are also a lot of manual interwiki links scattered across Commons that have not yet been migrated to Wikidata.
  • Who would benefit: Users and editors of Commons that want to find/use interwiki links
  • Proposed solution: Make more consistent use of Commons sitelinks by bot edits that keep the Wikidata property and site links synchronised. Finish migrating interwiki links on Commons to Wikidata via a bot. Support multiple links to Commons galleries and categories.
  • More comments: There have been some discussions on Wikidata about this, e.g. see [1], however there has been no pathway to implementing this so far.
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion

Seems similar/the same as 2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Wikidata/Stop using string datatype for linking to pages on other projects, which I had some bitching about. (Mostly, it's a community problem IMO.) --Izno (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

  • Support Support This has made things a huge mess on Wikidata. Rschen7754 01:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support It would be of great help if this is improved. Most of the time, Commons categories link to Wikipedia articles; in some cases, it is helpful to link them to Wikipedia categories; and in a few occasions, it is helpful to connect them to both. As it is now, it's a mess indeed, I merrily support any effort to improve this. - Darwin Ahoy! 16:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support (as proposer) Mike Peel (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 18:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Laboramus (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Gripweed (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Chico Venancio (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Thomas Obermair 4 (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Hedwig in Washington (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Libcub (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yes, there was recently a proposal for this in the Project Chat that only had support votes, unfortunately it got archived without any solutions being implemented. Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 10:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ruthven (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Meisam (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Giovanni Alfredo Garciliano Diaz (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Supportputnik 01:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per my comments on the exact same proposal that I linked in the discussion. This is a community problem, not a comm tech problem. --Izno (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose in the current form. Most interwiki links are Commons categories linked to wikidata articles. We can add it, but if someone creates gallery page then that page might be given the sitelinks and galery will be left with none. I would support if we allow storing sitelinks to multiple namespaces on a single project. --Jarekt (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support--L736Etell me 08:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support It would be useful to be able to have several types of links to Commons in Wikidata Lionel Allorge (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Dromedar61 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support ~Cybularny Speak? 12:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Tom Ja (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Emw (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yeza (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support B25es (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Joalpe (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Trim webm videos on site

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: editing a video now requires you to download the video, find a video editor that supports ogg/webm and upload them again. YouTube videos often have an outro that is distracting when there aren't other YouTube videos linked. Sometimes a video is an assembly of segments, like the short segments in RN7 news (File:RN7 Kort 7 November 2017.webm). Sometimes a part of a video's copyright status is in doubt, like c:File:Zondag met Lubach houdt de wereld voor de gek.webm, which was published under a free license by VARA but features a trailer produced by VPRO.
  • Who would benefit: Wikimedia contributors that work with
  • Proposed solution: A tool like CropTool that lets you edit a file without having to leave the project.
  • More comments:would be extra great if relevant subtitle files would also be trimmed and re-upload.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Vera (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I was going to propose this but Vera beat me to it! 100% support Victorgrigas (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • We don't even have a decent video player yet, let alone an editor... P.S. anyone suggesting spending time on the player. ? I've reached my quotum for the survey. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not proposing an fully fledged video editor, I'm proposing a tool that lets you shorten a video by trimming off the beginning or end. Vera (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Advanced filters for global usage on Commons

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: When you want to see a specific usage of a file on some project(s)/language(s) from Global Usage feature on Commons you have to scroll all the other projects and languages and their usages.
  • Who would benefit: e.g. users looking for usage on all projects in some specific language
  • Proposed solution: The list should be either collapsible or get some filters.
  • More comments: See for example the usage list for c:File:United Kingdom location map.svg.

Discussion

How is that a problem? You have to switch pages all the time. Just open another tab in your browser. --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

SVG-Translate

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: You have a svg-file in a different language and want to use it, but you don't know how to edit SVG-Files (You can't handle SourceCode, Inkscape has to be installed,...).
  • Who would benefit: User who adds Images to articles, but are not familiar with SVG-editing

Discussion

Voting

Write geographical data into image files

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Images files can store location data as meta data inside the file. As of today image files do not provide this data. For a lot of files location data are available on commons. But they are stored separately on the description page.
  • Who would benefit: Users of Wikimedia Commons files who are interested in location data for images.
  • Proposed solution: Write location data from description page into meta data of the image file.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion

I am concerned that the geographical data is not always accurate. If geographical data is included in the file, future users of the file will think that the data in the file overrides any geographical data in the description. Downtowngal (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sebastian Wallroth: Could you describe more specifically what problem this is intended to solve? Why only include the geographical data? Why not include all the metadata? Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Ryan Kaldari (WMF): I am in the one-wish-at-a-time mode. I want to have the ability to write all metadata into the file. License, author, location data, file source, tags. This would solve the problem that files found in the wild do not contain the information for people who wish to re-use the files. --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • There are several kinds of "location data". For photographs, there is the position (and orientation of) the camera and there is the position of (if relevant) the subject of the photo. Usually the location embedded in a photo is the former and if not present, it is often very hard for someone other than the photographer to determine accurately. I am concerned, for example, that someone sets the location description of a bunch of photos of the London Eye and this is embedded into the photos, when in fact the photos were all taken from different places, some looking at and some on the London Eye. Btw, if the JPG already contains GPS location when uploaded, the image description page is taken from that. There is other meta data that one could add from the file back to the image, not just GPS. However doing this increases the risk of damaging files when users make careless or disruptive edits to pages on Commons. So I don't think this is such a commonly needed feature that it is worth the risk that someone uses VFC to insert vandalism into JPGs or worse, to "out" a user's location into their JPGs. -- Colin (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Write license data into meta data of image files

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Images files can store license data as meta data inside the file. As of today image files do not provide this data. For nearly all files on Wikimedia Commons license data are available on commons. But they are stored separately on the description page.
  • Who would benefit: Users of Wikimedia Commons files who want to use the file and need the license information but cannot find the corresponding Wikimedia Commons file page.
  • Proposed solution: Write license data from description page into meta data of the image file.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion

I'm surprised nobody has requested this before. It sounds like a great idea. Is there some reason this has not been done yet? Downtowngal (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not the first time I've heard this proposal. I would like to limit the scope to only the thumbnails. Original files shouldn't be touched. That would have all sorts of nasty side effects (duplicate detection broken to name one). Multichill (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

