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/2021/10.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
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?

 

Start a new discussion

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

Change Media of the Day to Media of the Week[edit]

I propose to change Media of the Day to Media of the Week.

Reason:

  • we have much less high-quality audio/video content than we do images.
  • whereas POTD must go through the featured picture candidates process, MOTD has no quality-based criteria for inclusion. There is a parallel process, featured media, but it gets very little participation (not nearly enough to supply one per day).
  • we do not have enough people interested to surface what high-quality audio/video content that we do have, with people instead adding low-quality content
  • changing to a weekly vs. daily basis allows for more oversight and greater selectivity without the requirement of producing a new file every day.

Recent background:
Last month, Ellywa posted to the village pump about a low-quality video of an anti-vaccination protest being showcased on our main page. We displayed it, along with the anti-vax "freedom of vaccination" slogan to our users during a pandemic. Looking more closely at upcoming MOTDs, I noticed many poor quality videos, e.g. for September 11, a video which combined shaky cellphone video at the 9/11 memorial with a personal selfie slideshow. So I opened this thread. It was there that people suggested possible solutions, including several people suggesting cutting it down to one per week. Today I checked back to see that the same person who added the first anti-vaccination protest added another one, similar to the first, which we highlighted on our main page again on October 1. Regardless of whether one thinks that it is acceptable to actively promote anti-vaccination during a pandemic, the fact remains that the files we select for MOTD are very frequently low quality.

Change Media of the Day to Media of the Week (survey)[edit]

