Commons-l September 2015

commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org

12 participants
6 discussions

Video skills and equipment
by Lars Aronsson 16 Apr '25

16 Apr '25

I just tried to watch some presentation videos from Wikimania. Some had very weak sound, some had no sound in the first minutes, some only played the first minute and then stopped. I don't think the Wikimania videos are unique in having such problems. Video is new to Commons, and the expert contributors are more familiar with still images. How can we learn to make better videos? Are there some good instructions? Perhaps a free instruction video (Wikibooks, but a video instead of a book) on how to produce good videos is what we need. In fact, the English Wikibooks has a title on "Video Production", http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Video_Production but it doesn't have a clear focus (pun not intended). It starts out with discussing satellite TV and has long sections on file formats in different operating systems. There is a help page on Commons for converting video to the Ogg Theora format, but that is only the last step in a long chain. Given that video is new, how can we find and rate videos, nominate "good/featured videos", and give advice on how to improve quality? Is the Commons village pump enough for this? Commons has a separate graphics village pump. Do we also need a separate video village pump? Current digital video cameras use hard disks or memory cards, instead of tape cassettes. Many new models cost less than 300 euro (or dollars), some as little as 120 euro (memory card perhaps not included). Some have a special "Youtube mode", and I guess that kind of usage is what drives the price down. What models are good, and what should one watch out for? We can find free still photos on Flickr and copy them to Commons. Is there somewhere we can find free videos and copy them? Yes, at the Internet Archive. Somewhere else? -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

4 5

Re: [Commons-l] [Multimedia] An image metadata standard to automate attribution and license info
by Yongmin Hong 30 Sep '15

30 Sep '15

If you want Commons' community opinion, you'd better see commons-l. (CC'd) -- revi https://revi.me -- Sent from Android -- 2015. 9. 30. 오전 6:19에 "Jane Park" <janepark(a)creativecommons.org>님이 작성: > Hi everyone, > > I lead platform work > <https://github.com/creativecommons/platform-initiative> at Creative > Commons. As part of that work, we are exploring the potential of a standard > field in EXIF that could make attribution and license info more sticky > across the web. We are currently in the research phase -- talking to major > image hosting platforms (and platforms that read and ingest images) about > what kinds of image metadata they read and retain. Zhou and his engineering > team at Wikimedia directed me to this list as I am seeking feedback from > the Wikimedia community. > > Ultimately, we want to make it easier for platforms to display provenance > and license info -- increase the likelihood that when a user lands on an > image, they know who created it and what license to use it under. For > example, images from Wikimedia Commons may get tweeted, but the image > metadata is not retained in tweets. How can we work with platforms to use > the same metadata standard so that info can be retained across them? > > Since we are just in the research phase now, I welcome your thoughts on > Wikimedia Commons' and Wikipedia's own uses of image metadata. Specifically: > > 1. The most common image metadata standards we know about are EXIF and > XMP. Which does Wikimedia primarily read and retain? Are there others that > are more widely used? > 2. Which standard does Wikimedia prefer? What would be easiest to > implement? for Wikimedia, but also for the platforms that Wikimedia > interfaces with. Aka, what are the pros and cons of each? > > Lastly, welcome any general thoughts about the feasibility and need for > such a project. > > Best, > Jane > > > Jane Park > @janedaily > Creative Commons | Los Angeles > > Make a donation to support CC in 2015: http://bit.ly/supportcc2015 > > _______________________________________________ > Multimedia mailing list > Multimedia(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia > >

1 0

SQL help needed
by Tuszynski, Jarek W. 16 Sep '15

16 Sep '15

Lately I wrote https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/5201 to find Commons license templates with no transclusions, which were then listed for deletion at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Unused_license… . Now I would like to also get list of creators of those templates, so I can alert them about the discussion. Is there some easy way to do it, or do I need to modify the query somehow to get it? If so does anybody have some example queries that do it? Thanks Jarek T. [[user:jarekt]]

2 2

Re: [Commons-l] [Wikidata] Trends in links from Wikidata items to Commons
by Romaine Wiki 14 Sep '15

