User talk:Stereo
"Bot: Converted openstreetmap.org links to https" - it only pollutes watchlists, http to https redirects will exist for a long time... Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Mateusz, thank you. To minimise that pollution, the one-off edits were all marked as minor, which can be excluded from watchlists. The edit summary was clear, and allowed quick processing. The move from http to https has been tedious partially because some http clients do not reliably follow redirects, so anything that easily encourages https in user configs is desirable. It also saves those redirects, making the internet just a tiny bit faster. -- Stereo (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- MediaWiki has a bot flag for these kinds of edits, we should really start making use of it. Not all "minor" edits by human users are unproblematic, so I'd rather not hide them. (I believe there's not really a mechanism for handing out bot flags at the moment, though, so that's not really your fault.) --Tordanik 21:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Internal wiki links
In this example, it would have been better to replace the link with [[IndoorOSM#PicLayer]], as it's an internal link. Perhaps a possible improvement for your bot if you plan on running it again in the future.
Likewise, it would have been preferable to replace http links to wiki.openstreetmap.org with internal links instead of just replacing http with https, such as with the following examples (and likely many more, I just superficially checked some of the ones on my watchlist): [1], [2], [3]. --Tordanik 21:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to run it again and do that. I do feel that such a change would be mostly cosmetic, and not significantly change the way our users experience the wiki. On the other hand, most of the remaining http links to the wiki could be fixed that way. Until we can get that bot flag working, I will attempt to minimise the pollution that Mateusz has complained about. When we can, there are many other small things we could fix, like converting html tags to wiki syntax and fixing bad wiki markup. How difficult do you think it would be to set it up? -- Stereo (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- The main benefit of the internal links is that they work with tools such as "links to this page" and therefore will not be overlooked when moving pages or doing other wiki maintenance. But sure, it's not terribly high priority.
- Right now, there's only a handful accounts with bot permissions, all of them a few years old. I suggest just finding an admin who seems to be active at the moment and asking them to flag your bot account. Asking on Talk:Wiki also has a chance of working. --Tordanik 17:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Estuaire du saint-Laurent
Bonjour, Il n'y a pas d'articles Wikipédia sur l'estuaire fluviale, le moyen estuaire et l'estuaire maritime, j'aimerais ajouter l'attribut wikidata aux relations de l'estuaire du Saint-Laurent (2426031 = Q50415467, 2433221 = Q50415472 et 4555382 = Q50415473) mais je ne sais pas comment ajouter les tags wikidata. Je note aussi que l'estuaire fluviale devrait commencer à la fin du lac Saint-Pierre et l'estuaire moyen après l’Île d'Orléans (Référence). Merci pour ton aide, --YanikB (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
GSoC project ideas page
Hi Stereo, you're right that the Google Summer of Code project ideas page was written with a capital letter "I" in past years, but I had decided to finally start following the wiki guidelines for page names this year. Do you mind me moving it back to Google Summer of Code/2019/Project ideas? --Tordanik 18:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I found it totally annoying that changing the year from 2019 to 2018 in the url only returned an error Message. For the sake of consistency I support Stereos move Operation and highly appreciate it to leave it this way. Mmd (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I see how being able to easily access past years' content would be useful. I've moved it back, but created all necessary redirects first to ensure that editing the URL gets the user to their destination. I hope this works for everyone! --Tordanik 21:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Missing file information
Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.
Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.
Are you the author of image File:CFL-OSM-RoodtSyre.jpg ?
Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?
Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ".
Doing this would be already very useful.
Licensing - photos
In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?
In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.
Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?
Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?
If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.
You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified March 2022}} from the file page.
Licensing - other images
If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.
See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.
note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.
note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.
Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.
Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.
Help
Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.
Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).
If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.
--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Mateusz, thank you for your efforts! It's great that someone is cleaning up the wiki like that. No, I didn't take that picture, and almost a decade later, I can't remember who sent it to me. It's not used anywhere, and can be deleted. -- Stereo (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I marked it for deletion then :( One of reasons why I am trying to do is to start notifying uploaders with delay smaller than a decade Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Missing file information
Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.
Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.
Are you the creator of image File:Sumo luxembourg.jpg ?
Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?
Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ" or "this is map generated from OpenStreetMap data and SRTM data" or "map generated from OSM data and only OSM data" or "This is my work based on file -link-to-page-with-that-file-and-its-licensing-info-" or "used file downloaded from internet to create it, no idea which one".
Doing this would be already very useful.
Licensing - photos
In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?
In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.
Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?
Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?
If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.
You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self|Stereo}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, June}} from the file page.
Licensing - other images
If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.
See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.
note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.
note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.
Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.
Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.
Help
Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.
Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).
If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.
(sorry if I missed something that already states license and source: I am looking through over 20 000 files and fixing obvious cases on my own, in other I ask people who upladed files, but it is possible that I missed something - in such case also please answer)
--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)