Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Commons/Archive 1

editing page suggestion

Suggest that after saying what Wikim. is the first thing to present is a quick link for putting something on Wikim. Alethe (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to loading Lukman04 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki troubles and gallery removal

What if there's an image already on Wikipedia with the same filename, but you want to use the Commons version? Also, I've removed most of the gallery of images, only one row is needed to demonstrate. - Kookykman|(t)(c) — Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename one of them to give it a more specific name? pfctdayelise 11:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From redirect to article

I wanted to include an image found on Wikimedia Commons into an article I have been writing. But I could not find quickly how to do it. From some of the comments I saw on other talk pages I am not the only one to have had this problem. So having eventually found the information, to make life easier for those who may need the same information, I have converted this article page from a redirect into an article.

I have chosen to place how to display an image before how to upload an image because I suspect more editors want to use images in articles than want to upload images from Wikipedia to Wikicommons --Philip Baird Shearer 12:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Hopefully this will help people out. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, I was just looking for information of that sort, and you came along and did it a mere three days ago. One question I still have is, should images be uploaded to the Commons in preference to the local Wikipedia, provided the license is correct (i.e., free)? Would there ever be a reason why uploading such images to the local Wikipedia might be better (aside from it being a little easier for the uploader)?--Father Goose 07:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

linking problem

is there any way to link to a commons image if there is an en image (different) of the same title? Savidan 04:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, unfortunately. You can try to get the enwp one deleted (possibly transfer to Commons if appropriate), or re-upload the Commons one under

another name. pfctdayelise (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short linking

I suggest use [[c:]] instead of [[commons:]] to link to Commons. It is shorter and easy to remember (in a similar way to use "w" instead of "wikipedia" to link from Wikimedia sister projercts. --Mac (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of galleries in categories?

While i think it's incredibly useful to be able to browse our thousands of images by sight through categories, we seem to have three standards in effect which essentially makes it a moot point. The first is from WP:FUC which, understandably, states we shouldn't have galleries of unfree images without commentary. The second is from this page, which states that we should move all free images to commons for better accessibility and maintainibility (again, this makes sense). The third though, says that we shouldn't categorize images from commons here. This makes category galleries pointless. I also can't fathom why we wouldn't want to transclude the images from commons into categories when the feature is already worked into the software so nicely. While categorizing the images in commons is just as important, individual wikis (especially those in other languages) will likely need their own categorization outside of how commons goes about it. -03:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zappernapper (talk • contribs) 03:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lag

Is there a lag between when items are posted on commons and when they are available on Wikipedia? Hyacinth (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I've ever seen. Can you give a link to the media on Commons that you're trying to use, so I can look into it?--Father Goose (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a 12+ hour lag on files linked from 72 equal temperament. I'd start looking at Image:4 steps in 72-et on C.mid and move up in # of steps (since the quarter tone files as well as the just ratio files where already made and mostly uploaded to Wikipedia). Hyacinth (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, maybe it's specific to midi files. Maybe it has to scan them or something first. Pass your question along to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and Commons:Village pump, that's your best shot of getting an actual answer.--Father Goose (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably due to caching, did you purge the cache when it didn't show up initially? Mr.Z-man 23:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know what that is. Hyacinth (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement of established Commons links by obscure {{Subject bar}} template?

We have long had a fairly stable style of linking to Commons (see WP:COMMONS) through the {{Commons category}} template.

There is also a template {{Subject bar}}. News to me too - I'd never heard of it until today. Seems it's not too popular, it hit TfD for the second time recently Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_1#Template:Subject_bar, "A mere 1,477 transclusions in 4.8 million articles, in over four years, show that this template has failed to gain traction with the community;". Note also that this {{Subject bar}} template uses the Commons search mechanism (and its random return of synonyms) rather than linking simply and directly to a useful category.

There is now a push, at least on MILHIST topics, [1] [2] [3] to remove the existing Commons link template and replace it through the {{Subject bar}} style. I've no great aversion to {{Subject bar}} as a portal or navbox, it's yet more of that useless crud that accumulates at the bottom of pages rather than useful editing, but there is as yet no consensus to start removing the established, recognised and functional template.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In each of those 3 milhist articles (after conversion to use subject_bar) the Commons link goes straight to the relevant Commons page; perhaps it only uses the search mechanism if there isn't an exact match - which seems reasonable to me (does/should the normal Commons template do that?). I don't like the subject_bar template as it unneccessarily introduces another way of formatting these links (one of the great strengths of wp, IMO, is that we have articles on a wide range of subjects all presented in a fairly consistent format), but (based on these articles) I wouldn't criticise it for using a search mechanism. DexDor^(talk) 21:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICS, they all link to the search box. Commons then maps that onto a category, if there is one high in the search results. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I go to the Panzer II page and click on the link lebelled "Media" then I'm taken to the Commons page titled "Panzerkampfwagen II" (i.e. exactly where I want to go) - what's the problem? DexDor^(talk) 22:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit source] Hi everyone! I am in a course about Wikipedia and for our final project, we were challenged to address a problem in Wikipedia, conduct research on it and then report our findings with a suggestion for improvement. For the project, my partner and I decided to address the issue of Wikimedia Commons and how the discoverability and searchability need to improve. I am not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, so if you have a better place, please let me know!! Please go to my talk page if you would be willing to chat with me about your problems with Wikimedia Commons and how we can address those. Thanks in advance! (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lieseylulu (talk • contribs) 16:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Wishes: FileExporter and FileImporter will become default features on all Wikis

The FileExporter and FileImporter will become default features on August 5th, 2020 on all Wikis. They help you to move files from your local Wiki to Wikimedia Commons, while keeping all original file information (description, source, date, author, and revision history) intact. The project to improve moving files to Wikimedia Commons originates from WMDE’s 2013 Technical Wishes survey, where it was voted into the top wishes for technological improvements by the German-speaking Wikipedia Community.

How does it work?

1. Step: If you are an auto-confirmed user, you will see a link “Export to Wikimedia Commons” in the toolbar on the local file page.

2. Step: When you click on this link, the FileImporter checks if the file can be moved to Commons. These checks are performed based on the wiki’s configuration page which is created and maintained by each local wiki community.

3. Step: If the file is compatible with Commons, you will be taken to a preview page on Wikimedia Commons, where you can update or add information about the file, such as the description. You can also add the ‘Now Commons’ template to the file on the source wiki by clicking the corresponding check box on the preview page on Wikimedia Commons. Admins can delete the file from the local Wiki by clicking the checkbox ‘delete file on source wiki in my name’. By clicking on the ‘Import’ button at the end of the page, the file is imported to Wikimedia Commons.

If you want to know more about the FileImporter extension or the Technical Wishes Project, follow the links. We are looking forward to answering your questions and getting your feedback on our central feedback page. --For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]