Media of the day

Hello, regarding the 'Media of the day' section on the main page, to maintain consistent quality, I suggest that all media featured there—such as the image of the day—should be sourced from the featured media list. While there may be a limited number (278) of medias (especially if we aim to display one per day), this approach could encourage more users to contribute high-quality content and to suggest it to be featured media. Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Disagree, there's far too few of these files. Instead, more people can readily contribute to the featured media pages such as adding or replacing files there. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, that's the issue. There are too few featured media, even though many existing files have the potential to qualify. Just like featured articles and featured images, featured media should showcase the highest quality content. That would be the most logical and consistent approach in my opinion. Riad Salih (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

It won't change, no need to drag other parts of the site down with it.
Improve it independently albeit it's somewhat a time-sink with not much tangible benefit. Instead of using featured media for media, people also can use MOTD via the category. Except for a few exceptions which are partly in a subcat, motd files also are highest quality content. It's not feasible and again, if some part of the site is suboptimal or not active enough, there is no need to have it drastically affect other functionalities. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

If it's no longer active and provides no tangible benefit, we close it, archive the page, and move on. Riad Salih (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose; as Prototyperspective said, there simply isn't enough featured media to make this feasible. But it is worth discussing whether MotD is even sustainable. As it stands, it seems like the majority of the media displayed on the front page is videos imported from YouTube; this doesn't feel like a good demonstration of what Commons has to offer. Omphalographer (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that much where the file was originally uploaded. It doesn't even interest most users nor is it any problem. Lots of videos are also from elsewhere such as from studies or uploaded by users but YouTube is the most widely-used easiest way people upload their videos so it's likely that's where many of the better-quality files are from. I don't know why it feels that way for you but what matters is the file itself, not where it was first uploaded and given the low view-counts and low activity and low feedback on Commons and lack of search indexing of videos on Commons in Google & DuckDuckGo's Videos tab, it's more than understandable that people upload to YT first/only. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, until recent improvements in Video2Commons, it was a lot easier even for our own users to upload to YouTube or Vimeo and from there to Commons, rather than directly from their own machine to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 22:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree. Video2Commons is quite outdated, and I hope the developers can update it from time to time. Riad Salih (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Upload permission

When a file is marked for new file upload, it should be automatically unmarked after the person uploads, either by a bot that deletes old upload templates, or by the system itself once a certain amount of time passes. This is so that not every single autoconfirmed person can upload their own file. Anohthterwikipedian (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Add PD-algorithm

For whatever reason, while the Upload Wizard has a default tag for {{PD-algorithm}}, the regular upload page doesn’t. When added, it should have the tag Generated with AI. Anohthterwikipedian (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)