See also phab:T5361 and phab:T20871. Jean-Fred (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The common concern about this is file size overhead for small thumbnails. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

  • Support Support Jcornelius (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support HHill (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support TMg 16:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support This may need to add the project name and even an ID for verification. YFdyh000 (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yiyi (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Greg (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Gripweed (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Thomas Obermair 4 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Shizhao (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 11:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Venca24 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Patar knightchat/contributions 20:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support SupportMeiræ 22:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --g (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Daylen (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Dromedar61 (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Sahaquiel9102 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose I see a lot of problems for bot maintainers and mass uploaders. By writing the license into the image, the file content would be changed which causes a different SHA-1 checksum of the file. This checksum is needed in lots of automatic upload processes to check if this file already exists on commons. If the file was altered this check would not be possible anymore. As a consequence this would cause a lot of redundant uploads. -- Freddy2001 talk 21:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ckoerner (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Talmoryair (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Emw (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support HugoHelp (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose as proposed. I'm concerned that new editors who don't understand our licensing requirements will unintentionally be embedding wrong license information into the image. This could dramatically undermine our abilities to determine the true source and license of the image. Also, one of the classic ways to begin to see a problem with an upload is whether there is metadata or not. If there isn't, chances are it hasn't come from the editor's camera, and thus any self release licenses are likely invalid. I also share Freddy2001's concerns. This should not be implemented. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I think, the license info should be added before the image is uploaded to Commons. Snek01 (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Acamicamacaraca (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Nicor (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Psychoslave (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support TitiNicola (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Martin Kraft (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Textual diffs for SVGs

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Comparing different media versions is often difficult as the changes may not be noticeable. This stands for SVGs as well as other media formats; however, as SVG is a textual file format, its changes can be shown as textual diffs.
  • Who would benefit: Advanced users who understand the SVG source code.
  • Proposed solution: Use the existing diff used for wikitext changes also for SVG (and any other textual file format), provide a diff link in the first column of the file history like (current | diff) / (restore | diff).
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Example SVG file used on 7.7M pages, which has 8 versions. When 9-th version is uploded it would be nice to compare source-codes to see what changed. --Jarekt (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example of an SVG file (on Wikimedia Commons etc) which got updated and when being able to view such a diff would have been helpful? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It came into my mind just after the previous year’s survey, I don’t remember specific image which I had in my mind ten months ago… But maps like Kosovo relations.svg are good examples: this file’s changes are mainly properly noted (except if the change wasn’t the one stated in the upload comment), but some versions don’t have comment while they—I suppose—are mainly consist of toggling CSS classes, so it’s easily understandable from the textual diff. Also, textual files can be changed in such a way that they are really the same pixel by pixel, but the source code is different (from changing a comment to a major cleanup). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a very limited and specific use case, that could easily be addressed with a gadget, that uses an online diff service or something to compare two files, without forcing an extra useless button upon people who won't need it. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

At least the backend should be done—why would I need to use a third-party service when we have a working diff system? Also, MediaWiki already has many links which I should call bloatware at more visible places like the “beta” link in the personal toolbar (one can easily get there from the preferences; or why don’t we have separate links for all preferences tabs?). OK, make it opt-in, but do it in PHP—it’s not easier to do client side than the sandbox link, which is not even opt-out. Please do not mark it as nonsense or useless ab ovo, just vote against it in the voting phase. It may turn out than that nobody else would need this feature. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd think a state-of-the-art visual compare tool would address a wider audience, although it wouldn't be completely equivalent. It would be more intuitive for non-nerds and it's often more important to get help spotting inconspicuous visual changes than calling attention to some purely technical rearrangement of internal data structures. I'm picturing something that shows two images on top of each other and a visibility seam between that you can grab and slide around like here, and maybe some compensation mechanism to disregard if content was just shifted around on the page.--Reseletti (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a visual diff might be more important. It’s also better because it can work for all image types (but still not for other media types: videos, sound and multipage documents like PDF and DjVu). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
This makes sense for PNGs and GIFs because they are losslessly compressed, but JPEG quantization has real potential to make visual diffs a dog's breakfast. MER-C (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The above example works also for JPEG, as it doesn’t compare the images by itself, rather makes the user easier to do so. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Reseletti, Tacsipacsi, MER-C If you are enthusiastic about an option like that, please make sure to submit it as a SEPARATE proposal. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Expanding on this: general SVG uploading via text would be very good to have too. It is a format that should and could be changed very easily, but currently we are stuck with a system that doesn’t serve its needs well enough despite it gaining traction for the usage in all kinds of graphics. stjn[ru] 21:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For years I was struck by how strange it is when people are trying to improve existing SVG files by tweaking their source-code and we have no good way of comparing before and after versions. --Jarekt (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Flickr-like uploader

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Although there are various uploaders available: Upload Wizzard, Commonist, Vicuna, Pattypan... what we are missing is an uploader that will have the basic functionalities of Flickr. What does that mean? A simple workflow: 1) Choose files from a folder, 2) see thumbnails in the uploading tools, add filenames, categories and descriptions (everything else can be added automatically, like usernames or licence). Put it in the browser and make it as simple as possible for people to use. The uploading is happening DURING description of the files so that time delays are minimized.
  • Who would benefit: Commons newbies, users that are not familiar with wikicode and those who can be easily distracted by complicated uploaders. People who want to do things simply.
  • Proposed solution: Description of the proposed tool according to the principles used by the Flickr browser-based uploader tool and then writing the tool.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Aktron (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Basically sounds like making some improvements to Upload Wizard. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It't the kind of "improvement" that might end up rewriting the whole thing :)--Strainu (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Allow video uploading from mobile

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Currently there's not a straightforward way of uploading video to Commons from a mobile phone, and we must rely on other tools to convert it to webm or ogv. This makes video uploading very far from user friendly.
  • Who would benefit: Video creators, Commons users and, lastly, Wikipedia readers, who could find more relevant videos on articles.
  • Proposed solution: Maybe merging the video2commons system into file uploading.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Theklan (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Voting