14 Sep '15

I think this subject should also be discussed on the Commons mailing list, as this plan is to demolish the navigational structure of Commons. 2015-08-27 15:03 GMT+02:00 Romaine Wiki <romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com>: > No we have not a clear policy on only linking sitelinks to categories if > the item itself is about a category. So not let's not break that. > > You suggest to break down almost the complete navigational structure > Commons has in relationship with Wikipedia, and makes it possible to find > articles that are about the same subject as the category. Without it > becomes almost impossible to identify a category on Commons to be related > to an article in Wikipedia. > Sorry, but your proposal is insane and making the navigational situation a > thousand times worse. And does it make anything better? No, totally not. > Only the opposite: worse. > > Wikidata is currently heavily used to connect categories on Commons to > articles on Wikipedia. This so that interwikilinks are shown on the > category on Commons to the related Wikipedia article. This for navigational > purposes but also to uniquely identify categories on Commons to articles on > Wikipedia and items on Wikidata. > > How nice Commons galleries are giving an overview, they are crap in > speaking of navigational purposes. For every subject a category on Commons > is created and used and the Commons categories form the backbone to media > categories. > > It has been pointed out for a long time that the linking situation on > Commons is problematic and this is a software issue, not a user side issue. > This consists out of: > * There can only be added one sitelink to an item. > * If no sitelink added (but only added as property), a Commons category > can't show the interwikilinks. > * If a category and an article on Wikipedia/etc exist for a subject, only > one of them can be shown on the Commons category. > > The annoying part is that some large wikis, especially the English > Wikipedia, creates too many categories that are not created on other > Wikipedias. This causes that categories on Commons are only linked to a > category on Wikipedia, which is useless for most other wikis and on Commons > we miss an interwikilink to the related article. > > A gallery on Commons is a great way as alternative to show images, but is > not suitable for navigational purposes, as that requires a much higher > coverage and being a backbone everything relies on. On Commons only > categories have that function. A counter proposal makes more sense: no > Commons galleries as sitelinks any more and having Commons galleries only > as property added. > > But this only solves a part of the problem: on Commons I would like to see > somehow that both the related category as the related article are shown. > Example: on the Commons category for a specific country both the country > category on Wikipedia is linked as the article on Wikipedia is linked. > > Something I have been wondering about for a long time is why there are 2 > places on an item where a Commonscat is added. I understand the development > and technical behind it, but this should not be needed. > > So the developers of Wikidata should try to find a way to show both groups > of interwikilinks on categories on Commons. > > As long as this is not resolved in software, this problem of 2 items both > strongly related to a Commons category keeps an issue. > > Romaine > > > > > > 2015-08-27 11:29 GMT+02:00 James Heald <j.heald(a)ucl.ac.uk>: > >> A few days ago I made the following post to Project Chat, looking at how >> people are linking from Wikidata items to Commons categories and galleries >> compared to a year ago, that some people on the list may have seen, which >> has now been archived: >> >> >> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2015/08#Trends_… >> >> >> A couple of headlines: >> >> * Category <-> commonscat identifications : >> >> ** There was a net increase of 61,784 Commons categories that can now be >> identified with category-like items, to 323,825 Commons categories in all >> >> ** 96.4% of category <-> commonscat identifications (312,266 items) now >> have sitelinks. This represents a rise in sitelinks (60,463 items) >> amounting to 97.8% of the increase in identifications >> >> ** 80.0% of category <-> commonscat identifications (259,164 items) now >> have P373 statements. This represents a rise in P373 statements (8,774 >> items) amounting to 14.2% of the increase in identifications >> >> >> * Article <-> commonscat identifications : >> >> ** There was a net increase of 176,382 Commons categories that can now be >> identified with article-like items, to 884,439 Commons categories in all >> >> ** 23.4% of article <-> commonscat identifications (207,494 items) now >> have (deprecated) sitelinks. This represents a rise in sitelinks (112,595 >> items) amounting to 63.8% of the increase in identifications. >> >> ** 91.3% of article <-> commonscat identifications (807,776 items) now >> have P373 statements. This represents a rise in P373 statements (110,727 >> items) amounting to 62.8% of the increase in identifications >> >> >> * In addition, a recent RfC showed considerable confusion as to what >> actually was the current operational Wikidata policy on sitelinks to >> Commons: >> >> >> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Category_common… >> >> >> In view of the trends above; and the need for predictability and >> consistency for queries and templates and scripts to depend on; and >> particularly in view of the apparent confusion as to what the operational >> policy currently actually is, can I suggest that the time has come for a >> bot to monitor all new sitelinks to Commons categories, >> * adding a corresponding P373 statement if there is not one already, and >> * removing the sitelink if it is from an article-like item to a >> commonscat. >> >> >> I believe we have clear policy on only sitelinking commons categories to >> category-like items, and commons galleries to article-like items; but there >> is currently confusion and unpredictability being caused because these >> relationships are not being enforced -- breaking scripts and queries. >> >> It's time to fix this. >> >> >> All best, >> >> James. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> > >

9 9

Re: [Commons-l] [Wikidata] Trends in links from Wikidata items to Commons
by Federico Leva (Nemo) 14 Sep '15

14 Sep '15

Luca Martinelli, 30/08/2015 12:03: > Am I the only one that thinks that jheald's .js is a temporary solution? > Am I the only one that actually appreciate his attempt at solving a > *practical* problem by providing a *practical* solution, It might be a practical solution, but I don't understand what it solves: what's the practical problem? Quoting from the project chat, the problem to me seems this: «2.4 millions categories are not connected to corresponding Wikipedia articles. [...] — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)». Nemo

7 11

Re: [Commons-l] [Wikidata] Trends in links from Wikidata items to Commons
by Romaine Wiki 13 Sep '15

13 Sep '15

As I wrote before, that thought is too simple. You only say that a zero belongs to a zero, and a two belongs to a two, then you only describe the type of page, but you ignore the subject of a page. That subject matters much more than the namespace number. Especially Wikinews is a wrong example, as most categories on Commons do not have a 1 to 1 relationship with Commons. However, articles on Wikipedia do have mostly a 1 on 1 relationship with categories on Commons. Romaine 2015-08-28 17:09 GMT+02:00 Luca Martinelli <martinelliluca(a)gmail.com>: > 2015-08-28 12:09 GMT+02:00 Romaine Wiki <romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com>: > > And I agree completely with what Revi says: > >> Wikidata ignores this Commons' fact by trying to enforce ridiculous > rules > >> like this. > > It's not such a ridiculous rule, if you think of the rationale behind > it: if gallery = ns0 and category = ns2, linking ns0 <--> ns2 in the > same item is IMHO not a rational thing to do (not even for Wikinews if > you ask me, but I'm digressing). > > So the *practical* problem that we have to address is the list of > links in the left column. We really don't have any possibilty to > exploit P373 in any way, not even with a .js, to fix this? > > L. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >

5 5

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Commons-l September 2015