Commons:Village pump/Proposals
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/2023/09.
- 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. |
Shutdown of Computer-aided tagging: Mass revert?[edit]
After the WMF team evaluated the quality of edits made through the Computer-aided tagging tool they decided to shut it down.
With this there is also the question if we want to revert all edits made through the tool. This would affect one and a half million edits made through the tool. We could except edits made by users with autopatrol rights from the revert to reduce the amount of potential good edits getting lost in the revert. GPSLeo (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- I come across these mistakes very frequently. And the bot tags are completely inaccurate. When I look at the file's history, no one but the bot has edited it. What the solution is, I do not know, but I belief is that the Commons has been massively harmed by bot tagging. Krok6kola (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- The WMF classed 73.4% of such values as "bad". Absent an alternative proposal, I think this is inevitable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- If we mass revert, then the bot should leave an edit summary that encourages anyone watching the file to check to see if what it has reverted should be restored. After all, 26.6% of 1.5 million is not small. If they are right in their count, we would be having a bot revert about 400,000 good edits to get rid of 1.1 million bad ones. (BTW, I think the numbers are a bit misleading, because thousands of these edits were things like two people edit warring over the depicts on a file.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Do you refer to the ISA tool disaster? These edits are not marked as done with Computer-aided tagging. We should only include edits with the "computer-aided-tagging" tag, the ones with "computer-aided-tagging-manual" tag should also not be included. GPSLeo (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- I doubt that any such edit wars were tagged as being by the Computer-aided tagging tool, so they won't be included in the figure given. Do you have any examples to the contrary? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- If we mass revert, then the bot should leave an edit summary that encourages anyone watching the file to check to see if what it has reverted should be restored. After all, 26.6% of 1.5 million is not small. If they are right in their count, we would be having a bot revert about 400,000 good edits to get rid of 1.1 million bad ones. (BTW, I think the numbers are a bit misleading, because thousands of these edits were things like two people edit warring over the depicts on a file.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support bulk revert. Up to a simple bulk deletion of everything, if we have no better way to separate out the trash. Yes, it's that bad. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Support I don't see any other way. Of course, the bot reverting the tags should leave a proper entry in the history. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment - It would be worth of save the added values to file or something before bulk reverting them so if somebody would like try to filter out useful ones (using machine vision for example) I think something like open_clip could work for finding useful tags and I could could do a practical test if the idea works at october. --Zache (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support bulk revert. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment has anyone asked the tech team to share the list of what they determined to be "good" edits so we can assay whether it looks like there would be a fair amount worth keeping? But I wouldn't object to just deleting it all. One ham-handed mass edit deserves another.
- Edit summary should make clear that this is "without prejudice" and if you think the item was correct you should feel free to re-add. - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- The criteria are detailed in the linked Phabricator ticket. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support (with an appropriate edit summary that encourages people to re-revert bad reverts) El Grafo (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Unified license for government websites of Ukraine[edit]
Recently, when visiting government websites of Ukraine, almost everywhere at the bottom of the pages you can find the following description: All site materials are available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, unless otherwise noted. Is Wikimedia Commons required to have a single template for sites with the gov.ua domain, while the list of resources will be clearly monitored by administrators? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Increase of file size limit on Commons for future-proof purposes[edit]
Hey folks!
The current file size limit is 4 GiB (approx. 4.3 Gigabytes), see COM:MAXSIZE. I want to propose a increased file size limit. The limit was increased in April 2016 from 2 to 4 GiB.
Since then, the sizes of files increased over time due to larger video resolutions.
I want to give some examples when files exceed the 4 GiB threshold:
- 4K YouTube videos after 25-35 minutes
- FHD DSLR/DSLM videos 8-15 minutes
- 4K DSLR/DSLM videos after 2.5-8 minutes
- 8K DSLR/DSLM videos after 1.25-4 minutes
Videos for example exceed the size limit of 4 GiB quite fast, but also high-resolution scans of 3D objects from organizations like the Smithsonian Institution may offer files that are larger than the limit (and where file splitting is very problematic). I have a large aerial image of Munich that is also too large right now, but offers many details. Over time, more and more files will come into conflict with this limit, as cameras etc. will become more capable. I would like to propose an increase to 32 or 64 GiB if possible. When colored meshes on Commons will be available, a higher file size limit would also be very appreciated.
What do you think?
Greetings and thank you a lot, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- This has already been requested multiple times, but till now the WMF team did not work on a solution for the current technical limitations. GPSLeo (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for mentioning, I hope this issue will be served soon :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Leonore Template ?[edit]
Hello, I quite often use the Gallica Template to source my uploads. Is there anything like that for the Léonore Database? If not, could this be done? Thanks in advance. William C. Minor (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)