From WikiCommons the following seem currently to be the most wanted additions to Wikimedia Software:
1. The possibility to use images on commons directly on Wikipedia 2. Getting a thumbnail of an image in a category (and for non-images some descriptive text) instead of just the page title on a category page.
Unfortunately, it does not seem like there are any active developers on WikiCommons currently, so I am throwing this into the larger group in the hope someone will be interested in programming them.
Andre Engels
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 03:07:15PM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
From WikiCommons the following seem currently to be the most wanted additions to Wikimedia Software:
- The possibility to use images on commons directly on Wikipedia
- Getting a thumbnail of an image in a category (and for non-images some
descriptive text) instead of just the page title on a category page.
Unfortunately, it does not seem like there are any active developers on WikiCommons currently, so I am throwing this into the larger group in the hope someone will be interested in programming them.
1) Any proposed syntax for it?
2) There already is a Special:Newimages in 1.4-pre that is intended for commons, it shows the latest uploads as thumbnail galery. It was written with cateogry pages in mind, so adding this will not take too long.
Regards,
JeLuF
Jens Frank wrote:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 03:07:15PM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
From WikiCommons the following seem currently to be the most wanted additions to Wikimedia Software:
- The possibility to use images on commons directly on Wikipedia
- Getting a thumbnail of an image in a category (and for non-images some
descriptive text) instead of just the page title on a category page.
Unfortunately, it does not seem like there are any active developers on WikiCommons currently, so I am throwing this into the larger group in the hope someone will be interested in programming them.
Any proposed syntax for it?
There already is a Special:Newimages in 1.4-pre that is intended for
commons, it shows the latest uploads as thumbnail galery. It was written with cateogry pages in mind, so adding this will not take too long.
Regards,
JeLuF _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
The syntax is simple: it is the same syntax as the local syntax, when the image/sound is not found locally, it should be looked for in Commons. When a picture is uploaded it it should be possible to upload to Commons, depending on the license. Fair use for instance is not allowed in some wikipedia and therefore is not allowed in Commons.
When this mechanism is implemented, we can start migrating pictures to Commons, paricularly the pictures that are used in more than one wikipedia. Many pictures have interwiki links to indicate them as a shared resource.
Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:41:54 +0200 Jens Frank JeLuF@gmx.de wrote:
- The possibility to use images on commons directly on Wikipedia
- Getting a thumbnail of an image in a category (and for non-images some
descriptive text) instead of just the page title on a category page.
Unfortunately, it does not seem like there are any active developers on WikiCommons currently, so I am throwing this into the larger group in the hope someone will be interested in programming them.
- Any proposed syntax for it?
The _preferred_ syntax would be no syntax at all. For a Media or Image-link, first the local wiki is checked whether it exists. If not, it is looked at in WikiCommons. This is preferred, because it is how thing will go in the Erik's envisioned 'fully operating' WikiCommons.
However, if it is easier to program, the alternative would be: Have keywords 'Commons' and 'Commonsmedia', which have the same or similar syntax as Image and Media.
- There already is a Special:Newimages in 1.4-pre that is intended for
commons, it shows the latest uploads as thumbnail galery. It was written with cateogry pages in mind, so adding this will not take too long.
Cool and thanks!
Andre Engels
Le Monday 27 September 2004 13:31, Andre Engels a écrit :
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:41:54 +0200 Jens Frank JeLuF@gmx.de wrote:
- The possibility to use images on commons directly on Wikipedia
- Getting a thumbnail of an image in a category (and for non-images
some descriptive text) instead of just the page title on a category page.
Unfortunately, it does not seem like there are any active developers on WikiCommons currently, so I am throwing this into the larger group in the hope someone will be interested in programming them.
- Any proposed syntax for it?
The _preferred_ syntax would be no syntax at all. For a Media or Image-link, first the local wiki is checked whether it exists. If not, it is looked at in WikiCommons. This is preferred, because it is how thing will go in the Erik's envisioned 'fully operating' WikiCommons.
No. It is necessary that the image from Commons can be forced over an image with the same name in the local wiki.
Cool and thanks!
Andre Engels
Yann
On Sep 27, 2004, at 5:09 AM, Yann Forget wrote:
The _preferred_ syntax would be no syntax at all. For a Media or Image-link, first the local wiki is checked whether it exists. If not, it is looked at in WikiCommons. This is preferred, because it is how thing will go in the Erik's envisioned 'fully operating' WikiCommons.
No. It is necessary that the image from Commons can be forced over an image with the same name in the local wiki.