Variable size of Commons categories

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Currently there is a strict restriction of 200 images per page of a commons category. For working, especially for housekeeping, but also for worling on articles etc. it would be very helpfull, if users could change the limitation of images.
  • Who would benefit: Every user who works a lot on Commons. Scrolling through 200 image pages of very large categories is time consuming and unnerving. In both cases, maintenance and looking for images.
  • Proposed solution: There are in my eyes two possibilities for logged in users: 1st is a mask, where users can free write the number of images they would like to see on one Category page. So I could say, I want to see 40, 50, 100, 120, 200, 250, 500, 788 or 1000 images in one page. Or, 2nd possibility: Commons set some standard numbers as button f.e. 50, 100, 250,, 500, 1000. Best would be in my eyes a combination of both.
  • More comments:

Discussion

  • This is basically phab:T13281. Anomie (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    I made this request already two times - but it's still an ongoing request. For my work this is so much needed and deserved. And to wait until maybe sometimes somebody came, is hopefully not the way, that is needed to go. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Since this is a wishlist: Infinite scroll would be cool, too :-) -- Christallkeks (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Support 360 photo viewing

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: As last year: 360 and panorama photos is a mainstream media type. Articles & MediaViewer do not support it unless we direct users to toolsforge.
  • Who would benefit: readers and editors of wikis/Wikipedia technical articles, architecture and nature related articles would benefit. Also a good way to view panorama photos on mobile devices, where panoramas otherwise are real small
  • Proposed solution: Add support for Mediawiki to record the perspective of an image, either by reading the exif information, or by using a magic word. Add support in the front end to use panellum (example category).
  • More comments: Proposed in the 2016 survey by Ahm masum, ranking at #15 overall with 58 support votes.
  • Phabricator tickets: phab:T151749. there is some open task in phabricator related to this ;[1] [2] [3]

Discussion

  • this request is pretty urgent, not only because of the mainstream panorama movement, but also because environments can be seen and appreciated much better when viewed in 180° or 360°. a current example is the educational VR documentary about chernobyl. in the app you are in the abandoned buildings, you see the dimensions exactly. all the abstract art of photography with its selective angle and focus is trivialized by surround photography. it tells the truth. excellent for an encyclopedia. [from what i heard, wiki loves monuments has something like that in the pipeline.] Maximilian Schönherr (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I support it. This type of media are more popular for new generation, which we need to hit also. More over it helps to study some object.--Juandev (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • anyone care to adopt this proposal ? I have too many, so I need to drop this one. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 22:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    I'll adopt :) — MusikAnimal talk 17:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    Handing this off to Ahm masum who made the same proposal last year. I've removed my signature from the "Proposer" line. Ahm masum: all you need to do is sign. Best — MusikAnimal talk 20:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Considero que es un formato cada vez mas utilizado, un gran modo de documentar, y tiene mucho mas llegada en su formato de visualización esférica que desplegada. TitiNicola (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • see also: ↂ Turn Stereoskopie into a MediaWiki Extension ⇄ --𝔊 (Gradzeichen DiſkTalk) 10:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • wondering what kind of projection the 360° tool above needs. it seems to swallow all kinds of images, but for example this one is not displayed properly. Maximilian Schönherr (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comply with TheDJ. Marzipano is a FREE licensed (apache 2.0) 360° media viewer for the modern web.We can Add support in the front end to use marzipano. And we know, Most 360 cameras and panorama-generation tools include "Photo Sphere metadata" when it save the photo. Personally I think, "Reading the exif information" would be appropriate for wiki environment. We can Add support for Mediawiki to record the perspective of an image. By hosting a "Exif Editor" at "WMCS" similar to "theXifer.net" (also free (GPL 1+ Artistic License)). To make upload process easy ,the upload wizard should have Exif metadata "tag detection" (the way Facebook do). -- Ahm masum (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Nice but not a priority right now. This is a project one can do when all other important tasks are done. I don't see the need to rush this now, there aren't many people that have good panoramic cameras AND are able to use them AND license their work freely. Why cater to a small fraction of potential users? --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually you don't need a panoramic camera, though a panoramic tripod head is required for indoor 360. We have several featured pictures on Commons in 360 and enabling wiki support for this will definitely encourage more. It is a great way to experience the interior of a building. -- Colin (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I support it because it will show much better when viewed in 180° or 360°. Mohammed Galib Hasan (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea! I support it. -Hasivetalk • 11:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a note to whoever will be working on this, there now is a property on Wikidata for photosphere images. Ainali (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Use native audio/video player

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Current audio/video player is very outdated, additionally the audio player is designed for video playback only. It looks horrible on modern high resolution displays. The player also includes an advert of "KALTURA".
  • Who would benefit: Readers (user experience) and editors (having better looking and more functional pages) alike.
  • Proposed solution: Use native HTML 5 <audio>/<video> controls.
  • More comments: roughly 5% of users' browsers don't support native audio/video[2][3]. We can serve them the old player, or - in the worst case - we can sacrifice being able to play audio/video for them for the sake of vastly improved experience for the rest 95%.
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion

Issue since at least 2010:

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T25965

Geni (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The presence of Kaltura ads looks like a very serious issue, but it can be solved easily on the short-term via local Common.css (as en.wp has already done), and on the longer-term, it looks like the Kaltura player is planned to be replaced by Video.js: phab:T100106. --Yair rand (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Borys Kozielski:, I've merged my proposal here because the current player is the same for both audio and video, so it will have to be worked on at the same time. Hope you don't mind. Max Semenik (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

From the merged in proposal:

I don’t know what HTML5 is capable of, but a link to the file description page is needed for copyright reasons, subtitles have no point if they can’t be used, and the quality selection is also useful. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tacsipacsi:, definitely. The native controls will have to be augmented with copyright information etc and that would still look and feel a billion times better than now. Max Semenik (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I’d like to have a definite “yes” from someone before we start to vote for it, though. Or modify the proposal to use native HTML5 player if it’s feasible, otherwise fork the Firefox/Chrome player (which?). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Native HTML5 does support subtitles. --Tgr (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
And the other two (attribution link and manual quality selection)? —Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment Comment Sounds reasonable for video files, but for audio files, I'd still prefer some kind of waveform/spectrogram visualization thingy like freesounds.org does it, at least for the file description pages (phab:T103527). --El Grafo (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Fix problems that FlaggedRevs wikis have with Commons

