Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Multimedia and Commons

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

Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Multimedia and Commons
20 proposals, 265 contributors

Go-previous.svg Mobile and apps  •  Notifications Go-next.svg

The survey has closed. Thanks for your participation :)
Here are the Community Wishlist Survey 2019 results!


Uploaded files visible in the gallery

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Currently we can see our uploaded files as a list. Sometimes for searching a some file the mouse overheats from page scrolling. I think it would be a better solution to create the last uploaded files in the form of a gallery.
  • Who would benefit: All users.
  • Proposed solution: Create the last uploaded files in the form of a gallery
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Tournasol7 (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This would be more useful as a category, so that all images of a user would ba accessible to Cat-a-lot. This would e.g. be helpful when new users throw too many images in too many categories. So why not just a hidden category for every user? With the sorting feature requested before one could order them by upload date. Watchduck (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Watchduck; In this proposal, I am more concerned with the clarity of the "Uploads" page. The solution proposed by you is good, but I would consider it as a separate proposition. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Overwritten images would probably be too much of a blind spot of the category approach, so I retract that. But it would be great to have Cat-a-lot support on the uploads page. Watchduck (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

My mouse never overheats, but I like the idea. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC).

Voting

IAuploader for images

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: flickr is imposing size limitations for photos. we are heavily dependant on flickr2commons and upload wizard flickr uploader
  • Who would benefit: commons quality images, creative commons culture
  • More comments: help Magnus, you are our only hope.
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion

@Slowking4: Can you please elaborate what's requested? c:Commons:Upload_tools#Uploading_from_Flickr and c:Commons:Flickr_batch_uploading and c:Commons:Upload_Wizard/Flickr already exist. Why is it a "problem" that "we are heavily dependent on Flickr2Commons and UploadWizard Flickr uploader"? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slowking4: I'm confused by your mention of archive.org. Did you mean flickr.com? I'm assuming you're requesting a tool that lets you search flickr for images that have compatible licenses and then import them into Commons. Is that correct? Would use of this tool be restricted to license-reviewers, admins, and extended-uploaders (similar to UploadWizard's Flickr uploader)? Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
no, we have a flickr tool. given the downsizing of flickr, we will need a tool that does the same thing for internet archive. we could use OAuth for access to tool. Slowking4 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: "Flickr promises it won’t delete Creative Commons photos when it limits free storage" -- excerpt: "In a blog post today, Flickr has clarified that those freely licensed photos will be safe, even under the new limits. Accounts with more than 1,000 photos or videos that are licensed with Creative Commons won’t have that content deleted. That said, Flickr will be blocking future uploads to those accounts on January 8th" -- so this isn't as dire as we all previously thought when they first announced the changes. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Hi, does the above info resolve the issue? (I.e. If I understand correctly, you (like the rest of us) were worried after the first announcement that came out, that we'd lose access to all the currently CC-licensed images there. Hence you were proposing that we should get prepared to have to scrape those flickr images out of IA's backups of them. However now that Flickr has promised to keep those CC images available for the forseeable future, this is no longer a major concern. If that is accurate, then (in order to reduce the 230+ wishes that we all hope all editors will read through!) I propose archiving this particular wish.) Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
no, i was worried about the over-reliance on flickr. if we had tools for upload from IA, a better partner, we would be less reliant on flickr. we should get prepared to decrease barriers to working with preferred partners, with a history of archive stability. a lack of crisis is not a "do not fix" Slowking4 (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Where will all those users go? Can WMF issue some press releases? Can we provide a "Copy-my-Flicker-account-and-relicense-the-non-free-licensed-images" wizard? This could be an application for the #Uploaded files visible in the gallery proposal. HLHJ (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I support the creation of this IA2Commons tool. I am a Flickr user, all my Flickr images are Creative Commons (over 10,000) but I don't want to pay for the hosting service. I put effort in taking good pictures, and I release them under Creative Commons, and now am I going to have to pay? No, thanks. I think I am moving to Internet Archive, using it like my "new Flickr". So, this tool to move content from IA to Commons will help me a lot. Emijrp (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I hope many will, but it sounds slightly unlikely. On the other hand, we'll have a lot of pre-purge stuff migrated there, so some kind of bot is likely to be helpful. Cf. commons:Commons_talk:Flickr_files#Flickr_paid_plans_and_deletions for context. Nemo 22:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Replace the media player

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: The media player is very old and non-functional
  • Who would benefit: All readers who view audio and video content
  • Proposed solution: Replace the media player or significantly improve it
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: phab:T100106
  • Proposer: Borys Kozielski (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

@Borys Kozielski: For better understanding of the actual problem to solve, an you please provide a link to a page where the player does not play audio files, plus browser and operating system information? I'm surprised to hear that it does not work for you. Thanks! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@AKlapper (WMF): User @Friedel Völker: has good suggestion - just add standard HTML5 player for mediawiki, that will be great. Borys Kozielski (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Borys Kozielski I think it already use HTML5 by default? Gryllida 22:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add a HTML5 Player for ogg/ogv to standard MediaWiki. --Friedel Völker (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Speed adjustment (2x, 3x, 0.6x, etc) would be very welcome. HLHJ (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Support 360 photo viewing

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: A 360° Photo is a photo that allow us to view more than just a snapshot of a scene . It even let us view the scene from every angle: above, below, behind and next to us & it's also a mainstream media type.

    But wiki Articles can't render it & MediaViewer doesn't support it. Images are shown as on the right instead of like this , in the articles.

  • Who would benefit: All the Readers and editors of wikis. 360° photos are effective for showing off vistas, internal architecture and more in a dramatic fashion that replicates the experience of being there.

    Instead of showing 15 photos we could take 1; 360° photo to encapsulate all the information we want to show.It's Also a good way to view panorama photos on mobile devices, where panoramas otherwise are real small.

  • Proposed solution: Add support to MediaViewer and to the renderd articles to allow to navigate inside of the image by mouse or finger gesture.

    THE "panoviewer" uses the Tool Labs grid for job execution and a library for tile manufacturer; theoretically it could be made into a real extension, with the tile manufactory put onto the Services cluster. This would allow it to be deployed everywhere, not just on Commmons, and integrated into MediaViewer officially .Then we can make it as a part of mediawiki software.

    Admin, Developer "dschwen" did some good work on this.

  • More comments: This has been a wish on the previous wishlists and only slightly missed the Top 10 twice. Proposed in the 2016 survey by Ahm masum, ranking at #15 and 2017 by TheDJ ranked #11.
  • Phabricator tickets: phab:T138933
  • Proposer: Ahm masum (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC) (with help of TheDJ & MichaelSchoenitzer)

Discussion

It is gorgeous but slow. In the proposed deployment, what will be the effect on readers with low-bandwidth connections or older hardware? Will there be a note in the image frame saying you can drag it (an automated image-frame link to Commons annotations would also be good)? HLHJ (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Excellent Question.I think there will be a "Fallback " like all other standard web developments.
OOjs UI icon info.svg
360° photo. You can navigate
Hypersphere of Deiwos.svg
The interior of the Chapel Royal in Dublin Castle.
OOjs UI icon alert.svg
Slow Internet or Unsupported Hardware !
OOjs UI icon articleRedirect-rtl.svg

when a user's device have low-bandwidth or hardware/software limitation (older) they will get the unrendered version as shown above.it can also have simple alert message like the right photo . And the rendered version could have a simple "info massage" like the left photo(just assume it's a rendered version). "auto generated" message would be more practical for this purpose.