Any reason that this must be necessary?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Le Monday 27 September 2004 23:32, Brion Vibber a écrit :
On Sep 27, 2004, at 5:09 AM, Yann Forget wrote:
The _preferred_ syntax would be no syntax at all. For a Media or Image-link, first the local wiki is checked whether it exists. If not, it is looked at in WikiCommons. This is preferred, because it is how thing will go in the Erik's envisioned 'fully operating' WikiCommons.
No. It is necessary that the image from Commons can be forced over an image with the same name in the local wiki.
Any reason that this must be necessary?
I can easily imagine that images in local wikis and Wikicommons have the same name. I want to be able to choose which one I want to use.
You can't avoid uploading images in Wikicommons with a name which is already used in a local wiki.
And if there has to be a default, it should be Wikicommons, I think.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Yann
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:43:56 +0200 Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
No. It is necessary that the image from Commons can be forced over an image with the same name in the local wiki.
Any reason that this must be necessary?
I can easily imagine that images in local wikis and Wikicommons have the same name. I want to be able to choose which one I want to use.
You can't avoid uploading images in Wikicommons with a name which is already used in a local wiki.
And if there has to be a default, it should be Wikicommons, I think.
I disagree. I think local is the better default, for several reasons: * It's easier for someone who uploads to a local Wikipedia to check whether there isn't a conflict than for someone who uploads to WikiCommons * The number of 'real' conflicts is smaller: If WikiCommons is the default, there is a problem every time someone uploads a picture with a title already used on WikiCommons. If local is the default, there is a conflict only if the WikiCommons picture is used on that specific Wiki. * When someone has made, for example, a translation of an image, they can upload it locally under the title of the existing image and be ready * When uploading an image locally with a title already existing on WikiCommons, we could automatically upload the Commons picture as an 'old version', making the existence of conflicts even more clear.
Also, it seems conceptually more logical - just like in object oriented programming when you define the same method on a parent and a child class, for the child class the 'local' version is taken rather than the 'global' (actually, reason #3 here has much the same feel as method overwriting in OO).
Andre Engels
Hi,
Le Tuesday 28 September 2004 13:58, Andre Engels a écrit :
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:43:56 +0200 Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
And if there has to be a default, it should be Wikicommons, I think.
I disagree. I think local is the better default, for several reasons:
- It's easier for someone who uploads to a local Wikipedia to check whether
there isn't a conflict than for someone who uploads to WikiCommons
- The number of 'real' conflicts is smaller: If WikiCommons is the default,
there is a problem every time someone uploads a picture with a title already used on WikiCommons. If local is the default, there is a conflict only if the WikiCommons picture is used on that specific Wiki.
- When someone has made, for example, a translation of an image, they can
upload it locally under the title of the existing image and be ready
- When uploading an image locally with a title already existing on
WikiCommons, we could automatically upload the Commons picture as an 'old version', making the existence of conflicts even more clear.
Ok, I understand your arguments.
Also, it seems conceptually more logical - just like in object oriented programming when you define the same method on a parent and a child class, for the child class the 'local' version is taken rather than the 'global' (actually, reason #3 here has much the same feel as method overwriting in OO).
Well, my idea is, if we want to promote Wikicommons, it should be the default. So this shows that we need to be able to choose from local or Wikicommons, whatever the default is.
Andre Engels
Yann
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:17:18 +0200, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Well, my idea is, if we want to promote Wikicommons, it should be the default. So this shows that we need to be able to choose from local or Wikicommons, whatever the default is.
I think the action to encourage would be to re-upload images to Commons, deleting the originals, and investigating their copyright status in the process. The choice would come from being able to override the Commons image with a local version. This way round also has the advantage that existing uses of images won't break if somebody from another language uploads a "korea.jpeg" that's not equivalent to your "korea.jpeg", but can be made to use the shared version as soon as you confirm that the two *are* equivalent by deleting your local one.
I can see that there might be a few cases where you really wanted to say "please by-pass the local version of this file, but don't delete it", but many of these could be handled by intelligent naming conventions "korea (translated).jpeg" coupled with a working "move/rename image" function. This makes for fewer possible permutations of image location, each of which can be explained to users: * is on Commons * is in local upload area * local version obscuring Commons version (point this out on Image: page, encouraging one or other to be renamed if both might be wanted) but not: * is available locally, but bypassed to access Commons version (indicating "this image is available locally on the wiki you just came from, but has been bypassed" is more-or-less impossible technically)
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org