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: The common problem for all Wikimedia wikis that currently use FlaggedRevs extension (there are currently 45 of them) is that almost every change at Commons at any scope (even a page edit) brings more work to reviewers across the projects that use files from Commons: Холодный Яр − the page after an edit at Commons immediately deems itself unstable and the only way to fix this is to waste time of editors by rereviewing it again manually. It is because FlaggedRevs does, justly, think that any transclusion that is not in a reviewable namespace makes a page unstable, but it is not right to neglect the fact that images from Commons are currently used in thousands upon thousands of pages in 45 Wikimedia projects. Given that this problem persists almost for 10 years in some cases, I propose that we should find a solution already that would satisfy both wikis with and without FlaggedRevs extension enabled.
  • Who would benefit: Reviewers and readers at wikis that have FlaggedRevs extension enabled
  • Proposed solution: Fix the problem of cross-wiki transclusion or enable FlaggedRevs at Commons for all users, if the latter would help (the solution can be technical and all edits can be reviewed automatically for all users).
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: stjn[ru] 11:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

To be clear, you'd like Commons images to be treated as always reliable (reviewed)? --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Saint Johann: ^ ? Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This is one of the options, yes. There aren’t any solutions for watching over changes in Commons images from files anyway, so it’s not like any reviewers can affect the situation in any way. Especially if the changes are not in the files themselves but in the pages that are describing them (it also triggers the rereview). stjn[ru] 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Fix Gallery slideshow

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: The slideshow option of the gallery-tag has some bugs that basically prevent it from being usable.
  • Who would benefit: Readers and editors
  • Proposed solution: Fix these 4 annoying bugs:
    • Slideshow is sometime completely different in edit preview than on saved page - phab:T151471
    • You can't specify the size of the images (heights and weights parameters are ignored) - phab:T154013 (VE)
    • The images are often slightly sharp
    • Images sometime don't fully load but stay extremely blurry.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion

  • @MichaelSchoenitzer: Could you add links to any existing phabricator tasks, for these issues? or create new tasks that give details on each problem. Thanks! (We discourage abstract "fix all the things with X" proposals, but I think a limited and specific list like this one might be ok.) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Turn Stereoskopie into a MediaWiki Extension

Edit proposal/discussion

3dgeraete.gif
  • Problem: With the advent of the IPhone X and the Windows fall creators update people are moving toward a widespread usage of augmented reality applications. If Wikipedia doesn't start to prepare for the future now, people may at some point still read texts that originate from wikipedia, but are presented by social media platforms and presented with non-free media, that was not uploadad to Wikipedia, but to proprietary non-free repositories.
  • Who would benefit: Photographers and Videographers, who can start to contribute content for future AR use, authors who can use VR content, readers, who can view Wikipedia in 3D, deverlopers, who have access to a large repository of 3D content
Dem Wahren Schönen Guten (Click image to view in 3D)
  • Proposed solution:
    • add media type jps to allowed upload formats in commons.
    • tag uploaded videos in cardboard, sbs and ttb formats in Commons as 3D.
    • turn toollabs Stereoskopie into a mediawiki extension
    • support viewing of 3d media in MediaViewer
    • make the android app functional (modes for single device, 2 devices, viewing of content)
    • add apps for iOS and the discontinued WinMobile and Blackberry platforms (or create a Arduino HID project to release cameras via KeyEvent.Volume_Up)
    • make the stereoskopie desktop app functional
    • empower kiwix to support VR
    • integrate with 360° images (→ Wishlist proposal) (funny: ° == Gradzeichen :-)
A Wiki-article employing threedimensional media
  • More comments:
    • Stereoscopy has always suffered from two problems: The sparse availability of affordable cameras. And the problem, that the recording system had to match the viewing system - and for both parts there always was a large number of systems to choose from. This proposal addresses both fields:
      • An app is offered, that turns every camera, that can be controlled with bluetooth or wifi into a stereoscopic camera. And every pair of pictures (old stereoscopic pictures already available at commons, pictures that have been taken with a single camera, that has been moved between to takes) can be converted into a jps-file with the desktop-app.
      • One source (an image in the standard jps-format, a video in sbs, cardboard or top&bottom format) can be played out in basically every thinkable 3D-system (cardboard, 3DTV, pol (cinema system), prisma, anaglyph with any color code and also with systems, that do not require glasses at all: lenticular, crossed eyes and holographic pyramid). New playout-variants can be added and will work with existing content.
    • The Stereoskopie project is unfinished. A conversion to PHP, load scaling, robust caching and a Wiki-CI UI will need to be made. Content on the demo page will be added before voting starts.

Discussion

  • Again, little gain for all users, just catering towards a very small minority of potential users. Repair important stuff first, then add functionality. --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

  • Support Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Thomas Obermair 4 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support 𝔊 (Gradzeichen DiſkTalk) 06:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support SUPPORT Ahm masum (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 10:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose as illustrated here; no one want to see annoying jiggling images in articles. If this could be implemented without awful animation effects, then maybe.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @SMcCandlish: Have you read the proposal? It is by no means about jiggling images. It is about giving people a way to create 3D content (by showing ways to turn any photo/video equipment into 3d-cameras)l. It is about making it possible to upload such content to commons (by allowing jps and tagging sbs and cardboard, because content of recent incidents is either uploded soon or never. If wikimedia has no way, it ends up in social media with incompatible licences). It is about building a way to present 3D in WP (this will take a year or more. By that time much more people will be using VR and AR because of Iphonex and Windows AR tools.) It is about an interface, that support any method of stereoscopic presentation. But it is not about how a preview image on a device that not natively supports 3D should look like. That can be an animation, or a glasses symbol or anything else. It can be with opt in or opt out (because of vertigo, epilepsy, ...) But that is something that might be decided by a RfC once the technology to support it, is there! (another remark: There are people, who because of a medical condition do not have 3d-view, even so they are not one-eyed. As I found out, these people can for a short time experience 3d-vision with VRglasses (but the visual centre of the brain will give an 3d impression only for a short time, because of getting tired of the unfamiliar task). --𝔊 (Gradzeichen DiſkTalk) 09:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
      I understand what the proposal is, but the illustrated "here's what it'll look like" demo is horrifying. PS: I think this and the panoramic images proposal should be combined, since this one at least partially presupposes that one.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support at least for adding media type jps to allowed upload formats in commons and tagging uploaded videos in cardboard, sbs and ttb formats in Commons as 3D. The need of toollabs to view the content isn't perfect but a (very) minor problem in my view, as long as it's accessible from all devices. X:: black ::X (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support BugWarp (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Support CSS files associated to SVG as media files

