Talk:Key:wikimedia commons

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How to add multiple images to a single feature?

I'd like to add multiple images of single guidepost (eg. [1]). Many of the guideposts can't be covered by just one image. The problem is when it has signs from many directions. --*Martin* (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Ideally you should link a relevant category or a galery page, but the tag allows just a direct link to an image (not even its description page, which is quite unfortunate). The doc anyway says that page names (instead of direct URLs) inncluding the File: or Category: namespace or no prefix for the galery page, is now accepted (and in fact even preferable to links which are restrincting to a single server or a single HTTP or HTTPS protocol, allowing the use of external proxies or local caches in applications).
instead I think that linking to the Wikidate entry would offer the best options of exploration (encompassing also the wikipedias with a single entry for all languages, even if we keep just one wikipedia in a default local language). — Verdy_p (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for creating a commons category

"Anything having a Commons Category (not just a file) satisfies the notability criteria and is allowed to have a Wikidata entry. ", but what are the guidelines for creating new categories?

This question should go to the Commons wiki in their community page. Basically, a category is created when calssification of topics requires grouping them and an exisiting category becomes too large to find easily relevant files without additional criteria. There's some structure or ontology, but in fact Commonsis not the only player, and Wikidata also drives the overall organization of topics across all wikis, including but not limtied to Commons and Wikipedia.
Not all knowledge topics has articles in Wikipedia, or images in Commons to illustrate them, and there are even images that cannot be stored on Commons due to copyright restrictions or privacy or the local policy about some critical topics which may be offensive. So thre will exist categories in Wikiepdia with no matching category in Commons, or categories in Commons with no matching category in one or more Wikipedias. But Wikidata will collect data about all wikis and their particularities of what is suitable for one but not for another.
Authors have categories in Wikidata and in Commons because of their books or photos of their creation or personal photos in public events or in public job positions, but they have no key in OSM, as they are not themselves geolocalized. But they can have a Wikidata entry. — Verdy_p (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on the OSM website

On the website it's possible to click through to images tagged with image=* (example: node milestone). People appear to be using that option because it "works".

If we are to promote the use of wikimedia_commons=* it would be good if we could similar click through to images/categories/pages (example: node memorial stone), right? After all this tag is the safer option?

I suggested it today: https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2277 . So far it has been declined though. Maybe time to promote it some more? Personally I'm finding this tag really usefull even without website support. I'm even following some wikipedians, who take a lot of photos for their project, as a way to discover new areas worth mapping. --Hjart (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

OSM website display a link for wikidata=* and wikipedia=*, but not for wikimedia_commons=* ???!!!
This is the same foundation, and the "same" syntax.
See w62280106
--Pyrog (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
As of today the website displays wikimedia_commons=* links (see the conclusion of the github issue) :-) --Hjart (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thanks - waited for years :-) ... Jo Cassel (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Why Category:xxxx#/media/File:yyyy syntax is Controversial ?

I discovered recently this syntax. Not obvious at the first look.

Pro:

  • avoid full URL in image tag
  • avoid hassle to find the URL of the picture
  • Apps supporting wikimedia_commons=* work with this syntax
  • easy to get URL of category and file
    (just click on a picture in a category. Copy the URL, remove the "static" part. JOSM could do this automatically)
  • OSM contributor use image=* key with the full URL probably because they don't know this syntax.
    They use the full URL because apps don't handle wikimedia_commons=* values in image=*.

Cons:

  • "new"
  • few documented
  • others ??

--Pyrog (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Why it would be better over wikimedia_commons=Category:XXXXX or wikimedia_commons=File:YYY syntax? All your "pro" applies also for this standard syntax. wikimedia_commons=Category:xxxx#/media/File:yyyy is less clear and there is subjective selection of image from category Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not better: this is an alternative usage founded in OSM database (probably by experienced wikimedia users ?)
  • I agree that it is less clear (cf. my "Not obvious at the first look.")
  • Of course there is a "subjective selection of image". This is the goal.
    Curently, OSM contributors set the wikimedia category AND specify a "subjective" image with the image=* tag.
    For OSM objects that have only e.g. a wikidata=* tag, the choice of the "subjective" image is done by the wikidata image property. Examples :
--Pyrog (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

As someone who contributed a lot of photos AND categories in Commons and a lot of Links in OSM

for example node 674919702 please, please use

it works: http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/l/de/index.html?zoom=18&lat=51.31467&lon=9.41275&pid=HaHbHcSaHe&select=n674919702

and please avoid such strange ideas like Category:xxxx#/media/File:yyyy there is no need for this. ... Jo Cassel (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jo,

Of course it work :)
And yes, this strange syntax (not idea please) is not yet supported especially by gk.historic.place.
I wrote an issue in this project and work with it developpers to solve it.

