Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Encuesta sobre los deseos de la comunidad 2015/Multimedia

< Community Wishlist Survey 2015
This page is a translated version of the page Community Wishlist Survey 2015/Multimedia and the translation is 100% complete.
Other languages:

Numerar imágenes automáticamente

¿Qué problema quieres resolver?

Algunas veces las imágenes (tablas, ecuaciones, etc.) no se describen apropiadamente en el texto.

(=no puede ser referido directamente a, por lo que...)

Es a veces difícil darse cuenta a qué imagen se refiere.

¿Qué usuarios se beneficiarían?

El lector de Wikipedia se beneficiaría, porque la foto que se describe está nombrada ambiguamente.
Los editores de Wikipedia tendrán una herramienta fácil de usar para apuntar a cierta imagen en el texto.

¿Cómo se está tratando el problema actualmente?

A veces las imágenes son numeradas por los editores.
Este es inconveniente, cuando hay un montón de imágenes en un artículo, y más imágenes se agregan por ahí en la mitad del artículo.

¿Cuál son las soluciones propuestas?

Cada imagen, que debieran tener un número, sea marcada con una etiqueta.
Cualquiera pueda apuntar la imagen apuntando a la etiqueta.
Esto es similar a la numeración de referencias en Wikipedia y a la numeración de imágenes en latex.

--Boehm (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
  Endorsed See also phab:T7600. Helder 11:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed --Debenben (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting. phab:T112991 is a 2016 Wikimedia Developer Summit proposal about refreshing our media styling support; this might also fit within that scope. Cscott (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votos

  1.   Support --MGChecker (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support -- Singhalawap (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support --Boehm (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Helder 23:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Oppose I just can't see the point, or recognise the "problems". What happens when they are rearranged, or changed? Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Remark: That is exactly the problem: "What happens when they are rearranged, or changed?" Now the numbers have to be rearranged manually. In the case in which there are many numbers to fix, a manual rearrangement is prune to errors. An automatic numbering would mitigate the problem. Such a feature is a standard when writing e.g. a book and is technically easy to implement with labels. Without such a helping tool long articles are hard to maintain. --Boehm (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But the vast majority of images aren't numbered, or referred to in the text. Presumably everyone adding an image would now have to number it, which is a vast amount of work for hardly any gain. I maintain plenty of long articles, with large numbers of images, without this being a problem. Even more unconvinced. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I think I get your and Gap9551's point now. Not a single picture will get a single number unless it is desired. Only in the case, when it is needed, then a picture is marked with a label and gets then automatically a number. Therefore the number of the picture only appears, when it is needed. And yes, there are cases where it will definitely help. Think e.g. of wikibook articles. In the scientific part of wikipedia, where I contribute, a picture is always described in the text. And the reference has to be unambiguously. In this cases it will help, and in the other cases nothing will be changed to the status quo. --Boehm (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support @Johnbod: That is exactly the point. Now it can happen that someone changes or moves a picture and references like "see diagram on the right" get confusing or wrong. With the automatic numbering, the wikitext similar to "see fig.~\ref{mylabel}" gets translated to something like "see fig. 5", thus always refers to the diagram or produces an error like "reference broken". The system suggested is basically the same as the system used for references.--Debenben (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support But maybe only number (all) pictures in articles where at least one picture is referred to. Gap9551 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support - SantiLak (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support -- Sir Gawain (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Oppose per Johnbod. A great deal of images included in articles aren't actually referred to in the text, and the overwhelming majority of images aren't numbered. I see no reason whatsoever to force numbering universally across all articles. I could potentially see a smaller scale tool to be used for individual articles when necessary, but there is no need to implement this across the whole project. Mz7 (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Remark: I have to apologies. My English is perhaps too poor to express what I mean. It was never my intention that all pictures should get numbers. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. Only the pictures, which are already numbered will get an automatic numbering, i.e. only pictures with an additionally added label. --Boehm (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boehm: My apologies for misunderstanding. Thank you for clarifying. Per my original comment, as long as this is done on a smaller scale and only on articles where numbering would genuinely be helpful, then this has my support. Mz7 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support - Certainly not needed in many articles but an essential tool where image referencing is needed. SBaker43 (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support MediaWiki software is used not only for encyclopedic articles, but for wikibooks, wikiversity, etc. too. In books, courses and so on the requested feature would be useful. -- Juetho (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mejorar el proceso para subir imágenes