Well , you got the right idea. I have to give you that . I also think the "image annotation" gadget could be a huge help for 360° photos. it can highlight the features we want to focus. Small details, or points of interest within the 360° photo. but it's a huge work for tech team to make it possible. first, the "image annotation" gadget will have to work on 360° & rendered articles . Then these "annotations" have to be mobile friendly, cause 70% +~ wiki users use mobile/smartphone.so it's a complex tusk. Need a huge time & resources.

And we have to make it in such a way so that it can 'distinguish 180°' & 360° and render it accordingly in the article (maybe by using metadata or image recognition algorithm). and the gesture control could be similar to facebook 360. when viewing in mediaviewer it could provide some extra navigation / interaction features & controls...THANKS AGAIN, FOR YOUR QUESTION.-- Ahm masum (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Improve the PDF/book reader

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: When we view a scanned book in PDF or DjVu format in Commons or Wikisource, its always single-page view. Every-time we go to the next page, we need to click on the drop down menu of pages. See this book in Commons for example. For book readers, its more like viewing images than reading books. This not only creates difficulty in reading, but also in identifying missing, duplicated pages etc. if the file needs to be corrected.
  • Who would benefit: Commons & Wikisource editors and readers

Discussion

  • Random-access page selection should remain possible (i.e., if I want page 234, I should not have to click 234 times to turn 234 pages). An interface allowing page turning either by scrolling or by clicking would be good, as some people find the one or the other physically difficult. Something which would aid OCR copyediting/transcription might also be nice. The phab page has some examples of interfaces. HLHJ (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Bodhisattwa. This problem is something Community Tech would love to work on. It's not clear that the proposed solution is the only or best way to fix it, however. I'd like to invite you to change the title of the proposal to focus more on the problem you want addressed than on the specific software you have in mind as a fix. This will not only make the title more accurately reflect how Community Tech would tackle this problem, it will make the proposal more appealing to the many people who've never tried the IA BookReader but who may have experienced sub-parr pdf reading. Good luck! —JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • An alternative proposal would be to integrate an IIIF service for serving Commons files (phab:T187872). There are a number of different viewers out there than can present content from IIIF sources, including ones offering views quite similar to the IA viewer, and ones that can have their appearance configured using optional stylesheets. I would agree that the IA viewer interface is particularly good, and should be a recommended model for such things. Jheald (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
In fact, I've since learnt that the IA viewer itself can take an IIIF Manifest to specify its input data. So if we could get that going, it would simply be a matter of including a choice for the user to see IIIF content rendered in/by the IA viewer. Jheald (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Bodhisattwa I am going to rename this proposal so the title is more generic (many people may not be familiar with the Internet Archive BookReader) and also so it gives us more room to experiment with different PDF readers in case implementing a different one is easier/better. I hope that is okay. Please do let me know if you have any concerns. Thank you for the proposal. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Bodhisattwa: Here's a book reader (from hell) with double-page view: The Bird Book.djvu. It works (!) and was specifically designed to make developers wake up in the middle of the night, screaming. - Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Transcription gadget for images with text

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Any text in an image should be transcribed into the description, to make items discoverable
  • Who would benefit: Anyone searching commons and people trying to extract info from photographs
  • Proposed solution: Gadget to run image through ocr and insert text
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: :JarrahTree (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Voting

  • Support Support Tom Ja (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Abzeronow (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Fabiorahamim (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Gnangarra (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support HLHJ (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Juandev (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Support mainly if the plan is to do this for non-Latin scripts as well. Joalbertine (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Joalbertine: If we were to use the Google OCR service, then these languages would be supported — lots of (but not all) non-latin scripts. Sam Wilson 06:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    OMG We must make this happen! --Joalbertine (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Vulphere 12:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support β16 - (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Sadads (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support I guess we need to implement tools to
    • facilitate people tagging which images have text (AI and/or OCR can be used to pre-guess for a person, person confirms)
    • facilitate people transcribing (computer asks people what language is it; OCR provides an initial version of the text for a person to proofread)
    • facilitate people translating these transcriptions to different languages Gryllida 07:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Olea (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Gideoraielgave (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Filipović Zoran (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support - FlightTime (open channel) 21:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support A garbage person (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Kpjas (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Display rectangular part of the image as parameter of File and compatible with ImageNote

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: There are tens of thousands composed images, plates (and other similar images). There is need usually only certain part of such image to be viewed in encyclopedic article at Wikipedia.

    Compare the following images:

Creating such cropped images is very time consuming. It is necessary to download the image, crop it, create new descriptive name, upload the image, add proper description, add categorization, add links to source image and add link from source file to derived file. (It is also useful to improve the quality of the images, such as remove background, remove captions, or rotate the image.)
It would be useful if it would be possible to view the certain rectangular area of the larger image from Commons on the Wikipedia directly without needing to upload the cropped image.
  • Who would benefit: Editors will save time. Readers will have proper encyclopedic images in more articles.
  • Proposed solution: Use ImageNote template commons:Template:ImageNote as a parameter of File to show rectangular part of the image.
  1. I will go to the image page at Commons. For example https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Malacologists_1914.png
  2. I will add a note to the image with "Add a note button".
  3. I will go to the Wikipedia page. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_H._Aldrich
  4. I will edit the Wikipedia page and I will add the image
[[File:Malacologists_1914.png|thumb|Truman H. Aldrich|{{ImageNote|id=3|x=901|y=383|w=168|h=235|dimx=1782|dimy=1364|style=2}}]]
This is just an example how it should work. We can benefit from the fact, that using of the ImageNote is standard on the Commons already.
  • More comments: Some of such images (plates) are not needed at Commons at all, especially if they are at Internet Archive. But some of them are at commons only and are not accessible anywhere else.

    The cropped image of Rivomarginella electrum is not very high quality and it will be replaced immediately when probably any other image of the same species will be uploaded to Commons. Then the cropped image will not be needed at all (and could be deleted). But the deletion process is sometimes much more consuming than uploading images. Consider that there are over 100.000 of such images of molluscs only at Commons. It is not possible to do it manually (we have not such many editors with such much time), especially when we known, that at least some of such cropped images will be certainly replaced and will became unusable.

    Many images cropped from plates usually need some editing. In such cases will be this solution only temporal. This will help to save time to editors and meantime to show at least some image to readers.

    But we can use it for plates forever for such plates, that does not need alteration.

