Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2013/11

Original uploads

The thread got archived without an outcome. --Ricordisamoa 02:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Playgrounds category

Each Playground category of states in the United States is under the category parks in that state, i.e. Category:Playgrounds in Florida is under the category Category:Parks in Florida (after quick glance, the same can be said for some other countries, but it isn't uniform with all countries. There is a problem with playgrounds being under the category of parks as not all playgrounds are in parks. Some are at restaurants: File:McDonald's Bemiss Rd.JPG & File:Burger King, Watson Blvd, Warner Robins.JPG, some are at schools: File:Willardschoolevanston.JPG & File:Highland Christian Academy.jpg. I couldn't find any playgrounds at hotels, but there easily could be a photograph added to any state of a playground that is at a hotel. So, I'd like to propose removing parks as a category from every playground category (that has the parks category), but I'm not sure what to replace it with. --Mjrmtg (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you completely – "playgrounds" should not be a subcategory of "parks". I would suggest that you put the "playgrounds" subcategory under "architectural elements in [XYZ city/state/country]". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Specification by the author of the manner in which attribution should take place

Hi,

The following question/proposal relevant to the sentence in the licence template, saying: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor".

Isn't it (also juridically) recommendable to add to this sentence WHERE this manner is/should be specified, and that this place is the Userpage of the author? (Because it's not really convenient if he does for instance on a blocknote lying on his desk). Natubico (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• I, for one, indicate it on each file page, using the "author" property of the "self" template for my own images, and the "author" field for others' images uploaded with permission. It seems to me that your suggestion would work only if you can assume that the uploader is always the rights-holder, and that the uploader wishes all of his/her work to be attributed identically. - Jmabel ! talk 05:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that the case as good as always?

For the rest it's quite easy to add an exception for the cases that the uploader is not the author and that an uploader doesn't want all his works to be attributed identically:

"You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor on his/her Commons Userpage, as far as he/she didn't specify otherwise on the relevant file page".

Natubico (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I just hit Random file ten times, and only six of those were uploaded by the copyright holder. People upload large numbers of free files from other repositories, including freely licensed photos from sites such as Flickr and Panoramio as well as files transferred from other Wikimedia projects. Not to mention works with multiple authors, such as derivative works of existing files on Commons. Specifying attribution requirements anywhere other than on the file description page, such as the user page, increases the burden on reusers and probably increases the likelihood that they don't comply with the licensing requirements, but if you'd like to keep attribution instructions for your own works on your user talk page, nothing is stopping you from doing something like {{cc-by-sa-3.0|See [[User:Natubico|user page]] for instructions}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; in itself this is not a bad solution, but it leaves room for a number of proposals aiming for some more perfection in this matter.

1) As can be seen here: [1], the place where the attribution instruction in this way is given is not optimally efficient; (therefore the text has been made some more clarifying). Most effective it would be if the instruction could be given right behind the sentence: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor".

2) Very likely it would be in the interest of uploaders in general, when this sentence would itself imply an obligation to attribute. Now it only says that attribution has to take place in the way as specified by the author or licensor, but a consequences of this is that in case this auhor or licensor doesn't specify anything (for instance because this more or less juridical matter is kind of too complicated for outsiders in this field), this condition in fact is a hollow phrase, whereas the uploader trusts that the recommended licence he or she has chosen is waterproof from its own.

This would be prevented if the sentence would say (for instance): "You must attribute the work to the author or licensor by adding right under it: "Image by ..... (Commons Username, or URL Commons userpage(s) of the author(s) / licensor(s), or just the name(s) in case there is no userpage nor a username)", or in the manner specified by the author / licensor, in case he or she did otherwise".

Natubico (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

1. You cannot insist on the exact placement of the attribution. I also don't think that your wording clarifies anything; I think it would rate very poorly with any readability formula.
2. Uploaders specify how they would like their name to appear when selecting the "own work" option in the Upload Wizard. That is "the manner specified by the author" in most cases. Your proposed sentence is, again, not compatible with Creative Commons licenses and very hard to read. Complicated instructions with five(!) "or" clauses with various nesting levels will reduce compliance dramatically. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There are not five "or" clauses, but three in the proposed sentence; the two others (in the not boldfaced part) are not part of the proposed sentence, but options of which one can be chosen in the template text to be changed. Of the three in the sentence two could be replaced by a "/" ; this would result in:

"You must attribute the work to the author/licensor by adding right under it: "Image by (name author/licensor), or in the manner specified by the author/licensor, in case he/she did otherwise on his/her userpage".

This may be a bit formal and not really readable easyly, but after all this IS a purely juridical matter and in there it happens to be unavoidable to be that formal, because that's what it takes to make it 100% 'waterproof'.