Cuál es el problema que quieres resolver?
  • La forma normal de subir archivos usando Special:Upload no tiene un campo de metadata que sea legible por la máquina (por ej Plantilla:Información debe ser agregada manualmente y muchos de los usuarios no saben de esta plantilla)
  • Los usuarios están confundidos al elegir las licencias y por lo tanto numerosas imágenes están licenciadas incorrectamente (por eej una imagen de uso justo marcada como GFDL). Esto es mayormente debido a la interfaz de usuario confusa y llena de texto al elegir las licencias.
¿Qué usuario se beneficiará? (editores, administradores, usuarios de Commons, usuarios de Wikipedia, etc.) Todos quienes se preocupan de tener metadata correcta en un formato que sea legible por la máquina en las imágenes.
¿Cómo se está manejando este problema ahora?
  • Muchas wikis tienen el sistema de carga de archivos deshabilitada y en vez de eso redirige a Commons.
    Similarmente al caso de las wikis locales, al redirigir el proceso de carga a Commons, yo observé que los usuarios todavía cargan imágenes de uso justo a Commons ya que no están conscientes sobre temas de licenciamiento de archivos y su propósito es meramente cargar una imagen, por ejemplo ellos elegirán cualquier opción de licencia que los permita subir la imagen y usarla en el artículo.
  • En en.wiki, el asistente de carga de archivos ("FileUploadWizard") se ha creado para insertar Plantilla:Información a la imagen y con ello metadata leíble por la máquina.
    Pero a las otras wikis donde faltan desarrolladores JS, nada se puede hacer dado que la localización ha sido codificada en duro en los códigos JS. Aún más, la interfaz de usuario no ha mejorado dado que es fuertemente basada en texto (y como resultado, se ve como la página de "Términos y condiciones")
  • No sé de otras wikis, pero en id.wiki, el esfuerzo de localizar el "FileUploadWizard" ya empezó pero se detuvo debido al gran esfuerzo que se requiere para mejorar la interfaz de usuario.
¿Cuále son las soluciones propuestas? (si es que hay alguna idea)
  • Permitir commons:Special:UploadWizard en wikis locales, mejorando sus características para adaptarse a las reglas locales de las wikis, incluyendo las licencias de uso justo.
    La Comunidad de la Wikipedia Indonesia ha propuesto esto, pero no se ha hecho nada desde que esta tarea de Phabricator no fue apoyada por los desarrolladores de ahí.

Kenrick95 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
  EndorsedYes! Make UploadWizard compatible with local copyright tags.  Ę-oиė  >>>  ™ 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to above, there are other issues:

  1. UploadWizard on Commons is broken, and needs to be fixed (most urgent task);
  2. Easy transfer of images between Wikipedias and Commons, and back (right now one needs to be admin locally to moved a file from Commons);
  3. Easier chunked uploads for large files (can be included if #1 above is fixed);

Votos

  1.   Support anything that can enhance this complicated process and make it easier in the non-en wikis. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose I think it is better to just upload images to Commons, instead of uploading locally and relying on others to move it to Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Comment: If the solution proposed above seems to be to integrate enwiki's FileUploadWizard to other wikis, then I oppose. In my opinion, the wizard is clunky, and is not user friendly to a point where it accommodates for every possible scenario. For example, on enwiki, there are several fair-use rationale templates that can be used for different situations, but usually requires that the uploader fill out several fields of information that they may either not know or not need if a more specific template was used. That, and the current state of the File Upload Wizard causes more work for editors who review file uploads (such as myself): for about 9/10 uploads through the wizard, I have to replace the fair-use template with a more specific template, which causes unnecessary burning of time for volunteers when the wizard should have placed the correct template itself. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Mejorar el renderizado de archivos SVG

¿Cual problema resolvería?
 
de:Kraft: La tercera imagen tiene el problema descrito por tarea T7792.

SVG es un formato de archivo importante para los gráficos en Wikipedia y es usado en miles de imágenes de artículos de ciencia. El software subyacente de libRSVG también tiene muchos problemas dibujando SVG. Incluso el artículo sobre fuerza en alemán (de:Kraft) está afectado.

El tema aparece ya que libRSVG fue programado por el Proyecto Gnome para dibujar iconos escalables para el ambiente de escritorio. Los gráficos que contienen texto no eran el objetivo y las actividades en libRSVG están limitadas solo a mantenimiento. Es por eso que importantes características necesarias para usarlo en Wikipedia tienen problemas o simplemente faltan. Una prueba mía probó que resolver un error muchas veces toma solo unos días (ver tarea T7792).

SVG es importante para Wikipedia pero sin nuestra intervención el software subyacente sigue estando propenso a errores.

Otro gran ejemplo...
 
File:GTAW broken.svg: Lleno de errores desde hace 10 años!!!

El archivo de la derecha es usado en Soldadura al arco con tungsteno y en muchos otros idiomas e incluso traducida. Provocó el error descrito por tarea T97758. Debido a su larga persistencia en Wikipedia ha sido mostrado a nuestros lectores muchos millones de veces. (Una solución temporal ha sido aplicada desde hace poco para mostrarse correctamente.)