  • Support as proposer. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While the long-term solution is to improve the depth and breadth of featurable videos we receive as well as the vetting process, currently we do not have enough volunteer effort to maintain MOTD at a consistent quality on a daily basis. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We should have implemented this sooner Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2020/06#Turn_MOTD_into_MOTW 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah! I had not seen that thread. Do we even need a new one, then, in order to move forward with this? — Rhododendrites talk |  02:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure if consensus was reached back then. Four users opposed explicitly, and at least 2 users opposed implicitly, while 9 users supported the proposal at that time. Let's just focus on the new proposal which seems to have more chance to succeed. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. If some time eventually in the future we have a wealth of feature-worthy videos, it could be changed back to daily, but weekly seems better at present. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's clear we don't have the current throughput, or vetting process, to support a daily media. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think seven days is fine. If we have an excess of stuff too far into the future, we can expand back to one day but I actually think we'll get more picky which can be good. I also think we could use more batch uploading of videos and other media. Requests can be made at Commons:Batch uploading. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if we somehow get too many (unlikely for the time being) we can always do what en DYK does and up the rate for a while.Geni (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose even with 365 MOTD, the system is already strongly favouring media from Europe and North America. With any number less than that, this systemic discrimination will only be enforced and other parts of the world are de facto kept out of this.
This proposal is solving a problem of "shortage of users picking MOTD" by killing MOTD, which does not magically increase the number of users working on it.--Roy17 (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People are really lazy in helping, but just wanna kill something nice.
A bot could even be created to spam MOTD with https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=webm+insource%3AUS+-%22of+the+day%22 for example. Roy17 (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is it's both highly visible and decidedly not nice. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With any number less than that, this systemic discrimination will only be enforced and other parts of the world are de facto kept out of this. - How? I would think doing it once per week would allow the small number of users participating to take their time and select a more diverse range of videos. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are some people aware that there are 40+ countries in Asia and 50+ in Africa? One file from each country can easily make up a queue of 100.
Are some people aware that one year has 52 weeks? Roy17 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As and when we can get and curate one decent video per country we will worry about it.Geni (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So before you can do that, you will just happily make this systemic discrimination much worse by killing off the chances of these countries getting featured?
Even though countries as small, secluded and neglected as Benin, Bhutan and Lesotho have at least a handful of videos already.
Benin https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=webm+insource%3ABenin+-%22of+the+day%22+-stamp
Bhutan https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=webm+insource%3ABhutan+-%22of+the+day%22+-stamp
Lesotho https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=webm+insource%3ALesotho+-%22of+the+day%22+-stamp Roy17 (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand your arguments here. You have a good point that we do not highlight enough content from non-European/North American places. But you haven't made any clear connection between that argument and the actual subject of this section. It's a good argument for you (and/or others) to get involved with MOTD (or MOTW) to make it more diverse. But there is no central authority saying "let's have more videos from Europe!" People are just grabbing what's easiest, and for the people volunteering, those videos may be European. You can change that. At least as often, people who upload videos are just placing their own videos in MOTD slots with little or no oversight. That's how we got two anti-vaccination videos in the span of a few weeks. We allow it because there's not enough participation, but nobody thinks this is ideal.
So right now it's arbitrary based on the personal interests and easy access of the people who volunteer. That could change if other people volunteer, but nobody has stepped forward.
There is no list of countries that we are working through, with European/North American countries at the top, and Asian/African countries at the bottom such that reducing the number of media displayed means we won't get to the Asian and African videos. Changing it to be weekly doesn't reduce the proportion of videos from Asian or African countries. If anything, it should increase them because even without additional volunteers, if there's no pressure to find something new every day, volunteers can be more selective and spend more time searching for higher quality content, and more diverse content rather than rely on the self-nominations of our disproportionately European/North American uploader userbase. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, except Lesotho, other examples are having FOP problems afaik. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In this topic, I would agree KoH above that the depth and breadth need largely improves, just image: if you propose to turn Meta-Wiki Translation of the week to "Translation of the day", what will Meta Users think? The world's most strongly NOPE. So "of the day" series need to be dropped on Wikimedia step-by-step, just make this to be the first one. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Ideally, we should strive to have enough good-quality media for a daily presentation, and I fear that this will not be a temporary measure until we are there, but rather "giving up". But I see that there is a distinct lack of presentable video content. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom - Disappointed to see yesterdays MOTD which was something along the lines of "no media chosen today" - new people don't want to see that, Anyway I support this and also echo KoHs sentiments - Changing this to MOTW gives people more time to pick videos and more time to pick diverse videos too and it also means the MOTW on the front page shouldn't be empty either. –Davey2010Talk 13:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Going to one media file per week is far too drastic of a change. I could, at most, support one media file every three days, but even then I think this is not ideal. The occasional mess-up is not enough for me to support a 3x-7x reduction in media on the front page. I think the best solution is to 1) promote the featured media process, 2) make the featured media process easier by reducing quorum, and 3) limit media of the day to featured media, even if this results in repeated entries.  Mysterymanblue  21:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    People may dislike the idea of seeing the same thing every 200 days, but I think that seeing the same file every day for a week straight is worse than seeing the same file every 200 days.  Mysterymanblue  21:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Every 3 days is hard, technically, and also normatively. Regarding your suggestions: (1) did that. several times. (2) did that, too. (3) To put some numbers to this, we have 203 total featured media. We have promoted a total of seventeen throughout all of 2021 so far. You're saying that we just repeat the same 200 videos over and over, adding a handful of new ones each year? That would be preferable to the current situation, I suppose, but a distant second choice to just reducing it to one new video per week. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, how do you think people may like the idea of seeing the same way on Meta-Wiki, to run a potential "Translation of the day"?!?!?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Once again we are having this discussion rather than having a discussion on "How to engage more people in MOTD?" ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gone Postal: So far, despite all our efforts, we have failed to engage more people in MOTD. The question becomes: do we feature more media on the main page and potentially have some of them be poorly vetted, or do we feature fewer media which are better vetted? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @King of Hearts: I understand your position, your answer to your last question is "fewer media", mine is "more media". I will try to dedicate some time on MOTD. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding "more media", I'm afraid that this is more-and-more untouchable due to this problem. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in favour of the other proposal to reuse older ones. Agathoclea (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 182,239 videos vs. 70+ million images (see Special:MediaStatistics). No wonder we don't have enough high-quality content. Changing to weekly frequency will increase the quality of presented videos to 125,000+ daily visitors of the main page. Jklamo (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Demotivating, wait time will be too long. — Racconish 💬 06:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And how can anything on wiki be too short? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Let's admit it: sound and video on Commons sucks in many regards. Celebrating weak examples on the front page makes us look like the bunch of amateurs we are and does not much to encourage people to produce better stuff. That spot should be reserved for the best of the best, and as moving to a weekly schedule would mean we could display our greatest media for longer, that's a win in my book! After all, as a visitor it's easy to snack a quick POTD, but audiovisual content takes much more time to get through. --El Grafo (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 1) uploading videos (large files) and converting is extremely difficult. 2) Let's spend the effort to pick media-of-everyday on other things. 3) I also suggest including images from other rigorous Wikimedia sites to make Commons' front page actually look like an image repository rather than some communist website. Thank you —Vis M (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unfortunate, but until we get more participation in MOTx this is a prudent change to help resolve the problems listed in the nomination. If we ever get to the needed level of participation to support higher frequency, we can easily readjust the frequency again. -M.nelson (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, While I actually went into this wanting to support it, reading some of the counterarguments convinced me otherwise. I wouldn't be opposed to having a "Featured media" that rotates every three (3) or so days, but 52 (fifty-two) different non-image media files per year isn't enough, it won't truly represent the diversity of the Wikimedia Commons, I think that with a number of ideas posted below like re-using old featured media and some ideas above like more representation for non-European and non-North American media would be better. Having occasional low quality stuff isn't bad as long as they are extraordinarily educational. I do support changing it to more than a day, just not a week. Theoretically this could be solved with more outreach on places like Reddit, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, the Facebook, Etc. where non-image media creators hang out, but until the number of contributors in this field grows I think that it will be wise to limit it to a new featured main page media every three (3) days which would be more than a hundred (100) files a year. MOTD isn't just videos, it is 3D works and other things like books, enough books were imported by user "Fæ" this year alone to have a different book at MOTD for years, though obviously it shouldn't only be books. An old manuscript or Bible in PDF every now and then is also preferable. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A1Cafel (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose After some thinking, no. Better to show some files several times (i.e. the ones which are Featured), and to include other content, not actually shown now (books, etc.). Yann (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Contributers2020Talk to me here 06:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enlarging media to include also books[edit]

