|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Forum:Wikimedia Commons
I think we should stop using images hosted at Wikimedia Commons and (if such a thing is possible) disable the feature that has allowed us to do so. Aside from laziness & space-saving, I really don't see any advantage in Commons images in Commons rather than uploading copies. AS far as I know, server space taken up by images isn't too much of an issue for RW, but maybe one of the techs can advise on this aspect.
Anyway, weighed against that are all the problems of transcluding offsite content. Images get deleted from Commons all the time, which can leave an ugly redlink in place of an image on our side. Or, if an image is deleted from RW, any pages which include the image will revert to any Commons file with the same name, as happened with image:Ace.jpg.
But worst of all is the horrible rendering of Commons images when they appear on RW. Probably the most noticeable examples are the flags - see e.g. Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Japan. I think it's just plain embarassing to have such distorted graphics featured prominently at the top of mainspace articles.
What say you, mob? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- The horrible rendering is a bug, it can be fixed by purging the image, e.g. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_Croatia.svg&action=purge but yeah, I otherwise I agree. -- Nx / talk 21:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck uploading the 100s of images that would then need replacing. Nowwhat? 21:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can't those images be localised by some sort of bot type creature or similar automated process? --MtDPinko Scum 22:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- In theory yes but it would take while to write the script. Blue (pester) 22:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ideally a bot should pick up the flags, and other stuff should be checked by hand, as I suspect a lot of it was just adding commons pics to articles for the sake of it rather than anything that really enhances the article. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. It would be simpler to have a bot go through and just remove all Commons pics, and start from scratch with uploading only really relevant images. Blue (is useful) 19:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ideally a bot should pick up the flags, and other stuff should be checked by hand, as I suspect a lot of it was just adding commons pics to articles for the sake of it rather than anything that really enhances the article. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
- In theory yes but it would take while to write the script. Blue (pester) 22:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can't those images be localised by some sort of bot type creature or similar automated process? --MtDPinko Scum 22:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck uploading the 100s of images that would then need replacing. Nowwhat? 21:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Weaseloid, as usual.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- I shall write a bot, if you tell me what you want it to do. - π
00:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- What I suggest is that, for every image used in template:countrybox in our articles, the bot should upload a copy of the WM Commons file to RW, with the same file name. This will pick up all the flags & leave others to be checked manually, as above. However, I suggest we check for further community consensus before going ahead. If it's possible, & there is community support, I also suggest disabling the WM Commons feature at RW. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 11:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have just spotted that upload includes "source URL" - it's one of those things I've seen before but the penny has just dropped - so that ticks the "lazy oik" button. From searching through commons and copy-pasting the file name, it's not much of an extra step to do an upload via URL for it too. Now, in theory if we "upload new version" from that source URL bar we'd overwrite the shared image with a local one, problem solved, right?
pathetic 12:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have just spotted that upload includes "source URL" - it's one of those things I've seen before but the penny has just dropped - so that ticks the "lazy oik" button. From searching through commons and copy-pasting the file name, it's not much of an extra step to do an upload via URL for it too. Now, in theory if we "upload new version" from that source URL bar we'd overwrite the shared image with a local one, problem solved, right?
- What I suggest is that, for every image used in template:countrybox in our articles, the bot should upload a copy of the WM Commons file to RW, with the same file name. This will pick up all the flags & leave others to be checked manually, as above. However, I suggest we check for further community consensus before going ahead. If it's possible, & there is community support, I also suggest disabling the WM Commons feature at RW. Wéáśéĺóíď
- I shall write a bot, if you tell me what you want it to do. - π
- The "blurry image" bug appears to be caused by using a cached thumbnail with a lower resolution than the one necessary. In the case of county flags, I think that the problem is caused by the thumbnails used in Importance of religion by country. So, instead of disabling images from Commons, I suggest removing the ornamental flags from that article.
- As for "if an image is deleted from RW, any pages which include the image will revert to any Commons file with the same name": it should be the responsibility of anyone deleting an image to remove the red links from all the pages it was used on. It's not like they are not listed on the image page...--ZooGuard (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- From what I can gather, that's a local caching bug to do with rendering out SVG files and saving a rasterised image locally - so really the solution would be to fix the local bug, not mess around with content to get accommodate it (although the latter is usually the easiest and most available proximal solution). moral 14:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- But what advantages are actually to be gained by using WM Commons images, weighed against the problems that go with it? WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not just SVGs. Of course the ideal solution would be to fix the local bug, but a more realistic one is to just upload local copies of the images. -- Nx / talk 18:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Advantages are that the shared repository saves time, space and gives us effectively the whole of the commons archive at our fingertips. But at the moment it's presenting enough disadvantages to say "upload via URL is probably worth the extra hassle". bomination 18:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Advantages are that the shared repository saves time, space and gives us effectively the whole of the commons archive at our fingertips. But at the moment it's presenting enough disadvantages to say "upload via URL is probably worth the extra hassle".
- It's not just SVGs. Of course the ideal solution would be to fix the local bug, but a more realistic one is to just upload local copies of the images. -- Nx / talk 18:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- But what advantages are actually to be gained by using WM Commons images, weighed against the problems that go with it? Wēāŝēīōīď
- From what I can gather, that's a local caching bug to do with rendering out SVG files and saving a rasterised image locally - so really the solution would be to fix the local bug, not mess around with content to get accommodate it (although the latter is usually the easiest and most available proximal solution).
Instructions on upload form[edit]
The instructions on Special:Upload tell you, in bold, that you should not upload files found on Wikipedia or other WikiMedia Foundation sites. Aside from being incorrect (only files on Commons work like this, files on WP might be non-free files not hosted on Commons), this should probably be removed as it encourages people to use Commons files, which it seems we don't want any more. -- Nx / talk 20:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ditto for Help:Images -- Nx / talk 20:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
On removing the Commons functionality[edit]
I don't see any reason why it would be good to remove the Commons interaction. Removing it would create more work than there is with it. I don't see why we should have to bother with reuploading images from it (and having to copy the licensing) when we can just add the name of the file like any other. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 20:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)