    This example is about molluscs only. But the usage of the solution is universal:

This wish is copied from Community_Wishlist_Survey_2016/Categories/Multimedia#CW2016-R080.
  • Phabricator tickets: no.
  • Proposer: Snek01 (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • One problem here is that this feature will depend on images to never change. For example, if someone's face was cropped from an image in wikitext like this: [[File:Foo.jpg|crop=320x240|cropoffset=50,60]] and then someone reuploaded Foo.jpg with frame removed, the offsets will change and a wrong part of the image will be cropped. MaxSem (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I just copied the reply from previous discussion. I think, that 99.9% of images will never change.
This feature will be applied to images, that are expected to not be altered by cropping (see examples above). I can imagine only one way how could be the original image altered: with uploading higher resolution version over the file. It may or may not be recommended, but it can happen. Then would happen the same thing, that is happenning to Image Notes. (I did not test that, but I think, that Notes will move a bit.) If the user will use the rectangular part, then the Image Note will stay in the code of the image description. Uploader of the image should be responsible enough to avoid such problems. How many times a user damaged Image Notes when he uploaded larger version of file? I think, there is not known such case. It is not probable, that it will be a problem in this feature too.
Snek01 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Or alternatively, just make it possible for a particular image revision to be specifiable as the source of the crop. Jheald (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm an editor on Wikisource, and, we need lots of illustrations printed in original work, especially for old galleries. I am currently thinking about developing a tool that makes a cropped image from original source on Commons. If we can instead support this proposed extension, or at least host an image cropper at Toolforge and make a log of every images uploaded via the tool, Wikisource editors will save a lot of time and readers can see more images on Wikisource.--Midleading (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. So I hope, that people from Wikisource and people participating in Community Wishlist Survey 2019 about Wikisource will also support this feature. Snek01 (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
These images match, so the right one has a big margin. (See cropped version.)
collage
crops

This would be very useful, and overwriting existing files should be the exception anyway.

One example are matching images where a small object is scaled in proportion to a big one, which leads to a margin.
I often have that with different polyhedra around the same midsphere, as seen on the right.

Another example are of course collages like the one shown on the right. An aspect that I would like to bring up is that categorizing such collages can cause confusion, because it is not clear which aspect of the collage is categorized as what. In this case I have chosen to categorize only the cuboctahedron image under cuboctahedron etc., link the collage on the crop's page, and thus consider the collage to be categorized through the crop. Maybe for collages a category could be added like an annotation, and then only the crop would be shown in the category page — maybe even with an automatically generated locator like it is common in maps. Watchduck (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Croptool makes it pretty easy to crop an image, and en:Template:CSS image crop can display a crop of an image without editing it. Galobtter (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  • A twist on this request would be the ability to define named crops of an image in the metadata in the Commons file page, and then to be able to access them using some syntax like [[File:MyPic.jpg#crop1]]
The image annotation system on Commons is likely to get a radical overhaul with the coming of structured data; compare eg how relative position within image (P2677) is used as a qualifier on the depicts (P180) statement of Portrait of a Woman with a Squirrel (Q17335769), here. According to the team, ImageAnnotations "will have to be tied into" Structured Data depicts (P180) at some time in future (Last bullet point on this page; see preceding pages for context).
A further change to the landscape will be if/when an IIIF image service gets integrated into the Commons image-serving back-end, see phab:T187872. (There used to be a trial service piggy-backed onto the infrastucture behind the Commons Zoomviewer, but both are currently down). An IIIF service would, amongst other things, allow image crops to be requested directly from the file-server, without having to be cut down by CSS. Jheald (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: "define named crops of an image in the metadata in the Commons file page" I like this idea. I think it's a better approach than most that have been suggested wrt to cropping so far. Be sure to document it in the relevant tickets. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and I note that our current image service technology (thumbor) also supports serving cropped versions of images. It's probably not enabled, because there is nothing in the stack that would be able to use it, but internally it could easily be used as a cropping service. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Could we eventually retroactively turn the large number of subset details into such markup, with redirects? HLHJ (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  • Support Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support have been asking for this years ago already. MB-one (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Cropping to create new files creates many problems. Being able to display only the relevant part would be helpful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Or provide possibility to on-wiki creating new file from bigger image. JAn Dudík (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support It's annoying to download and re-upload for the sake of a crop, and some editors crop JPEGS lossily; doing it in the browser would solve both HLHJ (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I think this issue, which I would agree is an important one, should be dealt with in the context of IIIF support by Wikimedia Commons. Beat Estermann (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Joalbertine (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Wesalius (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support StringRay (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Vulphere 12:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support I support for use case and problem of needing a way to easily show parts of an existing image on a page. However, in terms of implementation, I don't think we should make it a file-syntax parameter. This creates additional software complexity and infrastructure overhead. Perhaps it would be better if we make it really easy to create a cropped version of an image from different places (from the File description page, and from inside wikitext editors and VisualEditor). For example, you edit a page, search or specify the file to use, then automatically see existing crops, and with an option to create a new crop, then simply drag and adjust over the image preview, maybe give it a label, and in the background it will automatically upload, tag and insert the newly created file in the editor. Krinkle (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Dubbeltänk (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Gce (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Beroesz (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Dvorapa (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Uanfala (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Risker (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Transcode MIDI file archive

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: While Wikimedia has a pretty nice archive of MIDI files, they are not playable in modern browsers. Pages will have them available, but they need to be downloaded, and then played on a separate player. Said player is not even necessarily available in the user's operating system, and third party players tend to be a bit tricky to set up, requiring addtional files (soundfonts) and such.
  • Who would benefit: People who want to listen to our MIDI archive. People visiting several Music-related pages. People who wish to upload small files that illustrate a musical concept.
  • Proposed solution: Automatically convert the MIDI to Ogg Vorbis, like with other audio files. These are playable on modern browsers.
  • More comments: We already have most of the necessary software. There is a SCORE tag extension that allows for Lilypond markup, and takes the rendered MIDI and converts it to OGG. And we have the workflow already setup for other conversions. The only optional new item that might be useful is an additional soundfont: the one from MuseScore might fill in gaps in the existing FluidSynth ones and is hiqg quality.
  • Phabricator tickets: phab:T135597
  • Proposer: Trlkly (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • @Trlkly: There is actually an English Wikipedia template, w:en:Template:Synthlisten, which allows MIDI files to be played through the Score extension. (My proposal is somewhat similar but proposes that MusicXML/MuseScore files be uploadable and rendered by Commons/Extension:Score, which would achieve roughly the same but also allow the files to be shown as sheet music.) Jc86035 (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Trlkly, could you please clarify if you mean automatically adding a Synthlisten template to each MIDI file page, making a downloadable Ogg Vorbis version available for each MIDI file, or replacing the MIDI files with Ogg Vorbis files, thus removing access to the MIDI files as MIDIs?
  • Comment Comment Added the phabricator task for moving the MIDI to OGG (sound) conversion to TimedMediaHandler, which is used for videos and audio on Wikimedia. This is important so that we aren't bound to using the Score workaround, and so is the cornerstone of this proposal. Another task could be created for it to be automatized for all MIDI files in presentation. Ebe123 (Communication | Activity report) 01:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment I believe this could easily be solved with the VLC API which is free to use, and open. Allowing for a forward facing player without loading extra modules!!!!Lostinlodos (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

SVGs are often tiny in the preview (MediaViewer)

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: When clicking on a image it is opened in the so called Media Viewer. If the resolution of an image is sufficient it viewed screen filling. SVG files are vector files and can therefore be scaled arbitrary large. But SVG-Files contain image-sizes. Media-Viewer shows SVG-files only as big as the image meta data tells the image is large. Therefore sometimes when clicking on an image to see it larger is is opened not larger but sometimes even smaller than shown in the article, even through it's a arbitrary scalable graphics.
click on me (with MediaViewer enabled)
  • Who would benefit: Readers
  • Proposed solution: If the SVG has no bitmap-image embedded show it always screen-filling.
  • More comments: Fixed as of December 2018
  • Phabricator tickets: Phab:T71237
  • Proposer: MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This seems to sort of break the standard. Could we have a tool for rapidly rescaling images with ludicrous embedded scales instead? HLHJ (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This will be fixed soon, see gerrit 475338. --Tgr (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Support for IIIF Presentation API in WikiCommons

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: IIIF was created to allow the sharing and interoperability of high quality zoomable images both for viewing but also for annotating. Version 3 of the presentation API now also supports audio and video. This proposal is for WikiCommons to support the IIIF Presentation API by exposing IIIF manifests and coining static Canvas IDs. A IIIF Manifest is a JSON-LD metadata representation of a Book, Painting, Archive or Video that can be imported into various tools and viewers. A Manifest contains a number of Canvases, one for each page. A static Canvas ID will mean items in Wikimedia Commons can be annotated using the W3C Annotation Framework and existing IIIF tools.