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: There are a number of svg maps presenting statistical information or locations for countries or regions. Every time a new information is presented the map is duplicated and adapted to the information to be shown. This leads to several problems: (1) increases the size of data to be stored - the same geographical information is copied every time (2) requires skills to manipulate these images using software or knowledge of the svg format and (3) requires several images to be corrected if the basic geographical information is changed. As an example the following maps are based on the same geographical information but present different data. Each time the map of 12 MB is copied and modified:

CSS files associated to svg images can be used to present information without changing the svg file. Entities from the picture can be coloured using their ids in a separate file. This file than can be used in association with the basic svg as a picture instead of creating new image every time. A simple text editor can be used to manipulate data given that the basic svg is formed in a convenient manner.

  • Who would benefit: Wikimedia Commons, editors
  • Proposed solution: Allow CSS files associated to svg files to be used as media.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Ikonact (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Probably doable with the Graph extension? Ping @Yurik: --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. I don't think you can customize the SVG files, BUT you can store the file as geojson (using .map on commons), and customize its visualization (e.g. specify which region should be shown with what style). Also, graph could allow you to draw an image, and draw things on top of it. --Yurik (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the comments. I think Graph is a good tool and may be very useful. I do not know how practical will be to present the examples above with 36538 occurrences of polygon elements. --Ikonact (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
This would depend on whether our SVG renderer (librsvg) can support external CSS. I'm not sure whether it can or not. Would be good to test. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a good question. I suppose a way to do this is to save locally the svg file with the css included before render it. --Ikonact (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note, we intentionally disable network support in librsvg for security reasons (Which is why for example including external images aren't supported except by data: uris). BWolff (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a cool use case but I'm not sure how the implementation would look - we don't have any clean way of handling multiple files as one media item, and working around that would make our media handling code more hacky, and it's already a DX horror show. So I am mildly against this - maybe in a few years it can be implemented cleanly on top of MCR --Tgr (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It would also mean that users would not be able to download a standalone file that just worked, which seems unfortunate. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Can still screen-grab it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I would REALLY appreciate this -- I recently made a similar wish in the German WP (or at least parked it because I missed the deadline). -- Christallkeks (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Automatic display of attribution and license information

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: We currently do not display any attribution, license or other common types of multimedia metadata when illustrating Wikipedia articles - we rely on the manually written contextual caption and users clicking the image to see any metadata. Yet, we expect third-party re-users of our materials (e.g. in news websites) to overtly display the free-license information, the photographer's attribution, or at the very least the words "via Wikimedia Commons" with a link. This is inconsistent. If we want people to respect free licenses and attribution metadata we should be upholding best practices ourselves.
  • Who would benefit: Readers of illustrated Wikipedia articles, Commons photographers and other multimedia creators, re-users of free-licensed materials, the 'unseen' Commons users who regularly clean up messy metadata.
  • Proposed solution: Create a UI (it could be a 'hover over', or small/semi-transparent font, or some other design) that displays the key licensing and attribution metadata for any file being embedded from Commons, on Wikipedia (or other sister-site). This includes: Author, year, license. This would not replace or distract from the contextual caption in the Wikipedia article but supplement it. When applicable this metadata could also include the relevant institution e.g. a space agency, or a GLAM.
  • More comments: Norwegian (Bokmal) has a version of this already within their standard image template called "credit line". However it is manually written, and therefore duplicates the metadata on Commons.

This builds on the work of the 2014 File metadata cleanup drive which aimed to ensure that all files, especially those used in WP articles, have machine-readable metadata. By making the metadata more visible, Wikimedia editors will be incentivised to ensure that the information on Commons is accurate.
The work of the "Structured Data on Commons" project would benefit from this as it would increase the inter-project visibility of our own metadata, decreasing barriers between the sister projects.
There would be a lot of edge cases - such as "photograph of a painting in a book, uploaded by a museum" where the licensing/attribution metadata would be multilayered. However, if there's ANY community in the world who can discuss and come to a consensus about licensing/attribution copyright edge cases, it's the Commons community!


  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion

  • Mediaviewer already does this right ? And Wikipedia itself discourages from doing it more 'inline' of the article.. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the "we expect third-party re-users" sentence accurate, or is it merely that we expect reusers to follow the terms of the images' licenses, which in the case of CC-BY licenses requires the attribution be made "in any reasonable manner based on the medium", which for traditional news sites and paper publications differs from that for MediaWiki-based wikis? Anomie (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I remember this has been talked about for a long time, in cycles, on svwiki, and a solution would have saved many hours and kept a couple of good photographers from leaving. I found some notes from a meetup in 2010 where an automatic solution was discussed and liked. Ainali (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes that could be one of benefits of Structured Data on Commons effort. --Jarekt (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    We already have structured data for this (and it's already displayed in dedicated image viewers like MediaViewer or the mobile app lightboxes or the slideshow gadget on Commons). The question is to what extent should the information be forced on the reader (who typically does not care). The status quo seems like a good trade-off to me in that regard. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    I assume that since you're saying this as a software developer from your WMF user-account, that you're vetoing the idea? Wittylama (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Currently we don't show proper licence data on the page where the pictures are shown. We rely on linkage to some completely different webpage, called commons, where this data is stored. On the other hand there are photographers who sue users of pictures, who behave in the same manner (link the picture to commons without any more attribution), for a four-digit Euro-value because of massive copyright infringement. OK, there is this far-fetched construct, that Commons and WP are all the same project, despite all this different URL, communities, rules etc., but that's just wikilawyering and sophistry, not helpful at all. It would be helpful, if we behaved in a manner, that could be used as a blueprint for any reuse. If anyone uses a picture anywhere in the same way as in any WP, it should be fine and legally proof. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I note you're assuming those photographers who're suing users of pictures are in the right. That seems debatable. Anomie (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I only assume they sent threatening letters via lawyers to users of the pictures, who make minor errors in attribution, and hope for massive payment. It's antisocial, it's perhaps not even legal, but it seems lucrative enough to act this way. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • There is something to learn in this from WM-DE's "Attribution Generator" . Wittylama (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Semi-transparent text placed on the embedded image permanently would be annoying (also if only very small on the side or bottom). Information displayed while hovering would be O. K. but I'd prefer either a small credit line below the caption (like in the Norwegian (Bokmal) wikipedia (example) but with all licensing information suggested or requested by the license and, if requested, attribution data) or licensing/attribution-symbol, that shows the information wile hovering over it and after clicking on it (a click may lead to the description page in commons, or to a pop-up window/dialogue showing the relevant information). Especially for the print-version of a page and for the PDF-version I regard it as relevant to give all the information on the page itself so that it's gets printed on paper (maybe with a separately styled footnote at each embedded image/media-file an the corresponding information at the bottom of the last page), so that a user has all necessary information directly from the paper also when he's steadily offline. --X:: black ::X (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Voting