Change Media of the Day to Media of the Week (Discussion)[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, I am still convinced that this is something that would easily be solved if videos were more easy to be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, namely by supporting .MP4 files, a proposal that has recently gathered much support and little opposition. I think that temporarily downgrading it to 52 (fifty-two) per year might be a good idea as I found the anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccine demonstrations on the main page to be a bit... odd, to say the least. But to me the issue is that it's a sign that we simply don't have enough contributors in these fields, we don't have bands re-enacting public domain music, we don't have people that search Google's YouTube to download good quality videos with free licenses, we don't have filmers ourselves that make video-recordings with their camcorders. We have those people, but not many, not enough, and I think that to some extend both the unfamiliarity of the Wikimedia Commons to these types of peoples and the technical restrictions cause these issues. While I think that this change, unfortunate as it is, is a necessary evil, I really dislike the fact that so little is being done to try to recruit more people to join the Wikimedia Commons to contribute more non-image media. Maybe present a few books or something on the main page, I am sure that there are plenty of books being uploaded that deserve that spot, it doesn't always have to be a video.
Likewise, 3D works are also something that could be showcased, I believe that I saw some, but I could have mistaken it. I just find it a shame that we are not actively trying to get more volunteers to join. We are not like Wikidata that we essentially have "too much people", in fact, the Wikimedia Commons tends to be a collection of missed opportunities and low investment from the WMF, at least in adding content and features. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to make it easier (coincidentally, video2commons seems broken at the moment Update: the interface is returning errors, but the upload completed. Nevermind that.). It would be good if we had more people with video production skills. It would be good if we had more people interested in surfacing good quality videos. It would be good if we had more people looking around at other sites to find video to transfer. I agree with all of that. But we need to work with the situation as it exists now. If those things change in time, we can always reinstate MOTD, but for now IMO the best thing would be to remove the requirement that we display something every day, because we're not doing a good enough job at that. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Trung: I agree that supporting MP4 videos would go a long way to making video contributions accessible to most people, whose best video recorder is their smart phone. Something I'll also note is that this proposal has no expiration criteria. So even if "temporarily downgrading it to 52 (fifty-two) per year" is a good idea, there is a significant chance that the inertia of "MOTW" will mean that we're stuck with it forever, even if work is done to improve video on Commons.  Mysterymanblue  01:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MP4 is pretty much irrelivant to serious video since you are going to want to work on it in post and outputting to webM is trivial. Even if MP4 is your starting point en:HandBrake now transcodes to WebM so it can be done entirely with a GUI.Geni (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that one day seems too little... but seven days seems too much. Would it be possible to choose a new file every three days or so?  Mysterymanblue  04:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of. The template currently uses CURRENTDAY2 which could be switched to CURRENTWEEK. Once every three days would involve things being doing manually via the back-end.Geni (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once a week seems reasonable although it doesn't help that the back end is not very findable. The reality is that creating high quality video is much harder than creating high quality photos. To an extent photography can be brute forced. 100 photos an hour is quite doable (and desirable in an event like a classic car rally) and under ideal conditions 10+ will be good. Video is much more of a challenge. They straight up take longer, there are fewer viable subjects (videos of static objects don’t look great) sound becomes an issue. Lighting presents more of a problem (since it may have to be good in multiple directions) as does camera stability. Editing in post presents more of a challenge since it requires a greater skillset and significantly more computing power (particularly at higher resolutions). There’s a reason why most photography is done solo where as even moderately serious video work involves teams.Geni (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issues at the heart of this are longstanding and not easy to solve: Creating good videos (as this is mainly what "media" is about here) is far more challenging than creating good images (not only from the technical side, as noted by Geni, but also from the licensing point of view - you have to be very careful not to include copyrighted music etc.), and then the uploading to Commons is notoriously challenging, even with a tool like Video2Commons, which is intended to make uploads easier, but even I as an experienced user of many years and admin are often struggling with. As noted in my comment above, I'm not sure that we are going into the right direction by giving in / giving up in that way, taking pressure away from the "media of the day" instead of trying to finally make Commons more attractive for uploads other than images, namely for videos. I think I fully understand why this proposal was made, and I am supporting it, weakly, but I am concerned that it will only serve to make video on Commons even more of a marginal matter. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the point about the "anti-vax" video is void, because i upon seeing that in advance added two motd that are supposedly "pro-vax" in response: Template:Motd/2021-10-04 Template:Motd/2021-11-01.
anyone who's so obsessed about neutrality / balanced point of view / procedural correctness should add one more "anti-vax" video as motd.--RZuo (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about being "obsessed about neutrality" or some kind of "balance". We just shouldn't be displaying anti-vax propaganda during a pandemic. Displaying something pro-vaccination later doesn't change the fact that it was harmful. There is no "balance" to harmful. It's fine to host such a video, of course, but we should not be highlighting it on our main page. Perhaps when/if we move on from treating vaccination like a "both sides" political issue, it would be fine to display such a video for historical purposes, but we're not there yet. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose this change chiefly because it is bad for non-image media on Commons. Reducing the visibility of high quality media by a factor of seven will not improve Wikimedia Commons; it will only further discourage the creation and uploading of high quality media. Doing so without setting a clear timeline for a return to MOTD will also discourage people from attempting to contribute to or fix the featured media process, further entrenching the problem that it is seeking to address. This proposal amounts to a resignation that the issues that plague video on Commons are unfixable and that we should just accept that the amount of high quality media will always be this bad. Instead of taking this step to discourage media contributors, we should be making it easier for video to be captured, uploaded, and promoted to featured media/media of the day.
I will admit that Commons has tried to promote media contribution many times in the past with disappointing results. However, I do not think that we have done enough on this front.
Lowering quorum to approximately three would improve the featured media process. While participation in the FM process is wanting, it's not exactly obscure; there are more than enough people who check that page during the course of a nomination period to fulfill the purpose of a quorum: to prevent files from "slipping under" the community's radar and into featured status. A quorum of three would still serve this purpose effectively while ensuring that FM nominations cannot be unilaterally rammed through.
Critics of lowering quorum might point out that there have been many FM candidates with 3 or 4 positive votes that failed due to lack of quorum—they may point to the failed nomination of these "unworthy" files as evidence that the higher quorum serves a purpose. However, I believe that these comparisons are invalid because quorum impacts people's voting behavior. Of the many people who view FM candidate nominations, only a few vote on them. This is because they are aware of the effect of a higher quorum: "noes" and "lean noes" may abstain because they are aware that a file is unlikely to pass without their support, and "lean yesses" may withhold support because they believe that quorum is unlikely to be reached anyway. Lowering quorum will therefore promote discussion by making the clear success or rejection of a featured media candidate a tangible future possibility so that even the first support and oppose votes will be meaningful. It will force those who rely on abstentions to oppose featured media to voice their opinions in a public space where they can be discussed. This will end the limbo that many failed FM candidates are currently in, where it is unclear if their failure was due to unstated opposition or unvoiced support.
There is also a significant technical barrier to uploading media to commons. Video2commons is broken, and files over 600 MB fail, even in chunked uploaders. Additionally, the exercise of requiring users to convert video to only a few formats tends to be out of reach of most people. A “Wiki Loves Monuments”-style contest is essentially doomed to fail because the most accessible video recorders - cell phones - almost universally record in “patent-encumbered formats”.