    Presentations on IIIF are available on the IIIF youtube channel.

    Images in WikiCommons are difficult to annotate as the image URLs are not static and access is limited to a number of pre-generated sizes. The interface on WikiCommons could be improved for ‘book’ like objects.

  • Who would benefit: All Commons users
  • Proposed solution: Expose WikiCommons data using the IIIF standard and in particular mint static Canvas Ids and Manifest Ids.
  • More comments: This would help with the Book Reader wish as the Internet Archive Book Reader is IIIF compatible.

    Tom Crane has the following proof of concept: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/D1122 which takes Wikidata items which have the P2677 relation (relative position within image) and turns them into IIIF manifests and annotation lists. These manfiests can be viewed and compared in a IIIF viewer like Mirador. This is an extension to a tool called tool-wd-image-positions written by Lucas Werkmeister and as such will only work with items that have the P2677 property.

    Tom also has the following project: wikipedia-to-iiif which works with any content in Wikimedia Commons and creates a IIIF manifest. This uses the Wikimedia API to create manifests using static images provided by Wikimedia Commons. The benefit of taking this work and embedding it into the core Wikimedia Commons code is that it would give static URIs for manifests and canvas ids allowing annotation. This is further discussed in a gist.

  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Glenrobson (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC) with Andy Mabbett, Tom Crane

Discussion

It's important to note that implementation of the IIIF Presentation API is not dependent on implementation of the IIIF Image API. You can share, annotate and remix images without the tiled deep zoom provided by an image server. Implementing the IIIF Presentation API could also mean that, as well as their current formats, Wikidata query results could be available as IIIF Collections. I could attempt a POC for this too if it would be useful. As an example, this IIIF Collection: Pencil works, Wellcome Library is available for visual re-use, such as here: http://tomcrane.github.io/wellcome-today/today.html?collection=https://wellcomelibrary.org/service/collections/genres/Pencil%20works/

By exposing result sets as IIIF Collections, those result sets can be consumed by IIIF-aware applications, such as a crowdsourcing tool or an image analysis project; IIIF removes the need for a bespoke mapping, and new data generated by those clients addresses the digital object in a standard format, W3C Web Annotations.

Tom Crane

Voting

Allow non-CC0 licensed data for datasets

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Tabular datasets in Commons cannot contain non-CC0 information because the interface doesn't support the correct attribution
  • Who would benefit: Wikipedians could move the data tables from the article text, and generate dynamic tables or graphs from it through the Graph and Maps extensions
  • Proposed solution: See referenced tickets
  • More comments: See also Village pump discussion
  • Phabricator tickets: phab:T154071, phab:T155290
  • Proposer: Sabas88 (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

If this data were in a table, would I have to license it under CC0? How could I claim copyright over basic physical properties of the universe? "Quark masses, copyright User:HLHJ" is absurd.
  • Support. If the blocking technical requirements are those listed at phab:T154071#4323571, they don't look they would require too much to fix, and should be well within the capabilities of the Community Tech team. Shapefiles that are licensed ODBL, eg from OSM, could be of huge usefulness in connection with WDQS queries. Jheald (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • T200968 documents the current state of play. This will supposedly be worked on soon, though I'll believe it when I see it. Note that (re)fixing this bug was included in my Provide an easier way to create a wikitable from a Commons dataset proposal. Gareth (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, perhaps if needed, we could consolidate it --Sabas88 (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've already taken data published under another CC license in a scientific paper and made it into a datagraphic which I uploaded to Commons. It's vector-format, so re-extracting the original dataset would be fairly simple. If I've understood, the status quo means that that was OK, but if I put the data in a table and then made a graph I'd be unable to do so legally due to interface limitations. One might argue that scientific data is not copyrightable (I sort of assumed that, and I was following longstanding academic convention), but that's not the same as a CC-0 license. I'd feel stupid placing an unoriginal table of properties of the universe under CC0. And my original work in making a graphic, is that my copyright that I must license? Can I license it differently from the data? Are recently-invented standard statistical visualization techniques copyrighted? I'm confused. I have no idea how to license data correctly, and excluding scientific data from Wikipedia is clearly not the answer.
RStallman (WMF), could you please give some informal guidance as to what license options we might need in the interface? HLHJ (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

New design for video and audio player

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Both Wikimedia video and audio player looks very old. Once I thought the audio player was finally updated, but it was just default Google player, which was shown until Wikimedia's one loaded. Today, there are many trends, like Google Material Design, and it's important to have a modern look. So, please, make it modern, less square, (maybe more round), maybe you can have an inspiration from Google's Material Design. Just make it look like not from the previous decade. Many thanks!
  • Who would benefit: Everybody reading articles on Wikimedia projects
  • Proposed solution: Make new design both for audio and video player
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion

@Luky001: What is a "Google player"? (Did you maybe mean the default player shipped in some Google browser that you're using?) "Google Material Design" seems to be en:Material Design. Am I correct that the current "Problem" description above basically says "I don't like how it looks" but does not cover any functionality/workflow issues? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I meant the default player in Chrome, e.g. when you open MP3 sound file in Chrome, there is the default one. Yeah, you assumed it correctly, I don't like how it looks, but functionality is OK. It's just the thing that I think that we should have modern look for these players. Wikipedia graphics are regularly updated, for example buttons got a new look in the past years, pop-up messages (when you are editing, etc.), etc. Why shouldn't we then update the look of these players? --Luky001 (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Luky001: The WMF has been planning to replace the video player entirely: phab:T100106. It seems progress has been fairly slow. Jc86035 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Luky001:, could you expand more on what benefit this would have to multimedia content? For a stronger proposal I'd encourage a reason for why engineers (and designers!) should spend time on this. What would a "modern look" mean for the projects and movement? How would it improve things?
It would look nicer. It's like comparing Wikipedia now and 15 years ago - we have nice buttons now (instead of basic ones as it was before), nice Recent changes page, in which you can navigate easily, Visual Editor, which made editing of Wikimedia projects much easier, and much more. Everything on the Internet is changing now to better design (minimalistic, clean, etc.). Displaying images wasn't always done in Media Viewer, and it looks great now thanks to it. So from my point of view, it's because I want it to look modern and nice. It is not something revolutionary, but it will look better. --Luky001 (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Related, we'd most likely use OOUI, a design library whose principles are becoming more consistent across MediaWiki and related components. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Luky001 and CKoerner (WMF): There is already a working demo of the in-development new video player (thanks to Jdforrester (WMF) for showing it to me). (For it to display you need to enable the Beta Feature for it after creating a new account on the test wiki.) Its styling does look a little like the OOUI buttons', but it seems slightly different to me. I think it would be better to reframe this proposal as a request to finish development of that media player, since there has already been a substantial amount of work done for it. Jc86035 (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Support for chemical formats