  • Support Support G41rn8 (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ainali (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --HHill (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talkmail) 08:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Supportviciarg414 08:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Jcornelius (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support David1010 (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Sadads (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 14:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Haros (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support - Darwin Ahoy! 16:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yiyi (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Gripweed (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Thomas Obermair 4 (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Downtowngal (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Shizhao (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Orphée (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Helder 23:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --g (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support the general idea as long as it is invisible (vs polluting captions). Could also be used to dump a list of licenses of embedded images when printing, since that medium prevents the click-to-see-licensing feature). DMacks (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --L736Etell me 08:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Strong support. As far I'm concerned, this information should be a standard part of the description, and not just be visible while hovering over the image. AWossink (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Kaganer (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Trizek from FR 11:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Aunva6 (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Superchilum(talk to me!) 16:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Theklan (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ckoerner (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support ~Cybularny Speak? 11:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Tom Ja (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Termininja (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Wiklol (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support -Hasivetalk • 11:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support LikeLifer (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Paucabot (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Mike Peel (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Gryllida 01:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support MOs810 (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support having it show on hover over. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yeza (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Elmidae (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Carnildo (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Wikipedia should be demonstrating good practice to other re-users. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Bonvol (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Kudpung (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Basquetteur (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Fano (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Spinster (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Dispenser (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Haxpett (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support either a small credit line below the caption (with all licensing information suggested or requested by the license and, if requested, attribution data) or a licensing/attribution-symbol, that shows the information wile hovering over it and after clicking on it (a click may lead to the description page in commons, or to a pop-up window/dialogue showing the relevant information). Especially for the print-version of a page and for the PDF-version I regard it as relevant to give all the information on the page itself so that it's gets printed on paper (maybe with a separately styled footnote at each embedded image/media-file an the corresponding information at the bottom of the last page) (see my contribution to the discussion). X:: black ::X (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support BugWarp (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support — Luchesar • T/C 14:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Upload and instant conversion of mpeg and avi etc

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: As per Commons:Commons:File types: "Patent-encumbered file formats are not accepted at Wikimedia Commons... Examples of patent-encumbered file formats are AAC, WMA, MPEG and most AVI codecs. Our mission requires content to be freely redistributable to all. Patent-encumbered formats fail to meet this standard."
    Yet these are popular file types, and the outright refusal of Wikimedia to receive such files impedes the growth of the project.
  • Who would benefit: All projects and viewers.
  • Proposed solution: Have a built-in converter instantly turn such file uploads into an open format.
  • More comments:

Discussion

  • Video2Commons does that. Yann (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I guess that one could be improved a lot: It encodes to WebM with old VP8 and Vorbis. We could readily use the much-improved formats VP9 and Opus. It doesn't directly encode the files for all the different quality levels. They are reencoded on Commons, once again, because there's no integration. When sourcing from YouTube, it will reencode (lossy) instead of using their WebM file(s) directly. It doesn't even recycle their Opus audio tracks. So it doesn't even check if the files it's fed are already in the right format. Does it keep the original file around for later reencoding? Quality loss, loss, loss.--Reseletti (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    • (Somebody should task a bot with replacing all those video files that this tool reencoded out of YouTube videos with YouTube's WebM files directly out of youtube-dl).--Reseletti (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Videoconvert (by User:Prolineserver) does that too, with thousands of videos uploaded since 2014. See also one user's recent comparison of these two and other tools, pointing out various usability issues. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This is particularly important for mobile users--it's possible to upload still images from a phone, but there's no automated MP4 conversion which can allow uploading videos from a phone, so you have to download to a computer, encode using ffmpeg or the like, and re-upload, which is significantly more complex. Grendelkhan (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • There's some history here to keep in mind. 😂 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • We used to have this feature in UploadWizard, relying on the Firefogg extension for Firefox, but that is no longer possible since Firefox removed support for it. We have phab:T157319 about implementing a replacement, I'll link that to this wish. Matma Rex (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that this would first require the community to change their consensus on NOT permitting the WMF to work on this option, as noted in the RFC linked to by User:😂-emoji —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Upload wizard for uploading artwork template

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: new GLAMs want to upload but are confused by upload wizard
  • Who would benefit: GLAMs, and users trying to find metadata, and metadata cleanup
  • Proposed solution: make uploads of artwork or information template possible in upload wizard, or direct GLAMs to those tools that allow these templates
  • More comments: same as laat year

Discussion

Made a related proposal at 2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Multimedia and Commons/Improve UploadWizard campaigns. Multichill (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Allow exploration of categories at upload time

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Category selection via the upload wizard on Commons performs autocompletion, which is helpful, but doesn't allow for walking the category tree, so finding a more specific, more general, or sibling category involves either opening the category in another tab and navigating the tree there, or completing the upload wizard and then using HotCat to refine the categories afterwards.
  • Who would benefit: Anyone uploading and categorizing images to Commons.
  • Proposed solution: Integrate HotCat or something like it with the Commons upload wizard.
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion

Good, clear description of the problem. I agree with the proposed solution. Downtowngal (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  • This would be a huge time-saver! Victorgrigas (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • HotCat is so much better at this; and has a better interface; surely its code could be reused/ shared? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Middle clicking opens a new tab, I think. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Flexible use of EXIF- and IPTC-data and filenames on Uploads