The fact that in this sentence again the userpage has been added as the place where an alternative specification can be given by the author, is based on the conclusion that in this way the uploader only has to do this work once, whereas otherwise any time he uploads, he has to add his specification on the new filepage. Besides, as said before, this specification in the file page very likely is that complicated for most uploaders, that they simply don't specify anything, which makes their attribution claim not counting.

Natubico (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, I think your proposal relies too heavily on the incorrect assumption that the uploader is always the author. Your assertion that most uploaders don't specify how they would like to be attributed is also incorrect. That's what the "I, ____, the copyright holder of this work" step is for, and you cannot proceed without filling out that part. Furthermore, you cannot insist on the exact placement of the attribution, so your proposal is incompatible with Creative Commons licenses as well as our own principles. In essence, you're attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist and creating actual problems in the process. For these reasons, I  Oppose. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What about: "You must attribute the work to the copyright holder by means of the text: "Image by (name copyright holder), or in the manner specified by him/her, in case he/she did otherwise on his/her userpage"?

By the way, one doesn't have to be a lawyer to understand why the condition "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" in the nowadays template is no condition at all, as long as this manner is not specified anywhere. There really IS a problem. Maybe others (for instance native English speakers) can make this clear better to User LX.

Natubico (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Avoid file mosaic

I propose adding a recommendation - Avoid file mosaic. Since we have templates to placing pictures next to each other, like {{Multiple image}}, file mosaics like:

• 
• 

are completely wrong and unnecessarily clog Commons. We should drop the clutter and inform users they haven't to upload new file, just use template.

I also propose template - {{Split off}}, it will suggest that image mosaic (if it's one copy) should be spitted off to separate images, like in:

• 

What do you think about it? --Rezonansowy (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we have quite a lot of images like that in "Category:Montages", and I don't think it is always possible to just use {{Multiple image}}. Here are some examples:

• 
• 
• 

But we can add a usage note to that category to ask editors to consider whether it is necessary to create montages, or whether {{Multiple image}} can achieve the same effect. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• While I agree that having the separate images available additionally is useful, it is false to conclude that a mosaic is redundant because we have a template. Not all users of Commons images use MediaWiki to do their markup, and even among those that do, not all templates are available on all wikis. Also, the arrangement of a mosaic is an artistic choice itself (see Andy Warhol) and we have several Featured Picture examples. Colin (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• That's why I've provided a gallery with examples, I don't mean Andy Warhol's art or something like this, but poor quality image mosaic (see gallery). They're create only because not all editors know about these templates. Tagging these files as "Should be separate" will solve this problem, another editor will make templatification of this file. Just like I did it on w:en:Soviet Union article.

In conclusion, we have two processes...

• {{Should be separate}} template - tagging images such in first gallery, replacing them with template containing source images, file may be deleted as unneeded (considered individually).
• {{Split off}} template - tagging images such in second gallery, replacing them with template containing source images, file may be deleted as unneeded (considered individually).

...and they applies to...

• {{Should be separate}} template applies to low quality mosaic image, which is not art and can be reproduced using template like {{Multiple image}}. This will make the information easier to edit, as well as help with maintenance on Commons.
• {{Split off}} template applies to mosaic image, which consists of two or more images which contain information that should be spitted off to a separate file. This will make the information easier to access, as well as help with maintenance on Commons.

..that's all. --Rezonansowy (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments, opinions? --Rezonansowy (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello? --Rezonansowy (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Taxonomic Name in Hemitoptera

Hello there, as a new member of Wikimedia Commons I am not familiar with the procedures concerning mistakes in the nomenclature of the animal taxonomia. In the section of Hemitoptera I found the infraorder of "Pentatomomorpha". As far as I know the correct name is "Pentatomorpha". I myself do not know how to change the incorrect definition and all the mistakes concerning the wrong name also in other files and comments. Volkmar Wagner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.46.105 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 16 November 2013‎ (UTC)

If you look at the references at species:Pentatomomorpha you will see that 'Pentatomomorpha' is the correct term. Ruslik (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong place and there is no such thing as "Hemitoptera" either. Shyamal (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I added some sources for Pentatomomorpha. But Pentatomorpha seems to be a known synonym as en.wikipedia & Wikispecies have a redirect for that name. Cheers 15:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: In the News - Media related to current events

I have a proposal to add a section to the main page, similar to how the Wikipedias have a current events section on their main pages. A Commons version would put up a piece of media related to a current event with a caption. -- 70.24.244.51 14:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Bullfight

Good morning my friend, I saw your comment on the nomination bullfight. I would like your opinion. I appreciate all your comments and I've considered for my improvement as a photographer. --The Photographer (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is your proposal relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons? This sounds more like it belongs over at Commons:Photography critiques. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rillke^(q?) 20:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)