Aún mas...

Para tener una idea general de la importancia de un formato de archivo, algunas estadísticas pueden ser útiles. Basado en el volcado de la base de datos dewiki-20150302-pages-articles.xml.bz2 de la Wikipedia en alemán se puede estimar lo siguiente. (Solo se ha hecho una corta evaluación sobre errores sistemáticos.)

  • SVG: 56k
  • PNG: 92k (ámbito similar a SVG)
  • JPG: 1104k (mayormente fotos)
  • GIF: 10k (ámbito similar a SVG)

Los resultados han sido construidos con la herramienta de Linux en:grep. Para cambiar a otro formato de archivo, adapte la siguiente línea de comando. date && grep -o -E "(gif|GIF)\|(thumb|mini)" ./dewiki-latest-pages-articles.xml | wc -w && date (Solo cuenta imágenes que están incluidas como vista previa y no por ejemplo las pequeñas banderas en las estadísticas de deportes.)

¿Cuáles usuarios se beneficiarían?

Todos los que busquen información científica o técnica en Wikipedia en cualquier idioma se beneficiarán. SVG es el formato de archivos preferido para gráficos científicos de alta calidad.

Aumentará la participación porque menos errores en desplegar SVG remueve posibles trampas para autores sin experiencia en las limitaciones de libRSVG. Como consecuencia se crea menos distracción y nuevos autores siguen contribuyendo.

Esto también mejora la calidad porque menos errores en el renderer SVG cambia el foco de buscar soluciones al contenido. SVG simplifica la reutilización y traducción de contenido y se pueden almacenar gráficos de alta calidad a través de varios idiomas. Así, mejorar y promover SVG mejora la calidad.

¿Cómo se está resolviendo el problema ahora?

El renderer de SVG, libRSVG, es parte del Proyecto Gnome. Aunque no está en el foco de la comunidad Gnome, hace el trabajo que debe hacer. El mantenedor de libRSVG es Federico Mena Quintero. El mantiene libRSVG en su tiempo libre.

Y algunos ejemplos...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Defecto tarea T65703

parche necesita actualización

tarea T7792

parche necesita actualización

tarea T65236

parche necesita revisión

tarea T55899

parche necesita revisión

tarea T43426
Mal   TODO Hoja vacía  
Bien  
Con solución alternativa
Generado con Inkscape 		TODO  
Con solución alternativa 		 
Con solución alternativa
¿Cuáles son las soluciones propuestas?

Arreglar entre 8 y 10 defectos que son especialmente importantes para el uso de SVG en Wikipedia. Arreglar solo unos pocos defectos sencillos reduciría mucho los problemas. Estimo que se necesitarán cuatro semanas de trabajo para arreglar los defectos, probarlos y liberar el código (Si arreglar el código de libRSVG está más allá de las capacidades del equipo de tecnología al menos implementar los parches existentes sería útil.)

-- Menner (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Voy a permitir seleccionar errores, dominar el código de libRSVG y la liberación de software también.[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements

Opinions

Discussion

@MER-C:I haven't completed with my wishlist yet. Here is a list of bugs. Half of them is not a libRSVG problem some are corner cases. Most of the bug reports contain a link to a Gnome Bugs.
Yes it shouldn't take long to update patches. Creating patches also doesn't take long. I've made five easy patches in five days but thoroughly releasing also takes time... and on the long term it is WMFs responsability to maintain libRSVG.
In tarea T112421 it says libRSVG 2.40.2 is in use. libRSVG 2.40.11 is released currently but I don't know if its still compatibly with Ubuntu 12.10 LTE used by WMF.
--Menner (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a bunch of tickets that will be closed when updating to the latest version. Community Tech can't help with system operations, unfortunately, and I don't think the WMF should be the maintainers of this software. See if you can ask for commit access -- I fear patches submitted by Community Tech will be swallowed by Bugzilla. MER-C (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Federico is quite open to our interests although he's short on time. I haven't talked to him recently and he is difficult to grasp. He accepted two of my patches but then omitted the next three without comment. I don't have enough time to push them currently and I see WMF in the responsebility to go on. -- Menner (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The table with examples is going off the side of the page (at least on my screen). This makes scrolling up and down the page awkward. Is it possible to move that to another page, and link to it? DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Menner: These are probably not bugs that the Community Tech team could address directly. However, if it is identified as a high priority by the community, we could help investigate the problems and flag them to other teams (or outside developers). As MER-C mentioned, the Ops team is responsible for our SVG rendering on the production wikis, but maybe there are some solutions that haven't been considered yet. For example, perhaps the WMF could hire a contractor from the GNOME community to work on librsvg for Ops. (Also, I'm afraid you can't endorse your own proposal. Sorry if that's confusing.) Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryan Kaldari (WMF): Sorry, I have little time this week. I won't reply until saturday. Just for short I'm aware of your annotations and I'll explain later. -- Menner (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C: GNOME does not accept pull requests via GitHub, as far as I know patches go into GNOME Bugzilla. --Malyacko (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryan Kaldari (WMF): How exactly the Tech Team will address this problem will be arbitrated after the vote. I'm a developer and already created some patches for libRSVG. The most important thing by the Tech Team would be to manage the existing patches being applied. I've already tried to fix some issues. This had limited success since two busy spare time developers living each on the other side of the earth won't team well.
Further I expect the vote to be a signal for WMF to keep an eye on libRSVG and feedback and reason for me to keep on.
-- Menner (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Menner: Sure, we would be happy to help however we can. Pushing on existing patches is certainly doable, and perhaps something we could help with regardless of the vote. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votos