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Who would benefit: All editors who work on chemistry topics.
  • Proposed solution: WMF need to allocate resources to add support for feature proposed back into 2008 or may be one of local chapters may take a lead on this as Wikidata was implemented by Wikimedia Deutschland.
  • More comments:

Discussion

Voting

Image inheritance, a bequest safe for Wikimedia Commons

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Thousands of my pictures – probably millions of images from other Wikimedians – would be lost because they can currently(!) not be publicly published. We Wikimedians who are alive today can't upload the images if we're no longer alive, when these images in the future no longer restricted by copyright.
    Deutsch: ("Tausende Bilder von mir - wahrscheinlich Millionen Bilder von anderen Wikipedianern werden verloren gehen, weil sie aktuell(!) nicht veröffentlicht werden dürfen und wir heute lebenden Wikipedianer nicht mehr leben werden und also die Bilder nicht mehr hochladen können, wenn sie in Zukunft keinen Einschräkungen mehr unterliegen werden.")
  • Who would benefit: Wikimedia Commons and all its users.
    Deutsch: ("Wikimedia Commons und all seinen Benutzer*innen")
  • Proposed solution: I would like to be able to upload photos to a "private" – with a, to the normal ID, unrelated password – and extra protected user space. I'm thinking of interior photos, information boards, texts and so on. These photos are currently not covered by the Freedom of Panorama and must immediately be deleted. I would like to upload these photos "today", but save them for "later" (my digital "bequest", my "photo inheritance" for Wikimedia Commons).

    The way I envision it is that these files would 100 years after the uploading automatically be made free. Until then, they would just be available for administrators and myself. At the same would I already put these images "hidden" in the "proper" categories – but not available to non-administrators!

    Deutsch: ("Sehr gern würde ich Fotos in einen „privaten“ - mit einem von der „normalen“ Kennung unabhängigen Passwort – und extra geschützten Benutzer-Bereich hochladen.

    Ich denke dabei zum Beispiel an Fotos von Innenräumen, Informationstafeln, Texten usw. Diese Fotos unterliegen aktuell nicht der Panoramafreiheit und müssten sofort gelöscht werden. Ich möchte diese Fotos aber „heute“ für „später“ hochladen (mein digitales „Vermächtnis“ / mein „Bild-Erbe“ für Wikimedia Commons ).

    Meine Vorstellung ist, dass diese Aufnahmen etwa 100 Jahre nach dem Hochladen automatisch frei geschaltet werden. Bis dahin wären sie nur für Administratoren und mich selbst sichtbar. Gleichzeitig würde ich die Bilder schon „versteckt“ in die „richtigen“ Kategorie einfügen wollen - für Nicht-Administratoren unsichtbar!")

Discussion

  • This was posted in German. I've translated it into English, but kept the original German. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There has been a similar discussion around private drafts which has tended toward "Legal has looked at it and mostly said it's not a good idea for a few reasons". --Izno (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Bluerasberry (see "Voting"): "We do this somewhat at commons:Category:Undeletion_requests" - I didn't know that. Could this be simplified/automated (for example, as an upload wizard special function)? --Molgreen 14:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Redactyll (see "Voting"): "I'm in to this idea, seems good enough" (copied from Molgreen 06:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC))
  • User:HLHJ (see "Voting"): "if legally possible" - Yes, that's a requirement. Therefore the idea with the private sphere (digital legacy) Molgreen 14:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Syced (see "Voting"): "I have tons of pictures of modern art and election leaflets. All will die with me if no easy-to-use upload system become available. Deletion of one's pictures is currently a traumatic experience, maybe the process should reworded and split between "useless pictures" and "pictures not publishable yet". For the later, a reconsideration date should be set as metadata to the picture, typically at the expected end of its copyright. Until the copyright ends, the media's page should show the metadata and a 30x30 pixels preview (expect in the rare cases when even such a tiny preview is not lawful) so that people know that the media will become available in X years due to law Y (that might even raise awareness about copyright laws). Thanks!" (copied from Molgreen 18:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC))
  • You can do this on the Internet Archive (it's routine over there), the Wikimedia wikis don't seem very suitable. Nemo 22:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • User:ShakespeareFan00 (see "Voting"): "At least until WMF legal had a chance to fully review what changes Article 13 and it's equivalents will mean in terms of the ability of WMF project to host certain types of content." (copied from Molgreen 05:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC))
  • User:Kirbanzo (see "Voting"): "but we will need to adjust it if Article 13 is passed in the European Union" (copied from Molgreen 05:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

Voting

  • Support Support Tom Ja (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support MB-one (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support FF-11 (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support We do this somewhat at commons:Category:Undeletion_requests Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support SupportThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 20:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support I'm in to this idea, seems good enough. Redactyll (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support if legally possible HLHJ (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support DerFussi 10:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Hydriz (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Syced (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC) I have tons of pictures of modern art and election leaflets. All will die with me if no easy-to-use upload system become available. Deletion of one's pictures is currently a traumatic experience, maybe the process should reworded and split between "useless pictures" and "pictures not publishable yet". For the later, a reconsideration date should be set as metadata to the picture, typically at the expected end of its copyright. Until the copyright ends, the media's page should show the metadata and a 30x30 pixels preview (expect in the rare cases when even such a tiny preview is not lawful) so that people know that the media will become available in X years due to law Y (that might even raise awareness about copyright laws). Thanks! Syced (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Waddie96 (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support - tucoxn\talk 14:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Agronopolos (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Vulphere 12:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support«« Man77 »» [de] 13:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support β16 - (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support JopkeB (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support BugWarp (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Orphée (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC) At least until WMF legal had a chance to fully review what changes Article 13 and it's equivalents will mean in terms of the ability of WMF project to host certain types of content. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 02:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Jklamo (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support - but we will need to adjust it if Article 13 is passed in the European Union. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support - FlightTime (open channel) 21:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Okki (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Present 3D content in a stereoscopic view

Edit proposal/discussion

3dgeraete.gif
  • Problem: With the advent of the IPhone X and the Windows updates 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 app for iOS (or create a Arduino HID project to release cameras via KeyEvent.Volume_Up)
    • make the stereoskopie desktop app functional
    • empower kiwix to support VR
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