 Mysterymanblue  01:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the visibility of high quality media It does not currently do much for the visibility of high-quality media. We can continue to display low-quality media, which IMO is more discouraging than anything because it's supposed to represent our very best, or we can highlight a smaller number of actually high-quality media.
Doing so without setting a clear timeline Nothing would prevent a proposal to go back once it can be demonstrated that the state of media on Commons has changed sufficiently that we can both attract good content and surface it on a daily basis. I thought about framing this as a trial period, but, realistically, there's no indication anything's going to change.
resignation that the issues that plague video on Commons are unfixable - Perhaps some see it this way. I see it more that until we fix those issues we shouldn't just pretend that everything is going well.
This is because they are aware of the effect of a higher quorum - I'm someone who sees [almost] all of the FM nominations and doesn't vote on most of them. I do support some, and occasionally oppose, but more often I abstain because it's neither objectionably bad nor particularly good. We already have a much lower bar for FM as compared to FP (I'm talking about quality requirements, not number of votes).
There is also a significant technical barrier to uploading media to commons Agreed. This is part of the argument in favor, because there's no sign this is going to be fixed. If it does, and that affects the media we get, we can always revisit. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There were 600+ films produced by USA alone in 1925, all of which have entered PD: List of American films of 1925. And the number of films going into PD from all countries would only increase year after year. We could well show two movies every day.--Roy17 (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, I would not be surprised to see some supporters talking about how studio-made films have low quality blah blah blah.
By now fellow Commons users should notice that some users are jumping up and down this thread to do nothing but finding every excuse for killing MOTD. Some users talk big about contributing but never made any effort curating MOTD, for example [1].--Roy17 (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am part of the "lack of participation" problem with MOTD, just like nearly everyone else. The thing is, MOTD affects everyone, regardless of whether they participate, and everyone sees the results via the main page. Everything here is only as good as the volunteer time put into it. Some processes work better than others for that reason. What we have in MOTD, however, is a mismatch between the amount of volunteer interest and the prominence/importance given to the process. If volunteers for a particular process want the output of that process to be given real estate on the main page, it's up to volunteers interested in that project to make it work. We don't put things on the main page and then say "ok now it's everyone else's fault if this doesn't work" -- no, it's up to people who want there to be an MOTD to make it work. Otherwise, we need to remove it from the main page or find another way to fix it (and yes, I say MOTD→MOTW is fixing, not killing; killing would be removing that section of the main page). — Rhododendrites talk |  14:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yann: , per your new proposal above based on what I wrote, just to be clear, doesn't the MOTD today already mean all non-image media? I always assumed that it did because the MOTD isn't always a video as I've seen 3D objects and other non-video MOTD in the past. Though I am glad that you created that proposal, as it has the largest chance of actually saving the MOTD for now, as we have so many books, manuscripts, and other PDF files, perhaps also expand it to include all PDF, DJVU, Etc. files as for example a PDF of a scientific thesis that has had a major influence on the world deserves to be on the main page as well. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal: Change Media of the Day to Media of the Year[edit]

