Talk:InstantCommons/Archive 2


 * Background: see also m:Meta:Babel/Archives/2008-12.
 * /Archive 1 (2006-2008)

Caching
How long is a failure cached?

I tried using a file on RationalWiki, which uses InstantCommons. The file didn't exist (it was on en:wp, not Commons). I moved the file to Commons, but RationalWiki still thinks it doesn't exist in the foreign file repo. "?action=purge" does nothing. How long do I have to wait? RW is using 1.14.1. - David Gerard 12:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ... aaaand there it is. Never mind me - David Gerard 12:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Scalability issues still present?
Have the issues related to scalability been solved? Or is there still a risk of DoS attacks? Has the "internal bandwidth limitation" been implemented? --Spangineer 13:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Technical documentation would be helpful
This could benefit from some technical docs of how this works. Badon 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Bug
Very useful, but doesn't work with djvu. Marc 01:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What error do you get? If you see a file name instead of the actual image, go to Manual:How to use DjVu with MediaWiki and fill in information in your LocalSettings.php under the section for your operating system and then retry. --Stefan2 00:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

.svg as an example
Maybe a .png file from commons would be better? Not everyone has .svg support on their wiki. Schalice (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't work
It doesn't work...settings seem fine in localsettings.php What could be wrong?

Jobbe

For me neither, it is not working. I am under the impression I have set everything correctly: $wgForeignFileRepos[] = array(  'class'                   => 'ForeignAPIRepo',   'name'                    => 'shared',   'apibase'                 => 'http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php',   'fetchDescription'        => true, // Optional   'descriptionCacheExpiry'  => 43200, // 12 hours, optional (values are seconds)   'apiThumbCacheExpiry'     => 43200, // 12 hours, optional, but required for local thumb caching );
 * $wgUseInstantCommons = true; in LocalSettings.php
 * SElinux has been set correctly so that I can upload local files to my Wiki following the SELinux configuration page.
 * I even tried the deprecated:

When I follow the explanations on the InstantCommons Page, I end up with a red link on my page, meaning the file I am trying to link to was not found. I have tried that with several image extensions, namely .png, .jpg and .svg without any luck.

I am running:
 * WikiMedia 1.19.1
 * Fedora 16 (with SElinux)
 * Php 5.3.15
 * MySql Ver 14.14 Distrib 5.5.25a, for Linux (x86_64)
 * I am running my MediaWiki website locally (at http://localhost/mediawiki/xxx)

Could anyone give me a hand with this? Any suggestion is most welcome.

Euloiix (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Since 1.16 it's only needed, that you set "$wgUseInstantCommons = true;" in your LocalSetting.php. The way with ForeignAPIRepo is for older ones. --Starwhooper (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't work for IP-visitors
Hi everyone,

I'm working in a German FanWiki and we noticed sort of a bug in the Extension: If your aren't logged in and visit a page as an IP-user, Commons-pictures aren't shown. All you see is the set picture-size, for example "300px". This is shown as a working link to the Commons-Picture-Article, but the picture itself is not visibly.

I just wanted to report this as a "known bug", so that the developers can fix it soon... --Col. sheppard (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Mirror the File: namespace
An option for getting the necessary metadata could be to mirror the File: namespace. One could download a dump of that namespace and then subscribe to get updates when there are changes to it. Leucosticte (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Enable by default
What are the obstacles to enabling this by default? It would a very good way to make MediaWiki more useful by default and Commons more used. Maybe there are some prerequisites to check before, like special permissions on directories or cache/thumb configs? I've indeed seen wikis failing with such problems, but they're not mentioned in the docs anyway. --Nemo 06:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One issue is that when the server or network doesn't allow MediaWiki to connect to commons.wikimedia.org, every page load with a picture has to wait for curl to timeout. Also, I personally like that MediaWiki doesn't have any features that make outbound http connections by default. CSteipp (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to make InstantCommons (or a similar config) smarter, so that it finds out whether that's the case or not? Or maybe, just include it as option in the installer? --Nemo 17:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no way we are going to enable instant commons by default in MediaWiki core. That should always be enabled specifically. One possibility would be to add a step in the installer to ask the user whether they want to rely on this, we could even test it out during the install process.  As a default process, it must not be enabled, that will lead any company to potentially leak private information to the wikimedia servers. Antoine &#34;hashar&#34; Musso (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If a Commons file is deleted
Hi - could someone clarify what will happen on the non-WMF wiki if a page is using a file which is deleted from Commons, please?

Will the locally cached image and its information remain on the local wiki? If not, which is the best way to 'lock in' an image and the licensing info? Thanks LunarLander (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The image just disappears and becomes a red link. This usually means that it was a copyright violation, so you don't want to keep such images. If you don't care about copyright violations and such, you should upload locally. 46525 would help reducing deletions of used images. --Nemo 15:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, Nemo. I'm now clear on the InstantCommons feature.
 * Perhaps this is straying into a question that should be asked elsewhere but the answer could be useful to projects considering using InstantCommons: I'm not very familiar with the Commons deletion policy and was concerned about images that are no longer used on a WMF project. Here's an example: Simeon Alexiadis will soon be deleted for not meeting the notability guideline but - as someone who has represented Greece in rugby league - the subject is notable enough for inclusion on Rugby League Wiki. Would this image be safe from Commons:Commons:Deletion_policy?
 * Thank you for the bugzilla link. That would be useful, if implemented. LunarLander (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. On Commons we have a much more liberal idea of what might be educationally useful. Mattbuck (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. LunarLander (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't work with wiki v 1.20.5 but works with 1.16
I have the following problem:

I'm about to upgrade my wiki from version 1.16 and move it to a new hosting (virtual server using OpenSUSE).

When I open a page on old version of my wiki (1.16, shared hosting) everything is ok - picutres are visible. But when I open a new (test) version of my wiki (1.20.5, virtual server using OpenSUSE) only blue links to the picture can be seen (its blue) but pictures themselves aren't visible. When I click on the link - the page with the picture opens and everything seems to be ok.

Below you can find links to the same article using new and old wiki. New - doesn't work. Old - works fine.


 * example on the new (test) wiki, 1.20.5 - all the pictures in this article are linked from Commons and only blue links to them are visible but not the pictures themselves.


 * example on the old wiki, 1.16, shared hosting - all the pictures are visible and everything's fine

here you can find info concerning my new (test) wiki version and installed extensions

I presume I've made a mistake when configuring my wiki but I don't have an idea what mistake it is and where. I will be grateful for any hints what's wrong. Thanks in advance for your help! Pawel Niemczuk (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you sure it's not a problem with OpenSUSE rather than with 1.20.5? Check things like the path to imagemagick and the cache configuration, enable debug info. --Nemo 13:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't installed ImageMagic on my "new" wiki, nor have I on the "old" one. As far as I understand pictures transcluded from Commons are not rendered on the computer hosting my website but by the Commons-hosting one. I haven't installed ImageMagic for I don't want to upload svg files on my wiki now, I only want to embed files hosted on Commons. It works on the "old" wiki, doesn't on the "new" one. But, let me underline it once again, the Commons-hosted images display correctly when I click a link to such file. So, as far as I understand, the problem is not with rendering but with embedding / transcluding Commons-hosted images to my wiki.

Pls correct me if understand anything wrong. I'm stil a wiki-newbie (i.e. I'm an experienced and quite skilled user but not a sysadmin and server admin). Thanx in advance! Pawel Niemczuk (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Future potential - publisher/subscriber model
It is suggested in the "Future potential" section that in a publisher/subscribe[r] model there would be a database of images used in subscribing wikis. The threat of cross-wiki vandalism is highlighted.

If there were a database of subscribing wikis, there would be no need to list every single image used on an outside wiki. It might however allow a procedure to notify a wiki if an image it uses is deleted or renamed (that wiki could then take whatever action it thinks fit):


 * If a file is deleted from Commons or renamed, WikiMedia could check through all the subscribing wikis to see if that file is used in any of them, and if so then send an automated message (by e-mail or a note on an apporpriate page of that wiki) notifying that this has been done.

If the list of subscribing wikis were held in confidence, that eliminates the risk of cross-wiki spamming. (For the moment we have an open list, if an unscientific one, on Sites using InstantCommons.

Hogweard (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If a Commons file is updated
Similar to the question above about If a Commons file is deleted, what happens when a file on Commons is updated via the "Upload a new version of this file" link on the file description page? From what I'm seeing, the copy of the file that is cached to a remote wiki is taken from http://upload.wikimedia.org so it is tied to a particular version of the image. Updates/new versions get a whole new URL on upload.wikimedia.org so a subsequent new request for the file using will get the updated version cached locally, but existing pages on the remote wiki will still point to the old version, and no amount of touching, purging, etc seems to fix this. Augur NZ &#x2710; &#x2315; 22:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This I think is the point addressed in the suggestion about a possible publisher/subscriber model, on which I commented above. If a file is renamed on Commons, it vanishes from any wiki which uses it, as the wiki is pointing to a location that is no longer there. The various Wikipediae pick it up automatically but remote wikis will not.


 * If there were a voluntary list of remote wikis using Commons pictures then they could be notified of a change of deletion of any picture they use, and be left to make their own arrangements. That would not be practical if every wiki were notified of every change (they would be overwhelmed) but if a bot on Commons could check the list and see which listed wikis use the file in question, it could notify them. Hogweard (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

InstantData?
If Wikipedia pages are going to use data from WikiData (aside from just interlanguage links), then I would imagine we're going to need an InstantData local repository for non-WMF wikis, so that they can still use Wikipedia content. Does this sound like a good idea, or is there an alternative? Leucosticte (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Behind a firewall or load balancer
It should be noted that behind a firewall or load balancer, you should allow outgoing http and https requests to


 * commons.wikimedia.org (IP 91.198.174.192 as of now)
 * upload.wikimedia.org (IP 91.198.174.208 as of now)
 * These IP addresses seem to be differnt now, 20 November 2014:
 * * commons.wikimedia.org (IP 208.80.154.224 )
 * * upload.wikimedia.org (IP 208.80.154.240 )
 * It would have been nice if Wikimedia would inform about such changes. The wikis where we use instant commons, which are behind a a firewall, stopped working as of yesterday, until we understood the problem and updated the firewall rules. --Aloist (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Aloist, can't you just whitelist all Wikimedia Foundation IPs? Many ranges here are still correct: IP addresses. Hardcoding specific IPs is not a practice that will ever be supported (with notifications as you ask, or anything). --Nemo 09:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nemo, I had not bee aware of the page with the ranges. I use iptables and I don't think my iptables rules would allow anything else than hardcoded IP. --Aloist (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Why all the .jpg files from Commons cannot be displayed on my wiki?
Why all the .jpg files from Commons cannot be displayed on my wiki? for example, this file from Commons cannot be shown on my wiki.

But, .svg files from Commons can be displayed. e.g. ←.

What can I do to fix this problem？ Thanks in advance! --Betoseha (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Enabling by default
"Ideally, however, the feature should be enabled by default (provided a writable upload directory is specified) to allow the largest possible number of users to use Wikimedia Commons content." If this is true, then why don't we enable it by default? If it's not true, then we should remove this sentence from the article. Leucosticte (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I already proposed it in and  and there are no objections in principle, so the sentence is true. The ideal world in question is one where MediaWiki can magically guess that it's not supposed to have access to the internet, among other things. --Nemo 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)