Hi Gradzeichen. This wish is a little too big for all the work involved. I'd encourage you to split it up. Maybe keep this proposal only about converting the tool to an extension and propose other wishes for supporting 3D viewing and making app(s). Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I will not split the proposal, so that the votes get not splitted. However, if the proposal gets voted into the top 10, the wishlist team may implement as much of it, as resources sensibly allow. For a start upload of jps-files could be allowed, then 3D (image and video) files may be tagged automatically, so that they can be excluded or included to search, then the MediaViewer could be enabled to only show the left half of a file for an 2D display of the file, and than go on how far it is possible. Sources of my implementation of the algorithms can be found at github, and may (or may not) be helpful. --𝔊 (Gradzeichen DiſkTalk) 15:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Gradzeichen Okay. In that case, I would encourage you to rename the proposal to be more generic so people will click on it more. Most people might not be aware of what Stereoskopie is and that could discourage them from clicking on the wish and reading the description. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I have tried to come up with another name, that is catchy to native speakers and understandable to others and still decriptive to the proposal. I have contempleted, if the original name should still be appended or not. But I have not come to a solution. Maybe you have an idea? --𝔊 (Gradzeichen DiſkTalk) 15:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
What do you think of this - Add support for 3D content in Wikimedia wikis? I think it is catchy, understandable and preserves most of the proposal . -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem I see with "3D" is, that it is often (including in wikipedia) used for 2D files, that show something that is threedimensional (example: File:3D Model of the Main Gallery in Skednena jama Cave.svg). While the proposal is about content actually viewable in 3D (stereoscopic). --𝔊 (Gradzeichen DiſkTalk) 17:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The title is only there to give a high-level idea of the proposal so people click through and read the proposal. It's not a great idea to try to get all the details into the title. :) -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

All those wobbling images are horrible; I hope that, if the proposal is realised, they will not appear on wiki pages. PJTraill (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

+1 these are very bad 'examples' and "clicking on them" doesn't do anything useful. — xaosflux Talk 20:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

(Un)-Pause Buttons for animated GIFs

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Animated Gifs are an important way of illustrating some concepts. But they can also be extremely distracting and annoying while reading text near to them.
  • Who would benefit: All readers and editors
  • Proposed solution: Add a lite icon to allow to stop the animation. If the icon is pressed stop the animation and replace the icon with another icon that allows to resume the playback.
  • More comments: The nowerdays defunct Firefox-Addon Toggle animated GIFs implemented this very nicely.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Animation without a pause/unpause button is listed as an accessibility issue by the WCAG. So, this might be a reasonable add for a gadget. --Izno (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd appreciate this very much. And sometimes it would also be useful to play the animation slower or backwards. --Megatherium (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Tool to cut videos in Commons

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Downloading a video and Editing to cut videos in Wikimedia Commons locally to finally upload it again to commons is quite time consuming and data consuming.
  • Who would benefit: Volunteers who cut videos in Commons to improve (Ex: We are uploading entire movie articles into commons and we need to cut them into several small videos to make use of them in different Wikipedia pages.)
  • Proposed solution: To create a tool like CropTool for videos to cut them and upload separately without downloading, editing locally and uploading again.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • This sounds feasible and in scope to me but I'd like the opinion of someone who knows about these things, to make sure the scale is not beyond what Community Tech can manage. Brion Vibber (WMF) can you please have a look? How hard would it be for CommTech to build a simple tool for (if I read this correctly), 1) trimming the beginning and end of a file and 2) cutting it into more than one piece (which, it strikes me, could be done with #1 as long as you can save the file with a new name)? —Jmatazzoni (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Jmatazzoni! #1 is enough, as we can save files with new names everytime. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It would also be helpful to be able to crop out black bars and fix aspect ratio.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you really need to cut the video that often? Per c:Commons:Video#Temporal_media_fragments you can specify start and end times like this: [[File:Weeding.ogv|thumb|300px|start=5|end=7|Starts at 5 seconds and ends playback at 7 seconds]]. Ainali (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
This file is an example File:Missamma Full Length Telugu Movie -- N. T. Rama Rao, A. Nageswara Rao, Jamuna, Savitri.webm. This is a Telugu movie. There are several songs, scenes, etc., which will be useful in several film articles and non-film articles. We have many movies as such. I am trying to find such songs or scenes already there in Youtube to upload and often I have to deal with promotional content of the channel (promotional videos at the end) and you can see some examples in Category:Telugu-language media. I wish we can use this trimming tool to get rid of those issues. Also those songs and scenes are worth being separate videos because they can be used in several articles in Telugu and English Wikipedias. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Could this be done not by editing the original file but by adding specific time codes etc to the code where its embedded? Simplifying the process of using specific sections of video and audio files would be extremely helpful. John Cummings (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
If we can trim those videos and create a new file, then many others will use it. For example, a separate video of a song from a movie will be used better than time coded video from entire movie. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

MediaWiki Upload to Commons Wizard for non WM projects

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Instant Commons is a fine feature for non WM wikis - but adding content to Commons from a non WM Wiki is not possible.
  • Who would benefit: All Commons users
  • Proposed solution: Development of a MW Extension (compatible to standard MW) with an upload wizard to Commons allowing users of non WM Wikis to add proper licensed free content without leaving their wiki.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Friedel Völker (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

@Friedel Völker: Hi, are you aware of c:Commons:Glam2Commons? Wondering if that suits your needs, and if it does not what's missing. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @AKlapper (WMF):. Did'nt know Glam2Commons. But it doesn't fit. I'll try to give you something like a user story for my (our) needs: I am contributing to a local free content wiki project (w:de:Regiowiki). Easiest way to contribute photos is to upload them to this local wiki. But if I want to share my pictures with a larger community I can upload the photos to Commons and add them to the local wiki. Adding photos from Commons is easy as the administrator of the local wiki enabled the instant commons option of MediaWiki, but the upload process forces me to leave the local wiki to login into Commons, upload the photo there and switch back to my local wiki article. Better would be to have an option in the local wiki for uploading to Commons, entering Commons credentials there, have a guided process for a proper license and description and be able to proceed editing my local wiki article without leaving. --Friedel Völker (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Easy, low-maintenance possibility to include color coded maps

Edit proposal/discussion


The original German version of this proposal can be found here: de:Wikipedia:Technische Wünsche/Wunschparkplatz#Einfache und wartungsarme Möglichkeit, eingefärbte Karten einzubinden

  • Problem: Many graphics included in Wikipedia articles are maps in which countries are color coded according to whatever criterion. Usually this is done by taking a blank map like File:BlankMap-World6.svg, coloring it and then uploading it as a new file. This has a couple of disadvantages:
    • Fiddling with SVGs is difficult for less tech-savvy users and scares them off
      • → Often the user who plans the map is not the one who actually creates it → Lots of communications overhead, not possible to "be bold" and do-it-yourself, lots of time wasted and poor efficiency
      • → probably a lot of maps not realised at all because too complex technology is in the way
    • Lots and lots of redundant information → if a much-used template file receives a change (think new borders, code errors etc.), this change would need to be implemented in hundreds and thousands of files. Of course no one does this → existing files are becoming more and more incorrect (e.g. there are many maps that still don't show South Sudan or other relatively recent changes)
    • The resulting maps have all sorts of designs, depending on which template file was used
    • If a user makes a bad choice of template file (e.g. unsuitable projection etc.), it is fairly complex (and takes a lot of effort) to fix that

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:

  • Who would benefit: All users who want to include color coded maps. The ones who DO know how to make maps are currently wasting a lot of time, too.
  • Proposed solution: Defining the map data (borders etc.) should be separated from the map styling (colors etc.), so that the end user doesn't need to do any more than fill out a simple template: {{Map Europe|de=red|fr=blue|it=green}}. Commons should host the template maps as .map pages, which can then be modified conveniently (via the template, using the graph extension). One can also think of parameters like bordersasof=2010, projection=Robinson, micronations=circles etc.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion

  • This does sound as it it would save a lot of time. I'd like superclasses, too, like [all other countries not specified]=grey or [all other countries in Africa]=blue. I recently also had a problem with a map of a set of features which are small, but straddle the border between two large countries; I can imagine that being a problem here (for instance, suppose you wanted to show bilingualism rates along part of a border). It should be possible to select the coloured polygons included in the map by geographical area, not just by political subdivision. HLHJ (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I love this idea. I recently made a couple of maps for the distribution of species and probably did it the hard way. I don't know enough about how SVG works to know if it would work for maps that show range of species (including migration and a fuzzy zone for rare occurrence areas) but I would welcome anything that would standardize the maps.PopularOutcast (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • All the timezone maps in wikipedia need to be replaced with something like this for ease of maintenance. C933103 (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • An alternative to SVGs would be to use the graph extension, as done with the graph at the top of Epidemiology of obesity. Gareth (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Sounds like this would depend on the related proposal Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Multimedia and Commons#Option to embed SVGs as SVGs. A slightly different approach (if that proposal doesn't happen), is that you could take a tool like the U.S. Map Infographic Tool and make it more generalized, i.e., allowing the user to choose from a broad range of template maps. That tool exports the result as a new SVG, however, rather than simple CSS to apply to an embedded SVG template. Kaldari (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a great idea! I would suggest being able to assign colors to certain geographical areas as well, making it easier for scenarios with fewer colors. I really hope this gets on the radar for the team, since personally I am tired of inconsistent and somewhat clunky maps that can be found on many pages. MSG17 (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, @Christallkeks: This is a really handy idea, and I'd love to see this go up in the wikis. Unfortunately, the feature is first blocked on the ability of the wikis to display SVG images as SVGs (rather than pngs), which is currently not available. Changing the way the wikis work to serve raw SVGs to the user is a huge task by itself that is outside the scope of what we can do as part of a wishlist item. This makes this proposal, unfortunately, fall in the same boat; the feature is too big for us to work on as part of the Wishlist. Thank you for your participation, MSchottlender-WMF (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@MSchottlender-WMF: As I mentioned above, the graph extension offers an alternative to SVG, so to decline this proposal on the basis that an SVG implementation is unsuitable seems misguided. I've tweaked the proposal to suggest the graph extension should be used for the proposed solution instead of SVGs and believe it should be moved back to the active listings. Gareth (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gareth: When we reviewed this in the wish triage, the team was very concerned about the scope of the wish and whether it will be feasible. However, if the intent is to try and come up with a way to make the Graph extension easier to use (rather than trusting people to understand json formats) we can probably look into that part. The voting has started already, but if the scope is clear to everyone that we will look into providing an easier way to do this with graphs (rather than SVGs) then I think you're right to say that the reason of pulling it out was incorrect. I am pulling this back into the wishlist. MSchottlender-WMF (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for putting it back! Gareth (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Musical notation – files on Commons (rendering and playback), graphical editing

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Although sheet music can already be embedded in articles to some extent, right now it's impossible to share digital sheet music as files on Commons. This limits the use of digital sheet music, which could otherwise be used to make synthesized audio files to compensate for the dearth of correctly-licensed recordings in Wikipedia articles and on other projects.

    US copyright has prevented almost all audio created in the 20th century from going into the public domain,[note 1] and will continue to be similarly restrictive for years to come; and using public domain sheet music doesn't easily convey to (most of) those reading it how something actually sounds. At the same time, the MediaWiki Score extension can already render scores and play MIDI files from LilyPond source code.[note 2] However, LilyPond lacks a graphical editor and its scores can't be used through the MediaWiki file syntax without exporting to PDF or OGG. The open-source notation program MuseScore is feature-rich and has a graphical interface, as well as a large and active community at musescore.com (Alexa ranking of 3,417[note 3]),[note 4] but its files cannot be rendered in MediaWiki at all. Conversion to LilyPond format requires a two-step conversion through the MusicXML format.[note 5] However, both the MuseScore application and the MuseScore command line app can export MuseScore files to various file formats which can already be rendered or played by MediaWiki.[note 6]

    Supporting MusicXML/MuseScore files on Commons would also potentially encourage MuseScore users to also upload scores to Commons,[note 7] and Commons would be able to take advantage of the large amount of transcribed public-domain sheet music that has already been uploaded to Musescore.com, including the verified and reviewed transcriptions that are being created as part of the OpenScore transcription project.[note 8] Because of Commons's more useful file categorization system and more stringent copyright enforcement, if Commons becomes another hub for MuseScore users it would also become easier for people to find digital sheet music and verify that a given score is in fact reusable for their purposes.

  • Who would benefit: Wikipedia readers, Wikisource readers and editors, Commons, LilyPond users, and the MuseScore community
  • Proposed solution: It would be beneficial for both readers and editors to allow notation files from Commons to be rendered and played.[note 9] This could be done by using the existing Score extension to render and synthesize the files,[note 10] by creating a new MediaWiki extension to allow them to be rendered separately,[note 11] by modifying the Media Viewer extension, or through a combination of those methods. There is an ongoing RfC at Commons to determine which file formats would be supported by Commons.[note 12][note 13]

    Another improvement that could be considered would be to integrate a graphical notation editor into VisualEditor, since this would enable editors to create scores graphically without having to worry about file conversion issues.[note 14] This would probably require writing a graphical interface for LilyPond or improving an existing unofficial one.

Notes

  1. Almost all audio created between 1923 and 1972 has a much longer copyright term than other works in the US due to being covered by state copyright law rather than federal copyright law until 2018, and the last recordings will only enter the public domain in 2067. See c:Commons:Hirtle chart#Sound recordings and w:en:Music Modernization Act.
  2. LilyPond can play both MIDI files generated from the score itself and MIDI files uploaded to Commons.
  3. As of 20 November 2018. This means that Alexa Internet measured it to be the 3,417th-most-popular website over the previous three months.
  4. Musescore.com is possibly the most active community for uploading sheet music, although this is in no small part due to much of its content being arrangements and transcriptions of copyrighted works.
  5. MuseScore files (.mscz) can be converted to MusicXML files (.mxl) in the MuseScore application, and vice versa; the open-source application Frescobaldi can convert MusicXML files to LilyPond files (.ly), but cannot do the reverse (although there are some conversion scripts around the internet). Most proprietary scorewriters, like Finale and Sibelius, can convert their files to the MusicXML format (or if not, there is usually a plugin or other program which can do that). None of these formats can be uploaded to Commons.
  6. The ones most useful for Commons would be SVG, PNG, OGG and PDF.
  7. Musescore.com has its own share of issues: users cannot update scores uploaded by others; its online player is unfortunately closed-source, unlike the MuseScore Windows/Mac/Linux application; and individual users can only upload five scores if they do not purchase a MuseScore Pro subscription. See the talk page for more background information.
  8. It might also be possible to benefit from the score validation software that is being developed for that project.
  9. Originally this proposal also asked for video or otherwise visual playback of scores. In the interest of more clearly indicating the goals of the request I have omitted that part.
  10. This would probably be accomplished by modifying the file syntax to allow specifying whether a notation file is rendered as PDF, as audio, or both.
  11. This would probably use the MuseScore app's command line to export files to PDF and OGG. It would be difficult to re-implement the entire MuseScore renderer, because the MuseScore format does not have a formal specification and is defined solely by the functionality of the application.
  12. While it could be sufficient to only allow MusicXML uploads, it may be desirable to additionally allow MuseScore files to be uploaded. This is because MuseScore's import and export of MusicXML is not perfect, and if two users use MuseScore to contribute to the same file then it may be beneficial for them to avoid importing and exporting to edit the MuseScore source file.
  13. Even if Community Tech doesn't have time to action this proposal, simply allowing uploads would allow musical notation files to be shared much more easily. For example, I've uploaded MuseScore exports to Commons before (such as File:Für Elise preview.svg), but have been unable to also upload the source file.
  14. Since this would be LilyPond-based, presumably the original LilyPond and its users would also benefit from the new graphical editor's existence.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
    • phab:T208494 – Allow music scores to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (1 November 2018)
    • phab:T201637 – Support engraving of musical files on Wikimedia Commons (10 August 2018)
    • phab:T209695 – Playback for musical notation files hosted on Wikimedia Commons (16 November 2018)
    • phab:T183642 – Support MusicXML to Lilypond Conversion (24 December 2017)
    • phab:T49528 – Create a VisualEditor plugin tool to add/edit musical scores (23 April 2013)