  1.   Support --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Goldzahn (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Not sure how much Community Tech can do here - this is pretty specialised code we're talking about here, and Community Tech is a generalist team - but anything, even just nagging Operations to update librsvg, will be a help. This, that and the other (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support ↔ User: Perhelion 15:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support BethNaught (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Patrick87 (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support --MGChecker (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support along with text-editing of SVG, as if it was an article! --YodinT 02:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support We should contribute back to FOSS projects we heavily rely on. --Ricordisamoa 06:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support --Arnd (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support tufor (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support Goombiis (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support Benedictus Levita (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support Ckoerner (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Marlus Gancher (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support  Trizek from FR 22:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support --Oriciu (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support RoodyAlien (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support Mule hollandaise (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support --β16 - (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support — NickK (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support Pbm (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support — Bilorv (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Support Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Support SantiLak (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28.   Support --Moroboshi (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29.   Support --OSeveno (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC) SVG is also very important for maps (thousands of files) and heraldry (tens of thousands of files)[reply]
  30.   Support Halibutt (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31.   Support -- Sir Gawain (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32.   Support \\ Martin Kraft (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33.   Support \\ ÅñŧóñŜûŝî (Ð) 04:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34.   Support --Waldir (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35.   Support – Valtlait (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36.   Support → «« Man77 »» [de] 18:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37.   Support --Pokéfan95 (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38.   Support --Stranger195 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39.   Support --NaBUru38 (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40.   Support --‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 12:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41.   Support --ESM (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42.   Support --Harald321 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43.   Support Alkamid (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44.   Support --Tgr (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC) (also thanks Menner for all your work on fixing libRSVG bugs!) --Tgr (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45.   Support I could not understand which problem is present in the example pictures, but in the past I created vetorial images using Inkspace and they got really messed on Wikimedia Commons.--MisterSanderson (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46.   Support -- Juetho (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedios sugeridos para un artículo

Una herramienta similar a FIST, pero que funcione bien y esté integrada. Matanya (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
  Endorsed Relatedly, I wrote a tool to suggest images based on other wikis; much less ambitious than FIST, but it seems stable: GLAMify. Ijon (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votos

  1.   Oppose I'm comfortable with keeping this as an external tool, like other tools that make suggestions. I'm not sure what integration buys us. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Uso de imágenes en wikipedia

Lo siento, mi inglés es muy malo así que escribo en alemán:

Jeder Uploader von Bildern kann über die Dateiliste seine hochgeladenen Bilder ansehen. Bei jedem einzelnen Bild ist die Verwendung in den einzelnen Sprachversionen angegeben.

Im Laufe der Jahre habe ich viel über Bildbearbeitung gelernt und kann meine Bilder entsprechend verbessern. Es ist sehr zeitaufwändig, deshalb wünsche ich mir eine Erweiterung der Dateiliste um eingebunden (nur einen Hinweis, nicht wo das Foto eingebunden ist).

Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traducción: Quienes suben imágenes pueden examinar sus cargas usando Special:Listfiles. En cada página de descripción de los archivos, su inclusión es grabada para cada proyecto individual. Durante muchos años, he aprendido mucho sobre edición de imágenes, lo que me ha permitido mejorar mis fotos. Esto consume mucho tiempo, por lo tanto me gustaría tener una extensión de Special:Listfiles que marque las imágenes (solo una pista, no la lista completa donde la foto es usada). --AFBorchert (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements

Votos

  1.   Support Yes, it would be useful to quickly find which of your own image uploads are most used across Wikimedia projects so that you could focus on improving their processing and captions. —Pengo (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support per Pengo. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support per Pengo - SantiLak (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Halibutt (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support // Martin Kraft (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support --Edgars2007 (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support This "ListFiles" page can be far more impoved, but this proposal is good too. --MisterSanderson (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support -- Juetho (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2015/Multimedia/es&oldid=26711803"