Commons:Batch uploading/de.wikipedia.org

de.wikipedia.org[edit]

Everything in wikipedia:de:Kategorie:Datei:Commonsfähig that does not have wikipedia:de:Vorlage:NoCommons attached. Matt (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions[edit]

Some guys including myself at wikipedia:de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Commons-Transfer are currently doing this half-manually using Commons:Tools#Commons Helper which is a quite old and umaintained script. As there are >100.000 images ready for transfer this is going to take too long. It is also a very repetitive task as CommonsHelper does the same conversion-errors over and over again and it's successor is also not working / developed actively. There is User:Boteas, but it needs an extra template to start working which complicates everything even more. A more automatised solution would be great. Matt (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am astonished... why have we de:WP:NCF? Keep in mind that not all pictures which should have have the NoCommons template attached. E.g. Photographs of protected buildings in France. → automated transferring is not possible. At some step the licensing needs to be checked. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It should be clear, that the category Datei:Commonsfähig isn't set manually per review, but only by license-templates. Actually, we have some pictures of Paul Klee, that are tagged with PD-old at de.wp, but aren't free in US and so not commons-compatible. This couldn't be sorted by a bot. At this time, there are some projects locally for transferring to Commons, so the files on de.wp decreases about 100 per day. So for every not manually checked pictures that isn't ready for commons it have to be undeleted on de.wp and deleted here. There are 459 Files transferred to commons, that aren't checked - why work on this first? Additionally, all Files at the sub-categories of de:Wikipedia:Dateiüberprüfung have to be excluded. --Quedel (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further templates that need a manually review: Templates: Panoramafreiheit. (not completed list yet) --Quedel (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps It should be possible to find some categories to work on. For example PD old, NASA images etc. If the license is wrong then file should be deleted on de-wiki anyway. Admins could do the check when they delete the file on de-wiki. If the file is ok they delete the local file. If not they nominate local + Commons file for deletion. Files could also be tagged with a special template on Commons to show this file is removed without a review. It the template has two links "OK" and Not OK" users can click on it only takes a moment to review. If ok template is removed and if not ok file is nominated for deletion. --MGA73 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree >95% is just the usual GFDL and/or CC-BY-SA licensing, mostly photos. This can be moved automatically and then afterwards checked and not transferred half-manually and then "bot move checked". Matt (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need to disable revobot to not have all the images in their "raw state" (unchecked) directly in nowCommons category at dewp. There needs to be a detailed plan when which actions need to be done and who does it and how long it will approximately take. And of course a calculation where the savings (if there are at all) are. Your first request here was a bit rushed, Matt. And: to be honest, I would prefer to discuss this in German. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

w:de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-US is maybe a difficult example as it would be best to use more specific templates here at Commons like Template:PD-USGov-NASA, Template:PD-USGov-CIA, Template:PD-USGov-NOAA... I think this has to be done manually or at least corrected afterwards by hand. We deleted those at de.wikipedia.org and replaced it with the generic template. Matt (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To MGA73's ongoing: There is a well system for files with lacking informations, that will result in fine licensed-files for about half the files. With this new way, this files will be lost, because no automatically asking the uploader will be possible. Another problem is: who will do the work? The list of "NowCommons"-Files not deleted on de.wikipedia increases, there aren't enoug admins to check they. And there are are more than 500 files transferred to commons and not checked. Additionally, there are an amount of file, not tagged with FoP or similiar, or files that are PD-old in Germany, but not on Commons (for example: pictures from Mr. Klee). So this file would be transferred get the "NowCommons-Template" locally, then had to be deleted on Commons and untagged locally. How many files are in Kategorie:Commonsfähig? Approximate 80.000 files (only half of all files). Testing the category GFDL-Bild shows, that only 55% are commons-ready as they are tagged actually (for CC-by-sa, the most chosen license i cannot check it, CatScan doesnt handel so much files). To Saibo: Disucssing in German would nice. --Quedel (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plan could be like this. We choose a category where we expect that perhaps > 95 % of the files to be good. Then some users scan the category for junk and possible copyvios and tag those few files for deletion or a "don't move". Then a bot moves the rest of the files - perhaps except those without a description. Then admins on de-wiki deletes the local file if transfer is ok. If not they change the "NowCommons" to a "NoCommons" (or whatever template is used on de-wiki) and mark file for deletion on Commons. That way we only have to check files once.

If the bot works correct there is no need to check that information is transfered correctly. Then we "just" need to check if the license is valid and the categories. If license is ok and the only outstanding issue then we could still delete the file on Commons.

Big categories is not a problem. We just do the queries we need on toolserver to find the files to work on. So just bring up all ideas and things we should know, do or not do. --MGA73 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ich mach mal 'ne Liste (die kann sicherlich effizienter noch zusammengefasst werden)