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Many photos have useful information in EXIF, IPTC or in the filename. Using them on upload instead of rewriting everything could make uploads more interesting.
  • Who would benefit: Those who want to upload numerous photos and have already put the necessary infos to the file would get a great benefit.
  • Proposed solution: Write a new upload prcedure where the user can define which information is taken from where and such definitions can be saved and reused.
  • More comments: There should be more than one source allowed to fill in one field.
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion

  • UploadWizard already partially does this right ? At least for date and location if I remember correctly. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 08:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Very much agree with this proposal. I currently have to manually add categories such as "taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark III" to my uploads, and this would save me a lot of boring, time-wasting repetition. Just to extend this wish: I would also like "category:Photographs by Thennicke" to be added by default to my list of categories, for the same reason, which isn't actually in the EXIF data. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Thennicke, if you use Lightroom, then the lrMediaWiki extension will enable you to setup categories, title, description and other fields when you export images to Commons. -- Colin (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Colin No I use darktable, but thanks for the suggestion -- Thennicke (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Provide file uploading facility

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Today Upload Wizard is providing file by file selection and bulk uploading facility only. It takes much more time and if any interruptions such as power loss, connectivity loss etc. occurred while uploading, all efforts went in vain.
  • Who would benefit:
  • Proposed solution: Provide file uploading facility like Pattypan.
  • More comments:

Discussion

UploadWizard lets you select multiple files at once and I think it does as much as it can for parallel uploading. If you can’t select multiple files at once, it’s most likely a browser- or OS-related issue and should be considered as a bug. You can open a task for it on Phabricator or report it on its feedback page on Commons. I don’t know what Pattypan is, could you explain it or provide a link? —Tacsipacsi (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably c:Commons:Pattypan. In which case the answer is probably "Pattypan already exists". Anomie (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Added the Phabricator tasks about fixing this within UploadWizard (by allowing it to resume/finish uploads) --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Shagil Kannur: Would you prefer for this be implemented as an improvement to Upload Wizard or as a stand-alone application? Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Client side SVG rendering

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Currently we show PNG derivatives for all SVG images. As SVG support has expanded significantly, the proposal is to start preferring SVG rendering client side.
  • Who would benefit: More accurate and infinitely scaling detail of SVG resources.
  • Proposed solution: Make SVGs the default when their size/complexity is not prohibitively large and the browser supports it.
  • More comments:

Discussion

  • Agree. Instead of transferring to user a 4 KB SVG image, we transfer 100 KB PNG render of it. Also, the PNG render sent to user is chosen depending on his screen resolutions, so if he scales in the page, the new render needs to be transferred. --Tohaomg (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    Sometimes, the opposite can be the case, for example File:Flag of Mexico.svg is 220kb while most of its uses are tiny flag icons that weigh just 1kb as PNGs. Max Semenik (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
There are lots of much more extreme examples, which goes to say: Filesizes get really unpredictable.--Reseletti (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Rendering may also get less predictable with more diversity in rendering software. Most of the rendering bugs that appear with the current software chain are not present in the browsers I tried, though...--Reseletti (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

SVGs are preferred for lossless image quality at any zoom factor, but since we don't actually display SVG, we get blurry images, especially noticeable is then marquee/main image on mobile. Senator2029 talk 00:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I really would like to see this but I also see the problem with large svg-filesizes. We have maps where the svg-file is several MB big while the 250px PNG is just a few kb. And there are cases where browsers will mess up the rendering. I think we will have to introduce a new keyword with which you can choose if the svg or the png is served. I would propose the following:
[[File:Image.svg|thumb|vector|foo]]
Will force the use of svg-file.
[[File:Image.svg|thumb|raster|foo]]
Will force the use of png-file.
[[File:Image.svg|thumb|foo]]
Will use whatever is the smaller file.
This way in most situations the default will be the optimal solution while we can still handle special-cases manually. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I am a bit hesitant if this is a good idea. I agree that for some files png offers a possibility to reduce the file size. However, server rendering offers fixed preview that does not depend on client browsers. Although , most of the modern browsers support correctly SVG, there may be some differences in the final result. Another issue is the use of fonts. There may be alignment and positioning issues as the font actually used varies from system to system. If a client side solution is agreed I would prefer to have the option in the Preferences as for the Math expressions - the user should choose client side rendering --Ikonact (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ikonact: The current SVG renderer, librsvg, is actually terrible at handling fonts and the display of text – including font size and letter spacing – varies widely depending on the dimensions of the rendered file. Fonts could be stored server-side although I don't think this is possible in MediaWiki yet. Jc86035 (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I would not like this discussion to get too hung up on file sizes. Generally, taking SVG files and turning them into something else is no longer either necessary or desirable. SVG is the best way we have to present many types of image, and that is what we should do. SVG animations would be really good too, but as yet still present difficuilties. Globbet (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that a huge problem is not being mentioned. SVGs on this site are specifically written with he onsite fonts in mind. Pretty much any SVG with fonts will break if rendered client side. Most users will not have the free fonts installed. The wrong fonts can completely mess up images. Unless a method is devised to handle this situation (falling back to PNG if the file has fonts, or maybe automatically embedding the needed fonts into the SVG), I do not think this is a good idea. Trlkly (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Have the image rotation bot not overwrite existing images