One audiovisual file per year. Easy.--Roy17 (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I certainly don't agree with one video per year .... regualars will simply stop looking at the front page. We can do better than one per year. –Davey2010Talk 18:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No reason to make "Saimoe"-like "of the..." for non moegirl-related Autonomous sites. Media of the Week is enough. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "alternative proposal" is meant sarcastically, not in earnest. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me but this proposal doesn't sound sarcastic - I recall at EN taking the mick out of someones proposal before... only to to be told it was serious .... and when you've seen idiotic-yet-serious proposals on EN you begin to start believing everything you see. Meh it went over my head. –Davey2010Talk 22:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case, from the context of Roy17's other discussion contributions, it seems to be pretty clear. Roy17 argues for keeping the "media of the day", after all. Gestumblindi (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose One media file per year is worse than one media file per week, in the same way that one media file per week is worse than one media file per year.  Mysterymanblue  01:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

upcoming media of the day[edit]

Does not seem to be an actual proposal. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For what is currently on the way see Template:Motd/2021-10.Geni (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Seems more confusing tbh. MOTW is good enough. –Davey2010Talk 18:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Davey, probably the "Template:Motd/$1" should temporary be blocklisted. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is being responded to here? this is just a link to the current MOTD backend.Geni (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I understand it, you didn't make a proposal here (that could be supported or opposed), but just posted the link for information, right? Gestumblindi (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Geni I did indeed thought you were proposing a name change to "upcoming media of the day" - I didn't twig on you were actually telling people the upcoming media of the day so apologies for this. –Davey2010Talk 22:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Allow a file to become Media of the Day (MOTD) more than once[edit]

Watching/listening to a good piece of work every few years is reasonably acceptable. This could serve as a fallback to fill an empty MOTD last minute. Simply go and pick an old one from more than 10 years ago.

AFAIK it's currently not forbidden to do this, but it's just a convention not to make a file MOTD twice.--Roy17 (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems very rational. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for FM only. I view this proposal as orthogonal to the original, i.e. it can be implemented in addition to changing it to weekly. If MOTW passes, then I think all FM should be "reset" and become eligible for MOTW a second time; it's not fair that something doesn't get to be featured on the main page for a week just because it got featured for one day. If MOTW doesn't pass, then FM should just be eligible for an indefinite number of repeat MOTDs with at least 3 years in between. In either case, previous non-FM MOTD should remain ineligible; if it's really good enough to put on the main page twice, it should be good enough to get consensus for FM promotion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seeing the same file every few years is better than seeing the same file for a week straight.  Mysterymanblue  08:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just make sure there is a new one every week and rotate the rest through after a suitability check. Agathoclea (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is there any ways to avoid nominating for MOTD same one file everyday within a long period, or at least within one month for just same one? If there can't have, I'm afraid that I will still oppose due to concerns with Special:RecentChanges spamming. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for FM only as an additional proposal. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as an alternative proposal. The problem the original proposal intends to fix is the low quality of media in MOTW and chronically low participation at MOTW, even if a couple users pop up in these threads with commitments to turn it around. Allowing the same low quality videos to appear multiple times doesn't help anything. Nor does allowing FM to repeat, because that's FM repeating in addition to the low quality videos we'll continue to get. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated the heading to reflect this can be additional or alternative, depending on one's perspective. As just an alternative, which doesn't actually address (at least not directly) the reason for the original proposal, it's confusing and misleading. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sigh. Looks like Roy reverted my change to the header with the message "(Changes to my proposal need my endorsement.)" -- @Roy17: You don't own this proposal any more than I own the original. You did not ask for my endorsement to add an "alternative" as part of the proposal I opened, and I didn't ask yours to modify this, since it's clearly not just an "alternative". Both are fine. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reverted back to your version. Users don't own headings. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support only as an additional proposal, and Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as an alternative. The MOTD should die and MOTW be born anyway. No objections to repeated MOTWs. This is a real problem that has surfaced N times, and it doesn't matter how many times you say "it will be fixed", because it won't and we know that. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as well as an addition or an alternative. It's absolutely fine to present the same file again after a few years; I don't know how it's handled in English Wikipedia, but in German-language Wikipedia, featured articles can be repeatedly chosen as "article of the day"; it doesn't happen that often, but it is allowed. For example, de:Augustus was "article of the week" (before the switch to a daily featured article) in 2004, then "article of the day" in 2014 and there's already a proposal to choose it again for August 19, 2024. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, while I have no objections to changing the MOTD to MOTW as a provisional measure, this would allow us to showcase high quality media to the people that visit the main page. Sure, the Wikimedia Commons doesn't have as much page views as the English-language Wikipedia, but if we would work with that (Defeatist) mentality then nothing would ever get done. If this could save the MOTD it would be great, if this could ensure the quality of the MOTW it would also be great. Either way, this is a good proposal. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as an addition, not an alternative. Though I don't think this will be of much use in case MOTW passes, I nonetheless don't oppose using the same file again as MOTW in case we really have no new FM (which I think/hope is not going to be the case). That said, I think there should be longer intervals between using same FMs as MOTW. Perhaps 3 years for MOTD and 5 years for MOTW, should it pass. Ahmadtalk 20:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support only when the file was last used in MOTD/MOTW for like more than 3-4 years. Otherwise, Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Contributers2020Talk to me here 06:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental proposal: Expiration criterion for MOTW[edit]

To be implemented only if the main proposal passes:

Media of the Week will revert to Media of the Day when there are two years' worth of daily featured media. That is, when the number of featured media is greater than or equal to 730, media of the day will be reimplemented.  Mysterymanblue  21:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. The primary concern of MOTW supporters is that there is not a high enough quality, curated stream of media to spotlight every day. When the featured media process has matured enough, these concerns will be satisfied, and we should revert to Media of the Day. I chose 2 years worth of daily free media as the cutoff for this, but I will support an expiration criteria of any number of files, with preference toward a lower number.  Mysterymanblue  21:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose any sort of automatic change. At the rate we've been going, this proposal will be pending for several years before going into effect. We don't know what changes will happen (or won't happen) regarding uploading, the FMC process, FMC participation, etc. We may get more media, but maybe the FMC process won't function well enough to promote enough of them, in which case it may still make sense to restore MOTD. I would support simply saying that we'll revisit this in one year or two years, to make sure it's working as it should, but we can also just say that anyone who thinks things have changed sufficiently to restore MOTD can propose that in the future, regardless of specific metrics. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: The logic really flows both ways on this one. You say that without an expiration criterion, we could always have a discussion about reinstating media of the day in a few years. Of course, with an expiration criterion, there could also be a discussion as to why we should keep media of the week around for a little bit longer. An expiration criterion does not permanently bind the project to one course of action - it is meant to be a concrete starting point for thinking about the end of the proposal. It serves as an acknowledgement that this change has particular aims, is narrowly tailored to achieve those aims, and will be undone when those aims have been achieved.
    An expiration criterion also has the benefit of setting a goal for the project to regain media of the day. This would give featured media proponents something to work toward and would help mitigate the discouraging effect that removing media of the day would have on audiovisual contributions.  Mysterymanblue  22:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A little Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, but setting a higher-than-de-facto bar may lead me to re-support. Currently there were probably also sockpuppets that were created {{Motd}} subtemplates, we need to make sure the accounts touching the bar are real different peoples, rather than a man who is using CDN servers to set up a sock army to touch that. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: You're welcome to say something like "Oppose 2 years, but will support 3 years or more."  Mysterymanblue  01:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No time period changes I suggested, what I suggest is just same as the motto of WADA official site: Play true. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mysterymanblue: Also, under same reasons, you might want to change Meta-Wiki's Translation of the Week to Translation of the Day, isn't that? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, the Media of the Day feature should return when the Wikimedia Commons are ready, we have a lot of bad quality non-image media files being promoted today but this might change in the future, this could be one (1) year from now, this could be two (2) years from now, or this could be ten (10) years from now. Setting precedent today will mean that when we eventually do have enough high quality media for the main page that in a decade or so we won't have an army of users opposing the Media of the Day returning because "It has always been the Media of the Week, no need to change what ain't broken" and changing such a system would be an uphill battle once it's implemented. Already saying "Yeah, if this goal 🥅 is reached we can allow the MOTD to return" will allow us to adapt to a changing community climate that is more focused on non-image media. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose an automatic change; I don't like the idea of locking in some future change today. I would strongly support scheduling a discussion/proposal at some point in the future (e.g. 6, 12, 24 months) and evaluating then if we should increase the frequency. If the "goals" above are met and the issues in the OP are resolved, I would probably support such an increase at that time. -M.nelson (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time for closure?[edit]

It's been more than a month for the original proposal, only two additional !votes this month so far, and a few days since anyone said anything. This would benefit from a formal closure from one or more uninvolved admins, I think. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @Rhododendrites. We got enough votes and discussion in order to now take this in action. Contributers2020Talk to me here 06:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signature talk page link translation[edit]

For most signatures and languages, the (talk) link is translated using {{int:Talkpagelinktext}}. However, a script in MediaWiki:Common.js replaces the link text for the following languages: be-tarask, be-x-old, ar, bn, ca, cs, cy, de, fa, fr, hy, id, ko, min, mk, ml, nl, pt, pt-br, nds, sl, sv, tr, zh-hans, zh-hant. The link text is only replaced if it's wrapped in <span class="signature-talk"></span>.

With the {{int:}}-based translation, this script is no longer necessary for most signatures. While it isn't very large, every script we load in MediaWiki:Common.js carries a performance, bandwidth, and maintenance cost, and it's good to remove anything that's no longer needed. There are currently 41 users with a signature that includes the signature-talk class but not {{int:Talkpagelinktext}}, of which about half are active. Those users should be encouraged to change their signatures. There are at least 2.6 million pages with signatures only translated by the script. We have a couple of options to deal with those pages:

  1. Status quo (leave the script in place)
  2. Convert the script to a gadget, so that users that want all the talk links in older discussions to be translated can load it
  3. Run a bot to replace <span class="signature-talk">talk</span> with <span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>
  4. Just remove the script and don't do anything about older discussions.

Personally, I think option 2 or option 4 would be the best options, but I'm interested in hearing more opinions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 4 is good and enough, in my opinion. Option 2 is unnecessary, no need to such a gadget (no objections to a user script). If someone wants to spend time doing option 3, let it be done. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 - My thoughts are the exact same as 4nn1l2. - Option 2 is unnecessary, No problem with Option 3 if someone wants to spend the time doing it but overall Option 4 IMHO is best. –Davey2010Talk 13:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking 2, with the gadget opt-in.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 - I think gadgets should only be created when a large number of users wish to use a certain script, which, in my opinion, is not the case here. I'm fine with option 3 as well, if someone is willing to do it. Ahmadtalk 21:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Option 4, just say goodbye to that script. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having been kindly made aware of the issue by AntiCompositeNumber, I tried to change my signature to include the {{int:Taklpagelinktext}} translation. However, it seems that all parser functions inside the signature are automatically prefixed with a SUBST by MediaWiki upon saving the signature preferences. Can someone confirm? Or is there someone who successfully changed their signature in their preferences to contain a non-SUBSTed translation? Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, so it does. It seems like this has been a feature since 2006. That does complicate matters somewhat, as it means that no users with a "fancy" signature will have talk page links translated. --AntiCompositeNumber talk 02:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing big images[edit]

Map of the Hudson River Rail Road from New York to Albany. LOC 98688681-1.jpg

I was looking at this, but couldn't see the details I wanted at the default 797 x 100 pixels. No problem; there's a choice of intermediate sizes leading up to the original 45,354 × 5,691 pixels. Umm, no, the maximum intermediate resolution is 2,560 × 321 pixels. The original image is 17 times that, and a long download. So, it seems to me, the steps between offered display sizes are too rigidly set. The several sizes ought to be customized for the image size, so for a big one like this, the step ratios would not be set at a measly 2:1, but more like 3:1 or even 4:1. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that better preset step sizes would be desirable. For reference, you can generate any custom size by changing the url - see here for example. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Pi.1415926535: always there are more little tricks to learn, and now I've learned another useful one. If we were serious about helping users see large images conveniently I guess the image page would give a choice of the original size, a fixed minimum size, and about three steps in between, to be calculated by the geometric mean or something similar. This would be a template if it's only to be for selected big images, otherwise a feature of either the Upload Wizard or the file viewer. Not that I have a good idea what would be involved in making any of these, but at least now I have an insider trick. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim.henderson: Look or the "ZoomViewer" link, on the file page. See also {{LargeImage}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks, @Pigsonthewing: the ZoomViewer works very well. It ought to be more prominently displayed. Or, I ought to pay more attention. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add Markdown option in "Use this file on the web" dialogue.[edit]

Currently, the "Attribution" section of the "Use this file on the web" dialogue gives a plain text option by default, which can be turned into HTML by ticking the HTML box. For example, for this file, the HTML options shows:

<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carraca_lila_(Coracias_caudata),_parque_nacional_de_Chobe,_Botsuana,_2018-07-28,_DD_30.jpg">Diego Delso</a>, <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0">CC BY-SA 4.0</a>, via Wikimedia Commons

As Markdown is widely used on many systems, including to author documents websites and presentations, it would be great to have another "Markdown" option next to "HTML", which would convert the code to:

[Diego Delso](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carraca_lila_(Coracias_caudata),_parque_nacional_de_Chobe,_Botsuana,_2018-07-28,_DD_30.jpg), [CC BY-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0), via Wikimedia Commons

Potentially, the UI would end up showing 3 (exclusive) radio buttons to choose from:

  • Plain text (default)
  • HTML
  • Markdown

Chtfn (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. More choices.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 06:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not because more choices are always better (there is a cost to build and maintain each option), but because Markdown is indeed widely used, as demonstrated by both the linked article and my experience. Brianjd (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support. Could we add wikitext for those wikis that don't use InstantCommons?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should Heavily used template go on the template page or the /doc page?[edit]

At Template talk:BookNaviBar#Edit request 2021-11-07 a question came up: should {{Heavily used template}} go on the page of the template itself or on the /doc subpage? To me the documentation of that template sounds like it’s meant to go on the template itself, but maybe people prefer the /doc subpage. This Quarry query finds 158 links to the template from template non-sub-pages and 69 links from /doc subpages; since I assume the 158 links from non-doc-sub-pages include the 69 /doc links (since the templates transclude their documentation), I believe the real distribution is 89 {{Heavily used template}} uses directly on a template and 69 on the /doc subpage. Thoughts? Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas Werkmeister: It should go on the template itself, noincluded. However, forcing that on the 69 mentioned above in a short period of time would stress our systems, so it should only be done with blessings of our systems administration team. Technically, the doc is not heavily used.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. I’ve declined that edit request, but won’t edit templates that have it on /doc for now. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, think of the server kitties.
@Lucas Werkmeister: You're welcome. Another reason for keeping {{Heavily used template}} on a template itself is that the "the talk page" link goes to the wrong place when it is on a /doc subpage. Pinging @Brion VIBBER as a Systems Administrator and our Lead Software Architect.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say at the /doc subpage, because we should keep the mainpage of the template neat and tidy. It is a common practice on wikipedia site. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separating roles.[edit]

I withdraw my proposal now. Illl make this thing perfect in not too long time. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 03:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The administrators in commons have many privileges and work to do. From answering and closing deletion requests to blocking people to delete file to everything. And we have only 200 of them? This depicts the load on them and no decrease in the commons backlog. Deletion request old like 1 year which are obvious are not being closed. And if non-admins close them, they will immediately take action on us(who are non-admins and non favorites of them). I think this type of centralizing is wrong.

Pictogram voting info.svg My Proposal- to bifurcate administrator role into some 2 or three.

