Commons:Village pump/Proposals

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/P • COM:VPP

Welcome to the Village pump proposals section

This page is used for proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. Recent sections with no replies for 30 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2022/08.

Please note
  • One of Wikimedia Commons’ basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  • Have you read the FAQ?

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 5 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Is "Category:Interior of Lucas Oil Stadium" supposed to be an indirect subcategory of "Category:Grass"?[edit]

Right now following subcategory chain exists: 'Category:Grass', 'Category:Grass textures', 'Category:Lawn textures', 'Category:Artificial turf', 'Category:Artificial turf by country', 'Category:Artificial turf in the United States', 'Category:Sports venues with artificial turf in the United States', 'Category:Lucas Oil Stadium', 'Category:Interior of Lucas Oil Stadium'

Is it working as expected? I think that Category:Sports venues with artificial turf in the United States should not be subcategory of Category:Artificial turf in the United States as very large part of images will be something like

(to avoid XY problem: I am trying to find good picture of lawn as an illustration, and planned to find FI/QI/VI in Category:Grass/Category:Lawns but from scan progress it is clearly going to list silly entries - is there a way to avoid or reduce this problem?)

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another category chain: User:Mateusz_Konieczny/chain with "Despicable Me" and "Sonic the Hedgehog (character)" and "The Matrix (franchise)" being subcategories Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relevant talk on Wikimania, almost 10 years ago
@Mateusz Konieczny Yes, that is how our Category system works. If you dig deeper, you'll even find loops. You'll somehow need to limit the search depth (how many subsubsubcategories to include), but there's no universal measure for how deep is deep enough. It's an old problem: the whole system was never built to be queried (see video). Structured Data on Commons was supposed to be the solution to all of that, but it's taking some time ... El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Loops are not a problem at all at least. BTW, I made some edits removing cities from relations such as Category:Way of Saint James in Switzerland - it seems to me that trail crossing city is not enough to mark entire city as part of trail. Let me know if that is a bad edit. I admit I noticed it and was partially motivated by this categorisation breaking my querying attempt Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although many, perhaps most, category inheritances are either "is-a" relationship (subclass, member of class) or geographical narrowing, many are not, and that's fine. - Jmabel ! talk 22:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move the playback arrow in video thumbnails[edit]

Utseende med spelaknappen i skrivande stund (ovan), respektive 50 % transparent (nedtill).
Med knappen i nedre vänstra hörnet.

In Swedish Wikipedia a gadget has been made that moves the playback arrow in video thumbnails. I think this should be implemented by default, to avoid covering the central object in the thumbnail. Especially when it is a person being filmed the advantages is clearly shown by the examples. (There was also a diskcussion on making the arrow transparent, hence the middle pic.) The discussion in Swedish is here,[1], with some topics in the universal language of code LittleGun (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently the arrow was moved to the bottom corner between 2015 and spring 2022. Was there a discussion to have it centered or was it just overseen at som other change? LittleGun (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons (and the other Wikimedia projects) use a new video player as of this year. That's probably why the play button is centered again. Personally, I think it's odd to have the play button in the corner. Nosferattus (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is unusual, but better in articles (compare top and bottom thumbnail to the right) and still very intuitive. LittleGun (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I guess it could be replaced on a case-by-case basis (for instance over at de:Benutzer:Tuvdef:Corioliskraft it doesn't look bad) however IMHO we have far more important things in the world and on Wikimedia than where a play button is situated .... Sort of the least of the worlds problems right now. But sure I would support replacing this with the replacement video thing on a case-by-case basis. –Davey2010Talk 20:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • So we shouldn't make any improvements to Wikimedia projects, until we've solved famine, disease and war? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Andrew, I have far better things to do be doing with my time than to be arguing with you. If you had bothered to read my comment you would've seen me supporting this on a case-by-case basis but hey don't let that stop you cause more drama Mr Mabbett. –Davey2010Talk 18:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Having further thought on this my thoughts are the same as Lord Belbury's, Not fully onboard with this but I do agree with LB having the play icon obscuring faces etc isn't really helpful to our viewers. –Davey2010Talk 15:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Looking through a random search of videos, practically all of those that show their subject in the thumbnail have it focused in or near the centre of the image. I'm not finding any where a bottom-left play button would obscure more detail than the centre one currently does. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Not obscuring the thumbnail better serves our end users by giving them an idea of the content of the video, which is kind of the point of even having a thumbnail. At the very least, make this available as an option for users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntster (talk • contribs) 09:24, 31 August 2022‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kritzolina (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think having the play button in the center is more intuitive and standard, although I wouldn't oppose making it smaller or less obtrusive in other ways. Nosferattus (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it standard? Looking at the big two online video sites, Vimeo and YouTube both have play buttons in the bottom left of full-size videos; YouTube flashes a play/pause circle in the centre when a video is paused or resumed, but only momentarily and it doesn't show it otherwise. YouTube has no play button on smaller search result thumbnails, Vimeo has one in the bottom left. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm talking about for thumbnails, not full size video players. Google and Encyclopedia Britannica put the play button in the middle of video thumbnails, but you're correct that Vimeo puts it in the bottom left, which I didn't realize. I'll strike my vote. Nosferattus (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - If we do move it to the bottom left, can we also change it from a circle to a rectangle (similar to Vimeo's thumbnails)? Having a circle in the corner looks awkward. Nosferattus (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Nosferattus: Play buttons have historically had triangle-shaped icons, going back to analog tape recorders of 50+ years ago.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On tape decks the triangle symbol was associated with a rectangular button, though I recall some Discman-type products with circular buttons. Rounded-rectangle containing triangle symbol would look better; agree the circle is awkward when near the corner.
    . Pelagic (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support - This would allow people to see the thumbnail better and more clearly. Matr4x-404 (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove requirement that Quality images be the work of Commons contributors[edit]

Now that Special:MediaSearch is the default Commons search engine, quality assessments can actually be useful for finding good quality images of the subject you are searching for. For example, instead of looking through all 421 images of staplers (most of which are terrible), I can quickly find the 3 that are the highest quality. The only problem with this is that our most common quality assessment, Quality images, is artificially limited to images by Commons contributors. So when you search for "quality images", you aren't actually going to see all the high quality images. This reduces the usefulness of the search engine. (We also have Valued images, but this is limited to the single best image of a particular subject.)

I would like to propose that we remove the requirement that quality images be created by Commons users, so that the assessment can be applied to any high quality images on Commons. Nosferattus (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support I've always found it utterly ridiculous that professional grade images were denied the green badge. It is ridiculous that when somebody is looking for a good picture of, say, Barrack Obama, querying for Quality Images of him will easily show this but not this because former official white house photographer Pete Souza is not a Commons user. It is ridiculous that trying to find a good Quality Image among our images of the horsehead nebula yields nothing useful because Ken Crawford is not a Commons user. It is ridiculous that none of our hundreds (thousands) of images from space telescopes cannot be tagged as QI because NASA/ESA/... are not Commons users. It is ridiculous that images from scientific journals published as open-access cannot be assessed as QI because highly trained professionals did not upload their work here themselves after publishing them under some form of CC-BY-XY.
So what's up with this arrogance? People have argued that this is to motivate users to create high quality media. Well, I suppose if we had to compete with actual professionals, that should motivate us to upload even better quality media. Are our photographers so bad that we have to keep the competition out? The way I see it, QI's main purpose right now is to give people a warm fuzzy feeling about themselves. That's not a bad thing per se, but it misses the main point of Commons' mission: making media accessible to people. That's something we tend to forget around here when we do our thing.
TL;DR: We should put those people first who want to want to use "our" media, backslapping ourselves for good work should come after that. --El Grafo (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Keep as is. QI is a low-barrier star with more than enough nominations. We would do better to raise the bar, possibly requiring two positive votes, rather than solicit more stuff. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Does that need to be mutually exclusive? I'm all for raising the bar and filtering our more of the weak stuff. The proposal is for giving the good stuff what it deserves. We should aim for making it useful for people who want to use our media. El Grafo (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Charlesjsharp: I also don't think those things need to be mutually exclusive. I would support raising the bar at QI, especially if this proposal passed. Nosferattus (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rather Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. QI is meant to encourage contributors to provide high quality content. Mixing content by volunteers with images from museums, NASA, etc. would be meaningless. Beside QI wouldn't scale up with an increase of content. For rating the content quality, we need another system (COM:SDC?). Yann (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I really don't get the "meaningless" part here. Competition from professionals should encourage better quality from contributors. Imo it's the self-imposed training wheels that make QI meaningless for anyone but badge colloctors. El Grafo (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Yann: IMO, not restricting it would give the badge more meaning, not less. And creating an entirely new system certainly wouldn't help with the scaling issue. Nosferattus (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Yann. And if implemented, I wonder who is going to review them all? --A.Savin 09:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, like always: hopefully the people who nominate them. With the current restrictions place, nominations cannot really increase without more people participating at the same time. also mean Personally, I'd be much more inclined to review at QI if I knew that the badge actually meant something. El Grafo (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Yann and A.Savin. I don't want to see tons of portraits, war equipment and other propaganda material and commercial advertising on QIC. Such a change is also unlikely to increase the participation of contributors to QIC, as the exact opposite is more likely to happen. Everyone is free to suggest good pictures at FPC. --Smial (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed, the needs of contributors should come after the needs of users. If submissions do indeed increase we’ll need to figure out a way to deal with it, rather than letting implementation hurdles get in the way of doing what’s right for the users. Julesvernex2 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Yann. QI is meant to encourage Commons contributors to provide quality content. Captain-tucker (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Captain-tucker: Shouldn't we also be encouraging editors to upload quality content from 3rd party sources? Nosferattus (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      See comment by Donald Trung below. This would address the issue by making a Quality Imports process. Captain-tucker (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      We don't need encouragement for uploaders of external content. People upload tons of images, regardless of quality, because they are following an already existing interest. Often they are people who would rather see a professional promo photo of themselves in their wiki article, or appropriately commissioned agencies. These people don't need any additional incentive and they won't upload any more pictures, regardless of whether we "reward" them with a badge or not. There are also professional photographers, institutions and agencies who promote themselves with their uploads. They don't need any encouragement either. The target group for such a badge is simply not there. But the chance of driving away voluntary hobby photographers who invest a lot of money, time and effort to illustrate Wikipedia is, in my humble opinion, very high. --Smial (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Smial: Well I spend a lot of time and effort combing through thousands of wildlife images on iNaturalist and Flickr and picking the few that are really high quality to import into Commons. The fact that I can't get these images designated as "quality" and thus more likely to be found by reusers is very discouraging to me. Instead they are just lost in the sea of poor to mediocre Commons wildlife photos. So it feels like a waste of time. Lumping me in with promotional agencies feels even more discouraging. It seems like my contributions here are not really valued. Nosferattus (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support echoing Julesvernex2. That said, obviously there is another consideration of sustainability of something like Commons, which requires a continuing user/contributor base. On a brief search I have not found any explanatory essay or something similar that outlines the purpose of Commons, its target audience, who its editors are, why they come in and contribute and stay, whether they are retained, increasing or decreasing, etc. (Of course there's virtually zero reason to think that having more or less categories of quality images, or mixing user-generated QI with those from non-user sources, would have a positive, negative, or zero impact on any of those factors.) If a user search for quality images of something like the w:Orion Nebula is not shown anything from NASA, and there is no alternative quality filter that would include such images, that would seem to go against good user experience design (in any of the many formulations out there, but basically it violates the w:principle of least astonishment -- It's astonishing that the "quality images" filter for astronomy would by default exclude images from Hubble! SamuelRiv (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Obviously you can make Quality Imports, fork, have supersets, or whatever. A problem is presented: deal with it. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We should encourage commons contributors to also upload high quality files from other sources. This might also bring more people to the process. When they engage, they will also judge other images, so I do not see the problem of the new nominations overwhelming the process. I btw. did upload a number of good images, that are really good but below FP standard and not propaganda material - e.g. photos of Holocaust remembrance day, educational pictures around agriculture and forest management. While I don't know if I would want to nominate these images now, I think other might have uploaded similar things that would be worth highlighting as good quality to potential reusers. So I think this is the right step at this time. --Kritzolina (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral On the one hand, I am sympathetic to the desire for "Quality images" to represent some notion of "all high-quality images of a subject". However, we are not going to achieve that with the current QIC system, when everyone is limited to 5 nominations a day. Instead, I propose keeping QIC as-is, as a sort of technical workshop by and for photographers (and illustrators, etc.), while adding a second tier of "Quality images" which can be labeled unilaterally by any vetted user (say, someone who has successfully achieved X first-tier i.e. regular QIs). A page can be created to resolve disagreements between reviewers (so unlike first-tier QIs, second-tier QIs can always be revoked later on by consensus). Filtering of categories can then be switched to use the union of both types of QI. -- King of ♥ 06:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, wouldn't it be wiser to just create a new category called "Quality imports" or something similar? This way we can preserve the unique incentive for photographers to have their own works be promoted to Quality Images and also create a separate incentive with a whole separate process for "Non-Wikimedia Commons originals" (or however we should refer to imported works). While both "Quality imports" would refer to images and "Quality images" would refer to images imported from somewhere else (the photographer's mobile telephone, laptop, desktop, camera, Etc.) The names would be recognisable enough to let people know which images were created specifically by Commonswiki photographers and which ones were merely imported by Commonswiki contributors from external sources. This would please those that want to keep QI exclusive and preserve the incentives for photographers and it would create more incentives for importers to find high quality images (due to the dopamine rush). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, maybe that would be a better approach. El Grafo (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Donald Trung and El Grafo: And then what happens when a photographer of an image in "Quality imports" creates a Commons account (or is discovered to have a Commons account)? Do we then have a third process for migrating images from "Quality imports" to "Quality images"? Such a system is just neednessly complex, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Nosferattus: , Concerning "Do we then have a third process for migrating images from "Quality imports" to "Quality images"?" This makes no sense, the difference is very simple. If an image is made by a photographer at the Wikimedia Commons uploading their own works using their own account they can nominate it for QI, these are Commonswiki Originals and anything imported was published somewhere else first, either on the internet or outernet (so someone scanning works at a GLAM could upload a "quality import"). If a good photographer publishes on Flickr first can they import their images today and nominate them for QI? There are ways to limit "Quality imports", but such ideas can best be discussed when / if its being proposed. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Commons:Quality images says, "Quality images are diagrams or photographs that meet certain quality standards (which are mostly technical in nature) and are valuable for Wikimedia projects. Unlike featured pictures, quality images must be the work of Commons contributors; they need not be extraordinary or outstanding, but merely well-composed and generally well-executed." It is not a high bar, and I expect most professional photographs to qualify. I consider it more of a teaching and feedback opportunity for contributors. Contributors request their work be evaluated. They will get comments about focus, lighting, and composition. That will help them make better contributions. Although that feedback can also be valuable for making better selections of third-party submissions, it is less direct. I like the direct notion of helping contributors become better photographers or better graphic artists. Glrx (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Charlesjsharp, Yann, A.Savin, Smial, Captain-tucker, and Glrx.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. We should treasure our own user's contributions. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality images stimulate the continuous improvement of the community of photographers who selflessly submit their photos to Commons. I find it disrespectful to eliminate this classification, denigrating years of work to order and classify images with higher quality standards. --Wilfredor (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it's a very nice system to encourage people to contribute their own work. If you upload a lot of content from other sources (like I do) you can always nominated them for featured picture. Multichill (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In my opinion, this rule is unnecessary. I do not expect that abolishment of this rule would flood the candidate list with images. Most people nominate their own photos and nominations are limited to five per user and day. Of course, QI cannot encourage any photographer without an account on Commons to make better photographs. But assigning QI status to a few imported images should be o.k. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see any point in giving the label to "foreign" images. The project is intended to encourage our members to produce decent images. --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per A.Savin and Smial. --August Geyler (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. It makes sense for "quality images" to mean what they say, just like it makes sense for "discuss" to mean what it says, but Commons prefers to go its own way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uncategorized images[edit]

There are currently 1.55m uncategorized images on Commons. If uploaders can't be bothered categorizing their photos then are those photos worth having? I propose that all uncategorized images should be deleted and the upload page revised so that uncategorized images cannot be uploaded. Mztourist (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my eyes this radical approach will delete useful images and will keep new users from joining the project. As structured data is getting traction and search has been improved, categories have also lost some of their importance, although of course not all. And I do recognize the problem with the high number of images that are not categorized - many of them because they hold no information that could be used to categorize them. I am one of the people who try to categorize images by other uploaders and while I am successful in some cases, I fail in others. So I am well aware that we have images that are without categories or useful description and have been for years.
How about a less radical approach and only delete images that are without categories for more than five years and are NOT USED on any project? Interestingly enough there are uncategorized images that are used in articles - often this is a way to find out which category to use for them, in cases of poor file description. Often those are photos well worth having!
Also I think we should not keep people from uploading images without categories, but we definitely should explain our system of categorization better to new users. How can we expect people to "bother with categories", if the system is deeply confusing and not well explained anywhere? --Kritzolina (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kritzolina.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. If there was a correlation such that 99% of uncategorised images were also very low quality or copyright violations or out of scope then there could be an argument for deleting them all rather than trying to sort through them, but I don't think that's the case. There's a lot of useful content there.
Making categories compulsory would deter some users from uploading, and result in a lot of images being dumped into "Category:Person" or "Category:Asdfghjkl" or whatever the uploader felt they had to type to make the upload happen. (We already get a lot of random images unhelpfully titled as some variant of "City of London skyline" because the error message for a blacklisted filename says that File:City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008.jpg is a "good" filename, causing some uploaders to copy it, irrespective of what their picture shows.) --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response firstly who is going to review 1.55m images to determine if the images are useful or not? I started and got up to 10,000 before the page wouldn't show any more images. Of those I saw, I categorized about 6 that were of interest to me, but even then they weren't the only image of the subject matter, several probably copyrighted and we could have done without them. Most of the images I saw I would regard as useless, repetitive/excessive, self-promotion or someone's holiday photos (a few examples: File:GoodPhotos-86.jpg, File:Government Secondary School Kawo Kaduna 10.jpg, File:MIS PRIMEROS DIAS EN LA UNMSM-2.jpg, File:Horse - കുതിര 02.jpg, File:Hardy Nation 6.jpg, File:Mountains202.jpg, File:48aut austr-mag-del-no-23-08-2022.png, File:Kit body Envigado2012h.png, File:Harshpal singh Cofounder Dudar edtech.jpg and File:Zaria Mountain 25.jpg). To be useful an image must be categorized or searchable which most of these images aren't. In relation to the argument that a requirement for categorization "will keep new users from joining the project", good, we don't need more rubbish images being uploaded uncategorized creating work for us. I don't agree that the system for categorization is "deeply confusing", an uploader should have to take the time to decide if an image justifies uploading and what category it best fits, if not then they shouldn't bother uploading. In relation to people adding images to generic categories then those categories should be blocked. As a start I would certainly agree that all uncategorized images not used on any project and more than 3 years old should be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of your examples there are searchable because they have titles or descriptions. In the case of images which have no meaningful title, no description and no category - what harm is being done by hosting them until they can be assessed? Bots like User:CategorizationBot have existed in the past to automate the process, and more powerful bots may exist in the future. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you actually look at each of those examples? Do you think that they are useful and we would lose anything by deleting them? Mztourist (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mztourist: - some are perfectly fine and easy to classify, for some I opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mountains202.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hardy Nation 6.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harshpal singh Cofounder Dudar edtech.jpg Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we really need 128 photos by the same uploader of Pierre Poilievre? Do we need 33 nondescript photos by the same uploader of Government Secondary School Kawo Kaduna? Do we really need 17 self-portraits of someone's first day at UNMSM? Do we need the 21 Hardy Nation photos? Do we need the 6 mountains photos? The answer clearly is no, and yet each one will have to be individually deleted, because apparently quantity is more important than quality or usefulness. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer keeping 1000 useless uncategorized photos over deleting one useful uncategorized photo. Feel free to make deletion requests if you want Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you going to categorize them? Based on your contributions to date I would assume not. Mztourist (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The issue with the request is that categories are optional (as explained at the MediaWiki Upload Wizard), remember that our categorisation system is highly Anglocentric and making categories mandatory would automatically mean excluding those that can't speak English. Currently the Wikimedia Commons can be displayed in any language we have Wikipedia's in, but the categories are still in English. Let's say a user wants to upload an image of a deer but only knows Traditional Chinese characters, or Arabic, should we force them to first learn English before uploading here? The solution would be simple to allow for cross-language redirects, but the software isn't ready for this.
How about existing uncategorised images? Well, there are plenty of users who help in this respect, but it's not always easy to help categorisation.
Another issue is that many new users wouldn't necessarily want to "fuck around" with the category system, they may see "Buildings in London" but don't see a "Buildings in Theircity" category and are confused how such categories are made, maybe others do know how such categories are made and may first make categories before uploading, this will get a lot of categories speedy deleted and good faith users banned for "creating useless empty categories" before they upload.
TL;DR The issues this would create are manyfold, first it raises the minimum English-language skills required to upload excluding many non-Anglophones, secondly it raises the bar for new contributors to already be familiar with MediaWiki Pseudocode and how it works, thirdly it raises the bar for new contributors to already be familiar with our intricate categorisation system.
There are lots of more issues with this, like how the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is slowly trying to phase out categories in favour of Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC), the chance that we'll get a large number of duplicate categories about the same subject "Animals in Ireland" Vs. "Animals of Ireland", and I'm sure that there are many more. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said in my original post, categorization shouldn't be optional. Non-English speakers would simply have to run their proposed photo name and category through Google translate and find a suitable file name and category. If they can't be bothered doing a few basic steps then the image probably isn't worth having anyway. In relation to existing uncategorized images, I have already set out a compromise position above that "all uncategorized images not used on any project and more than 3 years old should be deleted." Mztourist (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We shouldn't require our users to use third-party software, especially not software that has unacceptable terms of use like those of Google. Also, machine translation or a dead-wood dictionary often do a very bad job of finding the right words, and perfectly good translations may not be available as categories. You have an image of a "kalhu" and translate it to "right, shorter ski" (as in Wiktionary), how does that help you in finding a suitable category (especially if you don't know those three words and their relation)? –LPfi (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Google translate has "unacceptable terms of use"? I'm not aware of them. So it seems you think uploaders shouldn't make any effort to make their photos searchable. Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kritzolina, Jeff and Donald - Deleting 1 million images here is not the answer - As Donald correctly states if the user doesn't speak/understand English then they're stuffed (no one's gonna bother trying to translate during upload). If we were to delete peoples images than those uploaders could also see this as potentially being discriminatory against them. I hate uncategorised images but deleting them isn't the answer. –Davey2010Talk 11:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yep, it is discrimination purely on language skills alone. Plus we'd see the utter bombardment of basic categories like "Books", "Coins", "Houses", "Parks", Etc. by well meaning users. Sometimes I find uncategorised images because a user's other images were categorised and find good images that prove to be useful. For example a user uploads a lot of old Polish coins but doesn't know categorisation because he doesn't speak English, one person categorises a few of his images and I then discover the rest and categorise them for him. This is a collaborative project, we shouldn't try to aim to become a highly exclusive project. If an image is educational it is within scope, the media matters, how discoverable it is is secondary. I hate uncategorised images and badly categorised images, but I'd take those over lacking and wanting those images. In the future bots will be way more sophisticated than now and I can see "a gamification" of categorisation where an AI proposes categories for uncategorised images and a human reviewer can assess whether or not the robot 🤖 had the correct speciations (this is something Google Photos already has for years). Rather than making things more difficult and raising the bar of entry, we should be making things more easy and accessible. This interface can also have additional options like "Nominate for deletion: please select your rationale" and "More uncategorised images from this uploader" to make it much easier. But rather than creating such handy organisational tools the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) are just ignoring this website altogether. Face-sad.svg --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. This is not a useful answer. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Response No it is not "discrimination purely on language skills alone", if "no one's gonna bother trying to translate during upload" then clearly the image isn't that important and we can live without it and the extra work they create. Why should an uploader not be required to do some translation, when that is exactly what a User will need to do to to try to categorize their image? Translation has to be done by someone, the burden should be on the uploader. I'm sure that we can all find a few examples of uncategorized images that we each find interesting, but can you honestly say the project would suffer by their absence? Bombardment of basic categories is preferable to uncategorized images, because at least they're sorted into an area where other interested users might actually be able to find them and refine their categorization. As it is we have 1.55m uncategorized images, many of which are unsearchable other than by native speakers because their names aren't in English, how useful is that? Mztourist (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you really think only English speakers use this website? Really? Or should it only be useful to English speakers in your opinion? Kritzolina (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, but the page is structured so that if you don't speak English its not easy to use effectively. As I said above, if even the file name isn't in English, someone is going to have to translate it to categorize it and make it easily searchable. Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If there is a description in some language, then the image can be found and categorised. A good description is much more valuable than a category in most cases. I often see a Wikipedia article without image and Commons category, search for some keyword and create a category for those images. For interested users to find an image, a category like "houses" is worthless, but "Tamminiemen puuliiteri" will make it easy to find for most of those interested in the image. –LPfi (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please categorize File:Horse - കുതിര 02.jpg and File:Mountains202.jpg then. Are those useful images that we can't do without? Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I categorized the first one, is it more useful now? And please - just because the site is easier to use when you can speak English, non-English speakers should be excluded from contributing or have it a lot harder to contribute? Please check your privilege as an English speaker! --Kritzolina (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So a photo of a horse is now categorized under Black Horses where there are already 27 subcategories and 275 individual images, do we really need that image? No. Meanwhile Mountains202 has been put up for deletion. Please check your snide accusations of racism. Mztourist (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Isn't the one I put on the horse image the kind of category you were asking the uploaders do as a minimum? That would make the images more useful? Maybe it is not about categories after all? Btw., there are Wikimedians who find that image of a black horse useful enough to use it in an article. And yes, the other image is probably not useful and should be deleted, but that is not because it is uncategorized. The problem is the lack of description or any other clue about where this image was taken. This could be a category, it could be description, it could be a correct depicts statement .. As to my comments about your English language bias and privilege (I share the last one, just to be clear), I checked before posting. Yes, I could have said this nicer perhaps, but I really would love for you to think about the situation of people who do not have any knowledge of English at all and who still want to contribute to and/or use this platform. Some of them speak several languages that you and I don't understand. And that possibly are not supported well by tools like Google translate. Among them users who are bringing knowledge that this and other projects are missing, closing important knowledge gaps. I often categorize images from Wiki loves Folklore or from the Photo challenges. And there are real treasure in those uploads who lack not much - except perhaps categories. --Kritzolina (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes the uncategorized photo of a horse has now been moved into black horses, while that is better than it being uncategorized, do we actually need that image? The answer is clearly no. This page is an English language page, if people don't have English language skills and are unwilling or unable to use translation tools, why should that burden fall on other users? Unlike you, I don't see many treasures among the uncategorized images, I see lots of self-portraits/holiday photos and promotional pictures many of which are hugely repetitive. If the uploader thinks their image is important enough to be here they need to justify why that is the case even if that means some extra work for them. Frankly the upload process is slow and tiresome, if a non English speaker can get through that, then they should have no difficulty providing a distinctive file name, description and a category or two. Mztourist (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No one who knows Commons will disagree that there are many images here on this platform that are not useful. But adding categories does not necessarily change a lot about the usefulness of the image. You don't find that image of the black horse useful, even if it is categorized. A user on Malayalam Wikipedia found it useful enough to add it to the article on horses on that language Wikipedia, even before it had categories. People are different and do things differently - and in most cases that adds to the Wikimedia projects and there are only few cases were this is harmful. Why do you feel burdened by the existence of uncategorized images? I don't - I see them as a kind of quarry where I can go and see if there are gems hidden in the rubble. And yes, there is a lot of rubble - but please, also go to any broader category with many images and you will find rubble there as well. So please, if you do not enjoy looking at uncategorized images, don't do it. But don't try to push others to take your point of view. And also - give people time to learn. The first images I uploaded certainly were not the most useful I uploaded, it took me time to understand how to write useful descriptions and use good filenames. By now many of my images are used across several projects, on knowledge and news pages outside the Wikimedia projects and I have contributed a number of QIs and even 2 FIs. If somenone had deleted my first images or not allowed them to be uploaded for some formal reasons, I would not be here today. Especially if the reason my images were not accepted had to do with me using my native language instead of English. --Kritzolina (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The black horse picture is in a gallery section of a general page about horses, so its hardly an essential image. I "feel burdened by the existence of uncategorized images" when so many are so clearly useless and the sheer volume of those useless images prevents me from finding the "gems hidden in the rubble". I have categorized hundreds, if not thousands of uncategorized images that have been uploaded by DPLAbot and from Flickr and am convinced that more gems exist but that such gems have inadequate file names for searching or are uploaded by users or programs that I don't know exist, meaning the only remaining option is to scroll through all the 1.55m uncategorized images to try to find them. I repeat again, a non-English uploader should accept the burden of translating their native language to provide a useful and searchable file name and description and a category or two. If that stops them uploading then its most likely the image isn't worth having. Mztourist (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unhelpfully broad and inappropriate deletion. Even if 99% of uncategorized images were useless (I doubt it's anywhere near that high) that would still leave a wealth of useful images - many unique and valuable - deleted without consideration. I have repeatedly found good images, sometimes in use in articles, that were not categorized - so I categorized them. This problem is better addressed by working to make users more aware of proper categorization and simply categorizing useful uncategorized images when spotted - many slow pecks can gradually wear down even mountain sized problems. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unhelpful. Deleted images will be occupying the same space in Wikimedia servers and many useful images will be hidden to most users. If someone gets overwhelmed when accessing the category, they just can direct their attention elsewhere. Strakhov (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I want to find and categorize useful images that interest me, but as I have already said the search function seems to only allow you to view the first 10,000 images. Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aditionally 1) there are many images already in use in Wikimedia projects with no Commons category at all. 2) Categories are not the only way to find a file (filenames, captions, descriptions and Structured Data hit searches too). Strakhov (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for a number of reasons already mentioned and that we're (slowly) moving towards structured data to curate our content instead of categories. Multichill (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You mean, of course, "in addition to" not "instead of" categories. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • No I don't. Otherwise we have to maintain two systems of curation forever. The structured data system should grow into such a better system that categories are no longer needed. I guess some of the long time users have to go through the five stages of grief at that point. With the current lack of progress I expect this to still be years if not a decade away. Multichill (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        The moment you “phase out” categories, is the moment when me and many, many others, will (either just give up or) fork the h*ll out of this. You will keep your ourfit fed by gamified, casual edits from a trillion unaffiliated drive-by editors made through your clumsy UI and your A.“I.” batch edits direct to the database, and we will continue a Human-curated edeavour. -- Tuválkin 18:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mztourist is aproaching a very real problem with an elitist mindset. That doesn't make the problem any less real. Just one small example, already provided by Mztourist, shows it: pictures of unidentified shrubs in front of rocky unidentified hills. No location given. As this is, it cannot be used for any educational purposes. I would support a proposal of changed rules: unused images that remain without a useful identifying description of their content (in any language(!!), in either category, description, captions, etc.), may be tagged as "not useful" and then deleted after a period of five years unless someone intervenes by inserting such a description. But I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the broad deletion of a million potentially useful files despite all the (pardon) crap that gets uploaded. --Enyavar (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and I don't think it has a snowball's chance. Yes, it's a real problem. For unknown reasons, the Commons App has stopped accepting categories on my Moto 5G Ace phone, so the majority of my photos this summer have arrived uncategorized. I usually categorize them the next day, and later add and refine cats. And as it happens, almost all my uploads are geotagged, and an automated process to categorize the geotagged as "Uncategorized but geotagged in New York" or some such name would be a help and not a hindrance. Another possibility would be to encourage hashtags, which are widely used in upload sites, being very easy to understand and only moderately less precise than the majority of our categorizations. So no, we would be crazy to ban uncategorized uploads. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose You will never find a single solution that solve 1.55 million images. We need partial solutions for breaking this down. I think we are talking about the entire slog at Category:Media needing categories but I browse Special:UncategorizedFiles regularly. A number of them can go into Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention which could be renamed to something like "categorization review" rather than being Mulitchill's bot. Then we need to advertise these backlogs and have people attack them. Make a game of it. Instead of projects to get new images, a project to find and search for unknown images will help. Will it go to zero? Never. Can there be a system? Yes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I suggest closing this proposal as not passed. It has gathered no support and much opposition; I see no reason to think that keeping it open longer will change the result. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Seconded.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uncatgorized images proposal 15 September 2022[edit]

I propose that all uncategorized images not used on any project and more than 3 years old should be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. Mztourist (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Three years seems too fast and the amount of time that would be spent by administrators before they would consider deleting all images because of a hard and fast three year rule could be just as easily spent on reviewing and listing the vague uncategorizable images for deletion. Not because it's rules-lawyering but I would not be shocked if we had wholesale requests for undeletion to review all images or other nuttiness if we followed such a rule and basically end up in the same place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would love to see uploaders who have loaded images uncategorized that aren't used on any page justify why their deleted image(s) should be undeleted. It would suitably focus them on whether or not their image(s) are actually useful. Mztourist (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Mztourist You won't have uploaders fighting about it. I suspect most have uploaded and are gone. You will have other users arguing and everyone wasting time because of an arbitrary time deadline. Better to just recognize that while it is a problem, the vast majority of people here would rather keep the images in the hopes of finding a single useful image rather than care if people haven't categorized them. The goal of categorization is to find useful images anyways, not categorization for the sake of categorization. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If they've uploaded and gone then that's good. Yes the goal of categorization is to find useful images, not as an end in itself, but without categorization or reasonably searchable file names you have to try to scroll through every single image in the vague hope of finding useful images. Mztourist (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per previous failed and snowballed proposal. Strakhov (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and asking for a speedy closure per above comment --Kritzolina (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Even though it was your proposal: [2] but with 3 years instead of 5? Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Uncategorized images, even if they are not used within the Wikipedia universe, may still have been used outside by someone. It is virtually impossible to find every such external use. If such an image is deleted from commons, then the subsequent user is deprived of the legal basis, because he can no longer prove that he is using the photo legally and in accordance with the licence. I am aware that probably far more than 90% of external re-uses are legally incorrect anyway, but even one case like the one I described would be too many. Besides, uncategorised images may be difficult to find and search for, but deleted images are NOT findable at all. The proposal is simply gross nonsense. --Smial (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Translated with (free version)Reply[reply]
    Legal claims by external users is not our problem. Mztourist (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is, because it is stupid and unfair to our "customers" outside the Wikipedia universe and it reflects very badly on our project. --Smial (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We don't have "customers", off Wiki use is not our problem. Mztourist (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is. Commons is a project on its own, not just Wikipedia's cloud storage. El Grafo (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Caveat emptor. Mztourist (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC) Also User:Smial your argument is fundamentally flawed because we already have a deletion process that takes no account of off-wiki use. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Red herring. The vast majority of deletion requests are made for copyright infringement, and this is to protect potential subsequent users. Your request is not comparable to this and would have exactly the opposite effect. --Smial (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not see a compelling problem here. There are gentler approaches, too. Every three years we could send an email with a list of their uncategorized uploads. I'm also reluctant to delete files that have been available for years because there may be off wiki links. I've been bitten several times with removed files that are categorized. Glrx (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "We could send an email" a vague idea that won't be acted upon. Mztourist (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, still no clear reason given for why a wiped-clean empty space is better for Commons than a chaotic heap of uncategorised images. They don't take up additional disk space, they aren't getting in anyone's way. Yes, it's daunting to visit the 2018 heap and see how much of it has yet to be categorised, but throwing it all away isn't any kind of solution. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They do get in the way because you have to scroll through thousands of uncategorized poorly named images to try to find anything potentially worth keeping. Mztourist (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't understand, in what context are you doing that scrolling? Are you saying that the content of Category:All media needing categories as of 2018 gets in the way when you're scrolling through Category:All media needing categories as of 2018? --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am saying that to find images potentialy worth keeping you have to scroll through thousands of uncategorized poorly named images, most of which will eventually have to be individually deleted. Mztourist (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If good images are hard to find in a large unsorted collection, deleting the whole collection just means that they will never be found. If earlier years genuinely do have a significantly lower hit rate of useable images, perhaps we could add a note to the top of the older categories, for the benefit of anyone considering where to dedicate their time. If you're personally tired of the 2018 category, it's okay to stop searching through it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Deleted images are still kept on disk; they are merely hidden from view for non-admin users. Deleting them doesn't save anything other than reducing the count in the uncategorized lists. Maybe deletion feels like "progress" there, but that's not really the goal of our project. There could be external users of images (which is part of Commons:SCOPE); they get directly harmed. We provide educational content to *all*; that includes people who directly link from external websites. I can see cases for photos with nonsense titles, no categories, and with the content of the photo not being reasonably possible for a non-author to recognize (either location, or what the subject is, etc.) -- that may fail the test of realistically useful for an educational purpose. But the simple fact of being uncategorized alone does not do that, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why this repeat performance, this is still basically the same proposal as the previous one: unrestricted, unsupervized, blind mass-deletions. These days I am often picking up mass-uploaded pictures from the British Library, where some images from the same book are extensively categorized, others are used, very few are both and even more are neither. But they can still be found and sorted thanks to their descriptions, or their filenames. If we had deleted those uploads before now, those categories (now that they have been created), would contain just half the imagery they do now. I would support unused, undescribed, uncategorized and badly named media (and including those with useless descriptions, names and labels, like "DSCP11123456.jpg" with the descriptor "my picture") qualify for (quick) deletions after 5 years. To that I would say "Halalii!" and wish happy hunting. Enyavar (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would support that for a start. Mztourist (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I'm tempted to create a subsection titled "I propose Mztourist is indefinitely blocked for trolling". This proposal like the last is ludicrous and to be very blunt stupid beyond words!. MZtourist - The time and energy spent making these idiotic proposals could be better spent on actually categorising the uncategorised images. Good grief. –Davey2010Talk 18:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is a perfectly reasonable proposal not trolling at all, unlike your rude personal attack here. Mztourist (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You may not like the part of it that addresses you specifically, but "The time and energy spent making these[...]proposals could be better spent on actually categorising the uncategorised images" is spot on. The fact that an image has not been categorized doesn't and must not make it worthless and subject to automatic deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You only need to look at my contributions to see how much time I already spend categorising as opposed to on talk boards. Mztourist (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK, fair enough, but that still doesn't mean that everything that doesn't already have a category should be summarily deleted. If you feel that way, I think you are probably burnt out or experiencing tunnel vision because you've been nominating too high a volume of photos for deletion and should consider taking a break from that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The whole purpose of this project is to house "educational media content", a file cannot be educational if it has a meaningless name, no or generic description and no or general categories. When I find files like that I put them up for deletion in accordance with our Commons:Deletion policy as they are Out of scope. Mztourist (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you notice that no-one so far has agreed with your proposal to summarily delete all uncategorized files? I prefer to rescue potentially usable photos, rather than deleting them, whenever that's possible. But where we agree is that it sure would be helpful if uploaders would provide such information up front. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose No substantive problem has been identified that would be solved by this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality imports[edit]

Actually I want to propose this logo with inverted colours, namely a red seal with a green arrow.

In light of the above failed proposal to expand "Quality images" to include works imported made by non-contributors I would like to propose an alternative system where images originating from non-contributors can be noted for their quality.

This system would be known as "Quality imports" (COM:QIM) and would exist parallel to the existing system.

To quote myself from earlier: "This way we can preserve the unique incentive for photographers to have their own works be promoted to Quality Images and also create a separate incentive with a whole separate process for "Non-Wikimedia Commons originals" (or however we should refer to imported works). While both "Quality imports" and "Quality images" would refer to images, "Quality imports" would refer to images imported from somewhere else (the photographer's mobile telephone, laptop, desktop, camera, Etc.) The names would be recognisable enough to let people know which images were created specifically by Commonswiki photographers and which ones were merely imported by Commonswiki contributors from external sources. This would please those that want to keep QI exclusive and preserve the incentives for photographers and it would create more incentives for importers to find high quality images (due to the dopamine rush)."
Later the original proposer, user "Nosferattus" wrote: "Well I spend a lot of time and effort combing through thousands of wildlife images on iNaturalist and Flickr and picking the few that are really high quality to import into Commons. The fact that I can't get these images designated as "quality" and thus more likely to be found by reusers is very discouraging to me. Instead they are just lost in the sea of poor to mediocre Commons wildlife photos. So it feels like a waste of time. Lumping me in with promotional agencies feels even more discouraging. It seems like my contributions here are not really valued." These are actually good points.

TL;DR Create a system where imported images can be given "a seal of approval" similar to "Quality images".

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality imports (Votes)[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, as proposer. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kritzolina (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in principle, if this is the only method to search-rank higher reasonably-good-quality images imported from the outside. Strakhov (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although I still think it would be a better idea to just use COM:QI for both. Nosferattus (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Opening COM:QI for imports would be a much simpler and better solution, but I expect that there will be no consensus for this. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strong support from someone who often looks for high-quality images depicting something specific. Maybe "quality finds"? Or similar? By "quality imports" O expected awards for large scale imports, not for individual photos and "quality finds" or similar would put focus on what editors did Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The current rating system does not scale. The current QI system does not work with so much content uploaded every day. It depends much more on the will of the uploader than on the quality of a picture if the files gets the QI badge. We should find a (software) solution for this problem first before we open the system to so much more content. For the featured images the current system works because of the much more strict quality requirements. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think that we need this. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think people will argue that this map has a bad quality. It's great. It was scanned externally by Gallica and imported by bot, but it's still high quality. Contrast and compare with this lower quality scan, same map. That said, we have seen 100k+ maps from Gallica uploaded the last months via that bot, most of them just as great. The reviewing system needs serious changes to process so many candidates. So, also support for the "decentralized" suggestion below, details there. --Enyavar (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It sounds like a good idea in principle. I suspect you'll have issues with too many nominations and not enough people reviewing them. However, if you want to give this a try, then I think you should go for it and see what happens. Let me know if you want some bot support. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Time2wait.svg Too early to vote: I support having something like Quality Imports in principle, but I'm not convinced that just copying the QI process is the way to go. Let's keep the discussion going and think about alternatives. --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in principle, but I'd rather they could just be QIs and proposed in the normal way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality imports (Discussion)[edit]

Stupidly enough I forgot to note the advantages for people, for Commonswiki contributors this can be a motivation to search for more images to import to then propose this for (some people really like to do these things and likely experience a dopamine rush), and for Commonswiki users (in the broad sense) this will make it easier to find images of high quality. Let's say that there are a thousand images from one museum (let's say that all these images were imported using Flickr2Commons), then it would be easier for re-users to find "the best" images if they are QIM ("Quality imports"). So both contributors and re-users win. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @GPSLeo: , stricter standards could be set for imported images. But currently the category "Self-published works" includes the data "This category contains 33,627,949 files, which is 38.9% of all 86,439,822 files in Wikimedia Commons." which indicates that the difference is between 40% (forty percent) of the files and 60% (sixty percent) of the files. We could simply raise the standards of the "Quality imports" system to make sure that the system doesn't get overwhelmed. How would you suggest raising the standards so the system doesn't get overwhelmed?
I would think that "Quality imports" probably has a larger diversity of types of content of high quality (professionally produced videos, top quality graphic works, Etc.) So it could probably also be more easily split. I don't expect the system to immediately get flooded as "Quality images" has existed since mid-2006 and as far as I know most users who currently import images from external sources do not use the current quality accreditation system so I don't expect a huge influx of submissions immediately. Perhaps it could go "under the radar" for a couple of months to set up the system, or limit daily submissions initially until more volunteers participate. Otherwise I don't really see how we can have a separate system for re-users to find high quality files that aren't Self-published at the Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that @GPSLeo: made a great point. FP, QI and VI procedures are lengthy and bureaucratic, as a result, we have 16K FP (0.02 % of the content), 2K VI (less than 0.01 % of the content) and 301K QI (0.35 % of the content). In total less than 0.5 % of quality assessed content, which is an extremely low number. The less visible the system is, the less it is practically used. For example at enwiki 95% of the articles are quality assessed. I'm afraid that means the whole quality assessment system is flawed and creating yet another category with different rules certainly won't help. Jklamo (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jklamo: , those numbers have more to do with the culture around the quality assessment than anything else, the English-language Wikipedia's "quality assessment" for Wikipedia projects for example is completely random, basically any member of a WikiProject can assess any page and even after large updates assessments can remain unchanged. In contrast, the Dutch-language Wikipedia completely abolished this form of "quality assessment" because its community voted against having random WikiProjects assess quality almost randomly for within their scope. These systems aren't even comparable as the quality assessment of the English-language Wikipedia is only for a few million articles with many more volunteer contributors than we have here. I agree that the current system is too bureaucratic at the Wikimedia Commons, but all this proposal does is allow for another category of quality assessment to be created, it will help make high quality files more discoverable.
If the visibility of the system is an issue then why not promote the quality assessment more in visible places? What do you find "too bureaucratic" about the current FP, QI, and VI procedures that can be improved?
I don't see how an improvement of these other procedures has to be mutually exclusive with the creation of another one, this is simply another venue to assess the quality of images that usually aren't recognised for their quality and may be difficult to find, imported images make up more than 60% (sixty percent) of all images at the Wikimedia Commons and the only way an imported image currently can have its quality assessed is if it gets nominated for FA (which has very strict standards), all this proposal does is lower the requirements for imported images to be assessed for their quality, shouldn't this be preferred if you think that there aren't enough assessed images? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jklamo: I am confused why you at the same time complain that less than 0.5 % of Commons content is considered as premium/high-quality AND protest against making more content eligible to be recognised as high quality. Also, " enwiki 95% of the articles are quality assessed" - this assessment is pointless and useless anyway (except maybe as motivation for editors), while on Commons it would make easier to find high-quality images among thousands. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about "professional media imports"?[edit]

Some valid points have been made above about criteria and workload. How about we take a step back and think about alternatives. What kind of badge/filter would actually be useful for a re-user? We have FP for awesome images, VI for useful ones and QI for OK images taken by (mostly) amateurs. This may be a bit of a hot take, but I think it would be very useful to have a filter for professional shots too. "Professional" media could be defined strictly as the work of professionals, i.e. people who got paid to take the photograph, shoot the video, plot a figure (making the whole thing less subjective). There would be explixitely no assessment for quality (hence less workload), only the hope that professionals deliver professional work (well knowing that that is of course not always the case). There could be a process for batch-assessing entire categories (such as Category:Photographs by Ansel Adams) in one go. The would be made once per person or institution (NASA, Google Art project, ...) and then applied to existing files and later uploads. It wouldn't be a badge of honor, just a useful filter for re-users. If "professional" sounds like too much of an endorsement we can of course think about another name for the whole thing. Just an idea ... --El Grafo (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decentralized process using categories and reviewers[edit]

The QIC process is sort of functional, but I don't think many people would say it's ideal such that a new process should just duplicate it. I think King of Hearts was onto something in the section above with the idea of experienced reviewers able to browse for images and use their judgment to decide it's a "good image" (or whatever we want to call it). That may be reasonable, but I envision something a little different: a decentralized, categories and filepage-based process requiring two reviews that can happen at any point, rather than in a 7-day window, with a mechanism to allow non-reviewers to suggest images for review. So someone tags an image as a potential good image, placing it into a category for review, a reviewer sees it in that category and reviews it (or reviews any other image they see around the project), and if they approve it, it goes into a second category for images needing a second review. Since this is a process that's focused on results for end users rather than Commons contributors, a second review ensures it can be decentralized while maintaining quality control (to avoid friends reviewing friends' uploads, avoid potential damage done by an incompetent reviewer, erring on the side of higher quality, removing the need for elaborate consensual reviews, etc.). Worth considering? — Rhododendrites talk |  17:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see the need for a second review, which makes the process more work than QIC. Instead one review should be enough, and instead open up a page for challenging reviewed images after the fact. -- King of ♥ 17:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rhododendrites: , alternatively we could create a system called "Endorsements" where if 3 (three) or more distinct users note an image as being "of good quality" that it gets upgraded to a quality image. This could be automatically counted on the file's talk page and to avoid vote spamming an account would have to at least be 6 (six) months old to vote. I don't think that counting a number of contributions would be relevant but I can see how such a system would be immediately more beneficial than creating yet another bureaucracy. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the proposal I voted Symbol support vote.svg Support} but also said that we had an influx of 100k high quality scans from one bot alone in the last months. @Gzen92: did really good work with their Gallica bot. Many thanks for lots of great maps to play with! For review purposes, we can hardly process so many good images in the constraints of a workflow where a user suggests a candidate, then other users must vote in the same week for that same candidate, and then the candidate gets a quality seal. That's impractical for the most basic review where the question is just "is this a good upload". I'd suggest instead that we make use of talk/discussion pages for each picture: Eligible users would then be able to add "I think this is a quality picture/scan/upload" om the talk page. The file gets an approval once at least three people not including the original uploader have voted in favor; and the pro-side must outnumber the contra-side by at least 2:1. (So an image with 5 upvotes and 3 downvotes needs another upvote to be considered "quality"). No time limits involved. We have similar processes at work in WikiSource, where two independent users need to proofread the text scans; why would such a process not work here? We can and should still have the centralized, individual reviews to crown the very best files, of course. --Enyavar (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming that a system based on file talk pages / categories is implemented, sub-categories should be used for mass nominations, unless the number of nominated files per nominator and time period is limited to, e.g., 5 or 10 per day. Otherwise, manual assessment would be close to impossible because the respective categories would be flooded. Batch promotion of files looks rather meaningless to me. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest a simple process, as suggested by KoH above: one single vote limited to users with at least 3 months and 100 edits on Commons. Yann (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah simple is important and my own suggestion was more complicated, but I do think we should require four eyes to review pictures, and not allow self-nominations. With at least two people as reviewers, we have a better threshold to prevent abuse of the ability to singlehandedly say "my upload is quality". Best, Enyavar (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supporting RTF and TXT files[edit]

Hello, wonderful people. I have noticed that supports PDF files. Therefore, I suggest we add the support for RTF and TXT as well. What do you think? Jan Honvehlmann (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, "Commons does not generally host documents" per COM:FT#Textual formats.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I did not see that yet. I thought that if TXT files have such a small size, there should not be a burden. But that's OK, since there is Thank you for your quick response. Jan Honvehlmann (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jan Honvehlmann: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main point is that for textual content, there is usually another Wikimedia project that is better for the text (entered directly). PDFs are accepted since they can often serve as source documents for Wikisource, where the text gets extracted, but they are not meant as a means to author free content here. Is there a particular use case you had in mind? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very old public domain text books, and also self-written instruction manuals. Jan Honvehlmann (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jan Honvehlmann Public domain books is a prime example for when we would typically keep a pdf (or djvu) of the scanned book on Commons and a digital text on Wikisource. Self written manuals would probably fit best on Wikibooks. El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jeff. –Davey2010Talk 21:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lost treasure prize[edit]

In line with what I saw in User:Mztourist's comment about uncategorized files, what about something like a "Lost treasure" (or "Hidden" or whatever) prize for finding an image from within Category:All media needing categories as of 2017 or earlier (say uploaded more than five years old to be more broad) than did not have categories, was not used anywhere that is a good quality image or file? I understand you will get a lot of people who will just fight to categorize and show off the few good images in the bunch but I'm hopeful there will be people who slog through the 70k in that category. I don't think this fits into the Quality imports or other things but more like a Wiki Love Itself? Better yet, this could help in the next campaign as a separate campaign focus than adding new media. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add yandex to reverse image search gadget[edit]

i propose adding to MediaWiki:Gadget-GoogleImagesTineye.js. (the website link would be + image url.)

i learnt from lihkg forum that yandex can be quite useful sometimes when google gives you no clues. indeed, you can try for example File:04.08.21 OSKAR-9.jpg. neither google nor tineye can find it, but yandex can. RZuo (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

also, the gadget could be renamed to Gadget-ReverseImageSearch.js , reflecting its purpose regardless which websites are used. RZuo (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support, the more the merrier. Optional abbreviations for each RIS service would help manage screen real estate.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support neither Google nor Tineye cover everything. Maybe also consider adding Bing image search - it doesn't have as many features as others, but sometimes it finds things the others miss. El Grafo (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GA candidate.svg Weak support Some privacy issues (more with the browser than the web search engine?) but it's very useful for allowing easy searching of a subsection of an image. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support - I too have found Yandex to be extremely useful when Google or TinEye haven't been, The more help the better. –Davey2010Talk 01:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support This would be a useful addition. De728631 (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tracking file usage on some Wikimedia chapter wikis[edit]

Over at Commons talk:Tracking external file usage I've posted a proposal to start tracking file usage on certain wikis run by Wikimedia chapters in the same way that I already do for Wikitech and the OpenStreetMap wiki. Please leave comments there. --bjh21 (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]