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Some pictures don't have only one right orientation, for instance an insect that is pictured from upside will apear correct with head up or with head left side. Some writers (for instance me in blocks of pictures) compose the pictures in their articles in a way, that there is only one orientation correct, the other (though also correct) destroys the composition. Now, if a second user wants to use the picture with another orientation, he may use the rotate template, not being aware that the picture is rotated not only for him, but also for all other users of the picture, who perhaps don't want the picture rotated.
Usually users of the picture before rotation even don't realize that the picture was rotated; because they won't be informed, they realize the transformation at best by chance. In letter case, you have to restore the old version, put a new rotated one and control all users of the picture, which orientation fits better in their cases. I explained the problem already several times at different places, but did not provoke reactions.
  • Who would benefit: All users, that want to use the picture only in that way, they choose it.
  • Proposed solution: every picture rotated by bot gets a new name, for instance the old name lengthened by "-rot".
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Siga (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Most rotated pictures are correct only after rotation. If you compose an article in which the Eiffel Tower only fits on its side (i.e. rotated by 90°), the article is simply not OK. I know that you have problem with not-so-obvious cases, but if the rotated image is uploaded with another name, this will stay unfixed as well. Even if there’s no composition in the article, which latter means, I think, the 90% of the articles. This proposal would improve the 10% of the 10% of the articles, but the other 99% wouldn’t be improved or would be even worse than now. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

if the picture is obviously wrong orientated, than the one, who loads it up will use the template. And everyone who uses the picure, will use the name of the right version, because the picture is new. On contrary, if the picture is uploaded from person 1 and used from persons 2 ...5 in that way, and afterwards rotated as wish from person 6, person 6 may it use with the new name and persons 7 .... in the orientation and corresponding name they prefer. I see your argument with the 10 % of 10% too, but its a lot of work for the 1 per mille too, to correct the mess, that may be provoqued (and mostly not detected). There would be also the possibility to inform automatically all users of the picture, if the picture is rotated - but this would reach only the activ users. --Siga (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Track changes of files and metadata

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: As a GLAM institution I would like to keep track of what changes to files and metadata are being done after upload. Both to get statistics which might be relevant for further involvement, but also to see if there are changes that could also be brought back to our own databases.
  • Who would benefit: GLAMs (statistics might also be useful for Wikimedia affiliations and in some cases individual users)
  • Proposed solution: A tool on labs that accept a collection of files (at least Category, but also files from a user, pagepiles etc. could be relevant). Stats could include number of new versions of files, changes to file descriptions, changes to categories, changes/additions of coordinates etc. If these changes also were available in a machine readable way (eg. a list of added and removed categories for each edit) it would be great.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Ainali (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Voting

Improve UploadWizard campaigns

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: UploadWizard campaigns are currently very much focused on photo competitions and are not very flexible. Not very strange because we developed it for WLM 2011. If it would be more flexible it could be used for more custom upload work flows like for example uploading images of art.
  • Who would benefit: People who contribute images (and other media) to Commons and the people who curate Commons.

Discussion

Voting

Enable additional links in the GallerySlideshow

Edit proposal/discussion


  • Problem: In a gallery page I can insert links (to further images in a category or gallery) in the image's captions. Any link is visible and works only in the pages view, not in the GallerySlideshow.
  • Who would benefit: Each User of a Slideshow of a gallery containing such links
  • Proposed solution: Enable the Gadget to show links containd in the captions
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion

  • I've moved this from the "Bots and gadgets" section to the "Multimedia and Commons" section. However I wonder if it could be merged into the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Multimedia and Commons/Fix Gallery slideshow proposal, which is currently a list of the 4 specific bugs that @MichaelSchoenitzer: has identified. (We discourage abstract "fix all the things with X" proposals, but I think a limited and specific list like that one, is ok.) Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not a bug, but a fail in function for galleries. Showing file descriptions ist enough for category slide shows. A gallery slideshow should show the gallery file captions, and, may be, the file descriptions, too - but not the file descriptions only (without the captions). Please consider that even the captions are essential for underständing a gallery. Thanks and greetings --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Audio/video review tool (for mp3s especially)

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: The Commons community recently enabled MP3 uploads and next year will be considering whether or not to allow MPEG-2 video uploads. Commons is also currently dealing with a piracy problem (task T129845) and has always had to deal with large amount of copyright violations. The Commons community has never been equipped with effective tools for reviewing new uploads, especially audio and video uploads which are tedious to review and more difficult to identify copyright violations for. Allowing MP3 and MPEG-2 uploads will make this an even more pressing problem.
  • Who would benefit: The Commons community would benefit by having better tools to review and curate their content. Commons users would benefit by having less restrictions on uploading (in the long run) and access to more multimedia content.
  • Proposed solution: The Community Tech team should build a tool similar to CopyPatrol or New Pages Feed, but specifically for reviewing audio and video uploads. The tool should use both internal rules and 3rd party APIs to automatically flag files that are likely to be copyright violations (for example, matching the audio or video signatures of known commercial files, being over a certain size, receiving an abnormal amount of requests, etc.). It should then allow trusted Commons users to easily nominate the files for deletion and remove them from the review queue.
  • Translations: none yet

Discussion

Unambiguous cases could already be caught during the upload procedure. E.g. we could refuse files like exact duplicates or with known bad hash values right away. This was a proposal here some years ago. What happened to that?..--Reseletti (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

file_sha1 was added to Abuse filter in April 2016. Last time I checked, Commons is blocking 150+ known bad hashes. Dispenser (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Number of Pixels for images on Commons

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem:

At Commons, when images are showed, there appears this message below the picture:

Original file ‎(4,000 × 3,000 pixels, file size: 5.6 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg); ZoomViewer: flash/no flash

It would be very helpful, if it would show the Megapixels, in this case 4000 x 3000 = 12 Mpix.

  • Who would benefit: All common users
  • Proposed solution: Add Mpix to the image dimesions
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion

Could we get some explanation as to how described situation may be a problem? (Is it lack of compatibility with camera marketing?..)--Reseletti (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Excellent proposal donald. I often have to whip out my desktop calculator to do this manually, so it would save me a lot of time. And such an easy solution to code. Reseletti, the FPC community has a 2 megapixel limit on its entries, and we often talk about images in terms of their pixel count there, and at the moment such a thing has to be worked out manually -- Thennicke (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I see. So not everyone has that need and making the existing solution a little more accessible via a tickbox in the user preferences would be all we need, right?..--Reseletti (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Much easier to just have a number, 12.0 Mpx, next to the "4000 x 3000 pixels", on the file description page. To two decimal places, it's literally just a few characters, so there is no need for preferences to be involved here.
Example: "5,419 × 3,048 pixels (16.52 Mpx), file size: 8.62 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg" -- Thennicke (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I like the proposed format of Thennicke. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
To add to this, it would be great to be able to search for images within a range of sizes by megapixel. We can already do that for file size, dimensions, and resolution, this would be one more unit of measurement. Edit: to be clear, I'd like to see this data exposed to the search engine as well as present on-screen. :) Ckoerner (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting