>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Hey Judson,
>
>Having them hosted on the commons had occurred to me as well. They
>are raw tiff's, still with the map border, etc. So it might be
>advantageous to make them easier to handle by a average wikipedia
>viewers.
>
>They are also about 300 GB in total. So if you think it makes sense
>for the commons to host them, I can arrange to mail a hard drive with
>the data.
>
>Thanks,
>-jared
I emailed Jared (the person that bought the maps) just to say that
there was interest in uploading them to commons, and he offered to
mail a hard drive with all the images! I was thinking we would
probably just grab them from the Archive, but I thought I would let
everyone know of this offer in case anyone wanted to do it that way.
It is a lot of data, and in tiff format.
I've worked some more on my SumIrUp tool [1], which can generate a list
of language templates with one-line descriptions for a new article. All
it needs is a starting point, namely this article in any language. From
there, it will spider all the language links, and gather the initial
paragraph/sentence of each article. It then generates a
copy-and-paste-ready text, including language links.
I was wondering - why not link to this tool in the instructions text for
new articles? There could be a link to this tool using the name of the
page to be created, and en.wikipedia as default. If an article with that
name exists on en.wikipedia, it will generate said list of one-line
descriptions which can be copied into that article. As this is exactly
what commons articles/categories *should* contain, it might be a huge help.
Magnus
[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commons_sumitup.php
On 8/30/06, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> [ crossposting on wikien-l and commons-l ]
> Is there any project on Commons to upload these maps?
>
> g.
Not that I know of, I don't think they are completely uploaded yet,
but I would be glad to help if one gets started. I emailed the person
that did this and said we might be interested :) Apparently when the
upload is complete his project page will have more details about where
they are. There are a lot, so a commons project might be a good idea
:)
[ crossposting on wikien-l and commons-l ]
On 8/29/06, cohesion <cohesion(a)sleepyhead.org> wrote:
>
> Jared Benedict bought all of the USGS maps for $1600 and then had a
> fund raiser to recoup the money. That has been done and now they are
> being uploaded to the Internet Archive. Project info is here
> http://ransom.redjar.org/
>
> Just letting people know, I'm sure there are a lot of cartographers
> eager to get these into wikipedia :D
>
> Judson
>
Is there any project on Commons to upload these maps?
g.
--
Guillaume Paumier
Disciplus Simplex
http://fr.wikipedia.org : Resistance is futile — You will be assimilated.
Hello,
We have lots of people from lots of projects familiar with lots of
different ways of organising noticeboards. Therefore I think we must
brainstorm to find a better model for our poor [[Commons:Deletion
requests]]. It simply creaks and groans under the weight of too many
requests, it is unmanageable.
Here are some requirements:
* The requests still have to be on the [[template:deletion requests]].
This is because the 'Commons-level' page is actually a 'shell' or
'wrapper' with some instructions, and these instructions can be
translated, while the actual requests themselves are not.
* Want to keep adding new items simple (possibly we can use tricks
with an input box similar to
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FPC#Nomination to keep it
outwardly simple)
* Want to be able to archive individual items - archiving a day at a
time is not appropriate because some debates drag on interminably
(sometime while we wait for more information, replies from other
people etc), and the system has to allow for these.
Some other ideas:
* Ability to watch certain debates only? This would require a separate
template for each item. I think a lot of people would find this
useful.
* Break up page according to ***type of request***? An obvious split
at this stage would be splitting off requests based on format
conversions, such as {{supersededSVG}} (since it seems people are
going to persist in requesting these for deletion, we should deal with
them in a more sensible manner). What other splits would be
appropriate? (Keep in mind it has to be simple for users to be able to
follow it - if they don't follow it, we're right back where we
started)
* Ability to flag debates as requiring participants having certain
skills or interests?? This would be really useful. If we could flag
debates as requiring say, German speaker, someone familiar with
derivative works, someone familiar with PD expiration in the US,
someone familiar with personality rights, someone familiar with
XYZwhatever. Then people would be able to decide what issues they're
interested in and look at those specifically. So this would again
require one template per debate, I imagine.
* Can we think up some extra-MW innovation and get some of our
toolserver friends to implement it? For example, before the en.wp DB
went kaput, en.wp had a very interesting toolserver-based thing for
dealing with 'proposed deletions' (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PROD ).
* Need to keep track of those debates that drag on and maybe think up
a better process for dealing with them.
What are some other technical improvements that people would like to
see to this page, to make it more usable?
Are you aware of high-traffic noticeboards on other projects that are
managed easily and well? If so, provide some links so we can check
them out.
If you have ideas for improvements, I suggest implementing a model
with 5 or so fake debates in a user subpage, and again share the link
so we can compare it to the current model.
cheers,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise
I've found some nice classical ogg files online (CC-BY-SA-2.0). However,
some are larger than 20 MB. Uploading those leads me back to a blank
upload page, without comment or error. 20MB seems to be a magical limt
for PHP.
Is there a way to bypass that limit? I'd hate to have to cut perfectly
good ogg files.
Magnus
I see that lots of people loads images and give them template
{{Copyrighted free use}}. The funny thing about it is, that in most
cases they are screenshots from TV, movies, movie posters, game
covers, etc. So maybe we should make a large cleanup of images in this
category, couse there can be tons of copyvios...
AJF/WarX
ps. why most copyvios is made by people talking in spanic langugage ?
Who's in the top 10? :)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kotepho/admin#Ordered_list_of_total_…
Maybe we should award monthly prizes to those who (a) increase their
ranking by the most places, (b) perform the most deletions and (c)
have the largest increase on their previous month's performance.
Then again, perhaps it's not a good idea to encourage such
single-minded obsessiveness. :)
Disclaimer: As Fred wisely noted, quality != quantity. Pissing many
people off is still not a good idea. Reducing large backlogs is,
though. Walk a fine line........
cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise
I just logged in to commons, and found a note reporting a problem with
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_War_Budget_2003-crop.jpg
This, as noted in the text, is a crop of
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_War_Budget_2003.jpg
which is found to be
public domain.
Those paying close attention will note that the cropped image also has special code in
the title, ("-crop") indicating that its a crop of another image. Nevertheless the
image got flagged.
This presents itself as a problem as Ive noticed a certain automation, and sadly a lack
of intelligence,
in flagging particular images. A more productive usage of time would be to simply
reference the
given link, and add the appropriate information.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
"Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 11 Aug 2006
19:34:00 +0930:
> What we really need are links on local projects to the deletion log on
> Commons for the "no such image" pages... there's nothing like a redlink
> to make people ask "Whoa! What happened to that image?", but unless they
> can find a reason (cf. the deletion record on Commons saying that
> something was a copyvio) they're going to get angry.
We already have that on de.wp - works fine, I think.
Can anyone tell me how I can reply to the daily digest WITHOUT messing up
the whole thread at
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-August/thread.html#511 ?
Thanks in advance,
Flo