But sorry if I change the value of image=* too quickly (I could reverse it)
wikimedia_commons=Category:Flora (Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe) work and should stay "shorten".
Even in OSM website since today (because I discuss with devs and they accept after 5 years a pull request).

wikimedia_commons=Category:Gruab_va_Hardimbl#/media/File:Gruab_va_Hardimbl.jpg work in Overpass Turbo...
and even is OSM website : n4841942392 (one of your object that I edited too)

PS: I didn't invent this syntax, I just discovered it in taginfo

Best regards,
--Pyrog (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
What's the benefit of directly linking to the MediaViewer? It makes it more difficult to open the image full-screen in the browser.
Additionally I consider your linking style very unintuitive for humans and more difficult to parse with machines.--Buraq (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
PS: I didn't invent this syntax, I just discovered it in taginfo
@Pyrog But your are doing mechanical changes to propagate it.--Buraq (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
>What's the benefit of directly linking to the MediaViewer?
Specifying one category and one file with this key, without puting the mess in image=*
  • machine could display the picture as they want (thumbnail, full screen…) with few lines of code
  • the maintenance of OSM database is lower
  • globally, the maintenance of the code is lower too
>Additionally I consider your linking style very unintuitive for humans
I agree that this syntax is not obvious. Category:xxxx#File:yyyy is better (but curently don't work with any software)
But moving File: from image=* to wikimedia_commons=* is not mandatory, especially if it already contain a Category: ;)
>and more difficult to parse with machines
> @Pyrog But your are doing mechanical changes to propagate it
It was manual edits that change "only" 79 OSM objects : https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/NTt
I will do a revert tonight :)

PS: there is 1040 OSM objects with this syntax in image=* : https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/NUd
--Pyrog (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Revert done :-)
--Pyrog (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

... and even is OSM website : n4841942392 (one of your object that I edited too)

the image-Link worked in the past, under image now under wikimedia_commons=Category:... as you can see at the natural monument nearby:

see overpass turbo: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/NVA

  • the tree in the north 2019-11-08: Category:xxxx#/media/File:yyyy IMHO "merged shit"
  • the tree in the south 2019-11-08: image=xxx AND wikimedia_commons:Category:yyy

please please stop your mission, if you want to "merge" OSM-Data -> you can do this in your own application as you like it. (and yes, the OSM-Homepage shoud render wikimedia_commons:Category:yyy as a Link, like overpass turbo does) ... Jo Cassel (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

My "mission" was stopped two days ago. I apologize if I hurt you.
As I said before, I will revert image=* to wikimedia_commons=*
Just to add my two cents: I believe some of the stated 'Pro' arguments aren't accurate.
  • It's not true that applications supporting wikimedia_commons=* automatically work with this new syntax. If all the app does is to insert the static part of a link in front of it, that may be true. But if it wants to, say, download the image to embed it into a page, or obtain licensing information (which may be legally required to be displayed next to the image), they need to be updated for compatibility with your proposed syntax.
  • The proposed syntax is quite hard to remember or write by hand, and it is only easy to get for people who arrive at the image viewer from a commons category page. I suspect many or even most people instead come from a Wikipedia page, or the image may be in a subcategory of the category the user would like to link. Also, some people will have deactivated the new image viewer entirely, preferring the default MediaWiki file pages.
More fundamentally, I believe it is bad data model design to put two separate pieces of information into the same value – this makes for an awkward user experience when trying to change just the image or just the category. I understand wanting to tag both a category and an image at the same time, but it would be easy to define separate keys for these purposes (and we pretty much already have that if image=* is used for the image). --Tordanik 16:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

> It's not true that applications supporting wikimedia_commons=* automatically work with this new syntax
You're right, it's not 100% true.

> The proposed syntax is quite hard to remember or write by hand
I agree: see my comment 09:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC).
>I suspect many or even most people instead come from a Wikipedia page, or the image may be in a subcategory of the category the user would like to link.
I checked image=* values. The prefix could be "wikipedia article", "wikidata item", even "wikimedia file".

> More fundamentally, I believe it is bad data model design to put two separate pieces of information into the same value.
Yes. Unfortunately, this is the case of wikimedia_commons=*. It could contain one image or one category.

> we pretty much already have that if image=* is used for the image
Curently, most? applications don't handle correctly image=File:xxxxx.jpg.
Especially OSM website that don't display links for theses values.
  • But it could change

Cleanup of image=* tag that links to commons

I created this suggestion for cleanup of key:image, see Automated_edits/pangoSE#Key:image.--PangoSE (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)