Discussion

User:Facenapalm User:Dispenser User:Ruslik0 User:Micru User:Hiàn User:Trockennasenaffe User:JAn Dudík User:Gryllida User:Tacsipacsi User:Superchilum User:Theklan User:M11rtinb User:MichaelSchoenitzer User:TheDJ User:Ayack User:Shizhao User:Thomas Obermair 4 User:Sannita User:Draceane User:Consulnico User:Liuxinyu970226 User:David1010 User:Mahir256 User:NMaia Notifying everyone who voted in the similar proposal from last year. (This proposal is, broadly, more precise and more feasible.) Jc86035 (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment "However, LilyPond lacks a graphical editor and its scores can't be used through the MediaWiki file syntax without exporting to PDF or OGG." Misleading. Its scores can be inputted directly into MediaWiki. File syntax is not necessary and is to be avoided. Further, any notation would have to be converted into an image or audio for display on the web... The Score extension is also about to change (gerrit:370209) to use SVG and MP3 is supported.
"However, both the MuseScore application and the MuseScore command line app can export MuseScore files to various file formats which can already be rendered or played by MediaWiki." More conversions? Also I see MuseScore renderings to be of lesser quality and not as feature-rich as LilyPond (and they removed the LY exporter!). Its GUI is its "attractor".
Supporting MusicXML in the extension is basically a "beginner" task :) I also think the MuseScore format is very poor and so we should focus on improving the LilyPond experience, although I can see why allowing MuseScore files may be wanted. Ebe123 (Communication | Activity report) 02:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ebe123: Sorry, I seem to have written that sentence with the assumption that the reader knows that the Score extension supports LilyPond. Will fix. Quality is somewhat subjective, although LilyPond is unambiguously more customizable. Jc86035 (1) (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

HLJH wrote:

“online WYSIWYG player/editor seems to be closed-source and freemium”: They use an OSS renderer internally on some places.

I’m also pretty sure that, if Wikimedia were to approach MuseScore/Ultimate Guitar, a Free solution could be found for code reuse suitable enough to make it usable here. (An online editor, though, is likely out of scope.) The profit model is to sustain development. Wikimedia adoption would rather drive more people to use it, so I’d think that would be more welcome. The MuseScore developers are very approachable and like the Free Software scene.

“I assume that it is also higher-bandwidth than the markup alternatives”: no. MuseScore files come in two flavours. *.mscx and *.mscz. The latter is the default, and it’s a PKZIP container with the mscx in it as well as any images etc. embedded into the score. The mscx is XML and comparable to MusicXML, but in my personal experience, MusicXML is more verbose. (MusicXML also has a compressed container format, *.mxl, but that’s rarely used.) I keep all my own scores as *.mscx in git and just batch-convert to other formats occasionally, and have written an MML to MusicXML exporter, so I have experience with both formats.

Mirabilos (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and the talkpage ping, Mirabilos Full version of this reply at the RfC. It looks to me as if the trade-offs run:
Format Advantages Disadvantages Technical difficulty Lacks
MusicXML *common interchange standard *being replaced by MNX *can be imported by ~any player, designed as an interchange format, not for display *ongoing support
MuseScore *large community *online/mobile freemium elements *online visual editor and playback software exists, including mobile version, but is proprietary; would have to either duplicate and compete, or partly rely on third-party freemium service *copyleft online player/editor
LilyPond *already integrated into Mediawiki, fits markup orientation, unicode *does not natively export to MusicXML, only imports *open-source visual editor and playback software (not web-based) exists, but see phab:T49528 (mobile might be harder) *MusicXML or MNX export (NoteEdit, Rosegarden, and Frescobaldi, all GPL, have code for this)
MNX *should be perfect in every way :) *does not yet exist *starting from scratch (can be an advantage) *a full specification and an implementation
MEI/Verovio *browser-based, fast, wide and growing range of music cultures (including historic ones) encodable *does not do really sophisticated engraving (making pretty scores for print) *should be easiest, as open-source software exists, browser-based, SVG output (not sure if it does visual editing or just rapid previews) *non-academic users
I see that MuseScore is heavily involved in MNX development;[1] more MEI-focussed groups, including LilyPond, are not. MuseScore is also ably represented here on the Mediawikis by Peter Jonas (shoogle). Perhaps someone might also contact the LilyPond devs and MEI devs ask them to participate in this discussion, so we can get a broad range of viewpoints? HLHJ (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is continuing at the RfC, with useful comments from format developers. Comments from Mediawiki developers and other community members are also welcome. HLHJ (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  • Support Support Hiàn (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Jc86035 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Libcub (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support M11rtinb (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support NMaia (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support -Theklan (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support JAn Dudík (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Partial support; I support LilyPond and MusicXML hosting, but not MuseScore hosting. I'd support conversion of MuseScore uploads. Reasons per my comments on the RfC. I support a Visual Editor plugin for editing music markups and a Commons score player. HLHJ (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Fixer88 (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ainali (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Wesalius (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg partial support Do not cannibalize on improving the LilyPond input to make it user-friendly. Some of my qualms are in the comments section. (Maintainer of the Score extension) Ebe123 (Communication | Activity report) 02:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Partial support; Support LilyPond & MusicXML. Have serious reservations about MuseScore hosting. Abzeronow (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support for every solution that might work, thanks! Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 13:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg partial support;for MusicXML and LilyPond Vulphere 12:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support all three formats. Mainly MuseScore as this is the format used by OpenScore (reasons given on the the RfC), but the other formats are useful too. (OpenScore Project Manager) --Peter Jonas (shoogle) (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Helder 13:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 02:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support PMG (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support PJTraill (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support A garbage person (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Thgoiter (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Could facilitate what I'd ultimately like to see happen with video: having an archive of free-use music available to use as scores, either by performing it themselves or attaching existing MIDIs to their videos. Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)