Pictogram voting info.svg What does this mean- Role 1- Deletion administrators will have the privilege to

  • Delete and undelete images and other uploaded files, and to view and restore deleted versions.
  • Delete and undelete pages, and to view and restore deleted revisions
  • Renaming files
  • Send a message to multiple users at once
  • Delete and undelete specific log entries and revisions of pages
  • Merge the history of pages
  • Use higher limits in API queries;

Basically things related to deleting and undeleting and renaming.

Role 2- Community Adminstrator will have the privilege to

  • Block and unblock users, individual IP addresses and IP address ranges
  • Protect and unprotect pages, and to edit Community admin-protected pages
  • Edit less-restricted interface messages
  • Add and remove usergroups
  • View deleted versions
  • Use higher limits in API queries

Basically things related to community things such as handling and having the power to take action in COM:AN and reviewing COM:RFR and COM:LRR.

Role 3- Abuse Filter Administrators will have the privilege to modify abuse filters, not create redirects from source pages when moving pages and import pages from other wikis

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Why- If we bifurcate like this, one set of people will focus on one particular topic and will heavily help reducing commons backlog .Also, 1 user can have only 1 role of the bifurcation, so that the reason of making this thing will be intact.

Please, please consider this issue and make it into action as soon as you can.

Votes-[edit]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this a a bad idea. Admins are expected to be conversant with all policies, but most will take on work most suitable to their interests and talents. So there's no need to have separation because we already have it on an informal basis. Also, pigeon-holing permissions would militate against cross-topic operation. Keep it simple, please. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The current situation is simple. Say there's a user who keep creating redundant DRs. Is this a problem user, or a harmful file that needs to be deleted quickly? I'm not sure, but I know that if I report it to an administrator, it will get dealt with appropriately. The same applies to other complex situations.
Splitting administrator privileges into different roles would introduce more complexity into the sorts of situations I described above, as well as the processes for granting, revoking and monitoring these privileges. Surely it is not worth it. Brianjd (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brianjd, I don't know how is it complex. Granting, revoking privileges- Community Administrator. Deleting files- Deletion Adminstrator. Both groups can cooperate. They are not something like isolated. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 116.74.135.243 (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Rod & Brian. Why on Gods earth would we want admins who work simply in asisgned areas ? .... If I'm dealing with a vandal I would want them to be dealt with asap - I wouldn't want an assigned admin to eventually come across my request and block like 12 hours later by which time the vandal would've caused a lot of vandalism etc.
In short this is a flawed and a rather ridiculous proposal that benefits absolutely nobody. –Davey2010Talk 00:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Davey. Hulged (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Rod, Brian, and Davey. Not well thought out, still a draft (drafts don't belong here).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion-[edit]

@Rodhullandemu regarding your vote, if administrators are keeping it to their interests and talents, there should be no problem to implement this. Keeping it simple will not solve the backlog. Contributers2020Talk to me here 12:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you won't get people volunteering on the sole basis that what would be able to do is limited. It often happens that sockpuppets, vandals etc upload copyvios and need to be blocked, and related accounts vetted. Separating those functions, are you suggest above, would not be an sensible or efficient thing to do. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking can be done by Community Admin and copyvios by Deletion. Not a big deal. My main thing a administrator will be focused in one place and thus eliminating backlog Rodhullandemu. --116.74.135.243 13:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC) (Im C2020)[reply]

@Contributers2020: What would you do with all the existing Admins?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Contributers2020: This proposal should reduce the load on administrators, which they should support. The assumption that every administrator will vote "Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose" indicates that the proposal is flawed. Also, please don't silently change the proposal after users have started to respond to it. You are expected to change the proposal if the responses justify this, but you should clearly state that you have done so. Brianjd (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brianjd, that was just an assumption. I'll remove that statment. As of the silently changing proposal, I didn't and was just making additional needed mmodification. The fundamental was the same. I was editing this for two hours, and so people.started to respond. I guees I am sorry. --116.74.135.243 13:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC) (I'm C2020)[reply]
@Contributers2020: Please stay logged in.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff G.- Done. So the previous administrators will apply again for the respective post they want to get. This will also eliminate inactive administrators. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 13:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Contributers2020: We already have Commons:Interface administrators per Special:ListGroupRights. How would their role change, if at all? We also deal with inactive Admins through Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, how would that change, if at all? Some projects also have Abuse filter editors, are you advocating for that here? See also COM:TALK, en:WP:THREAD, and en:WP:INDENT.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. I'm telling the benefits. And Interface administrators will still continue to exists, translation sysops as well. Only normal administrator role will be bifurcated. And yes, I am advocating that in this project as well. Contributers2020Talk to me here 17:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This also is a draft. My basic and fundamental thing is that admin role is bifurcated in order to be productive. We can still make changes on whatever I have written. Contributers2020Talk to me here 17:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Contributers2020: Proposals should be drafted locally or in a sandbox, not live on this page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal does not include a group that can both block users and perform deletions, which are actions that naturally go together when dealing with abuse.
The inclusion of not one, but two groups that can view deleted material is extremely concerning. In fact, this is being discussed right now in a separate proposal, where serious issues were raised, and the proposal author here has not demonstrated a familiarity with that discussion.
I am sure there are more problems, but as Jeff G. said, drafts do not belong here. Brianjd (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals&oldid=612139944"