User talk:Ghouston/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

User rights

I've just marked you as an autopatroller and rollbacker, based on your trustworthy contributions (so others do not need to patrol your edits). If for some reason you do not want the rollback tool, let me know. --99of9 (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks 99of9 Ghouston (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes the Australian War Memorial

Hi. You're invited to Wikipedia Takes the Australian War Memorial on 25 August at the Australian War Memorial. --LauraHale (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Cornell Courts

Please don't continue to remove Category:Cornell Courts from Category:Apartment buildings without at least offering a reason! cmadler (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha, I didn't realise I had done it more than once. I don't think it needs to go there: student housing is a separate category from apartment buildings, and it's already classified as a subcategory of Category:Student housing. Ghouston (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Student housing is an unrelated consideration, because it refers to who the residents are or how they are selected, while Category:Apartment buildings or Category:Dormitories refer to the way it's set up and used. You can have student apartments (as here) or apartments open to the public. You can have college/university dormitories, but you can also have dormitories in a monastery, in the military (maybe still called "barracks"), in prisons, and corporate dormitories (offering an inexpensive place for employees to live). cmadler (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it could certainly be done that way, but at the moment there's an unwritten rule that they go in Category:Student housing alone. Look through the category, very few are also classified with the building type. Category:Retirement homes are the same. There's also a problem that Student housing is currently classified under Category:Accommodation buildings instead of Category:Residential buildings as for general apartments. I'd suggest if you want to change the way it's done, to start a discussion on Category:Student housing, and that either way, the unwritten rule should be a written note on the category page. Ghouston (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I've opened such a discussion. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, but I'd use the "Nominate for discussion" function in the Toolbox in the left menu. I'm not sure that anyone takes any notice of category talk pages. Ghouston (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
That's mainly for category name changes and deletions. I'll ask for opinions at the Village Pump. cmadler (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki.org rename request

Hi, I was just wondering if you could confirm that you made this rename request on mediawikiwiki? It's signed by an IP so I wanted to make sure. --Krenair (talk • contribs) 15:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Thanks for taking a look at it. Ghouston (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cormorant-20070224-034.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Train interiors

Hi, regarding this catalot set:

  • (diff | hist) . . File:455739 Interior.jpg‎; 03:30 . . (+20)‎ . . ‎Ghouston (talk | contribs | block)‎ (Cat-a-lot: Moving from Category:British Rail Class 455 to Category:Train interiors of British Rail Class 455s) [rollback]

I thought I should let you know that the preferred way to do categorisation of UK train images is via {{subst:ukt|class|last 3 digits of #, XXX if unknown|TOC|livery|line|Optional field, put an i in it to indicate interior}}. This way all relevant categories are added. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. ghouston (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Newport County SuperDragon, Newport Bus Station - geograph.org.uk - 1971043.jpg

As per the Edinburgh cows case, here's a challenge for you - find all the images of these 60 dragons on Commons and then slay them. Ultra7 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha, do I look like a dragon slayer. I didn't even finish the cows. ghouston (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Well I came across another one, and that led me to a wikipedia article about them, SuperDragon - apparently they were inspired by the cows! Searching on that term I found a couple more, so I've started the category Category:SuperDragons to dump them in. Ultra7 (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC) And as soon as I did that, I found Category:Newport SuperDragons! Ultra7 (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC) (which as it turns out, only contained the two I found via Search). I'm starting to hate dragons.... Ultra7 (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
There were elephants too, which I did exterminate, and Penguins which are still out there. Naturally there was a conversation on village pump where the uploader asked if the penguins were ok, and the answer given was that they were fine, with the cows as a precedent. Later I asked again on village pump and they agreed that temporary exhibitions were not fine. ghouston (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Tugboat Recovery

You recategorised the ship as being built in the Netherlands. That is not entirely wrong, as the finishing of the ship had been done in Hardinxveld. But the hull comes from Damen in Gdynia, Poland. See http://www.vlootschouw.nl/2/index.php?menu=details&schip_id=1525&scheepsnaam=Recovery,%20Resource,%20Reclaim%20en%20Redoubt&scheepstypenafkorting=Shoalbuster&bouwjaar=&scheepstypen_id=39&lengte=1 Best regards, --Stunteltje (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It made no sense to me that a ship constructed in a Netherlands shipyard was made in Poland. I guess it counts as constructed in both the Netherlands and Poland? ghouston (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Netherlands is implied by Hardinxveld, so I put it back how you had it. ghouston (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you have the best solution. The hull - the ship itself - had been built in Poland - but an important part, the rest, in Hardinxveld. Mentioning the way you did is perfect. In most cases I am too lazy for that and stick to just the country of building of the hull. --Stunteltje (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ships by location

I think you misinterprete te categorisation scheme. Please realise that there are two different routes: "Ships of" and "Ships in". So if you categorise Category:Ships by country in Category:Ships by location, this is not correct. Please see Foroa. Have to go out, will further look to it tonight. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I wasn't suggesting that. Just that Ships by country is a pointless grouping of four other categories. They could be put directly into Category:Ships. ghouston (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you are referring to my edit of Category:Ships by country, not my comment on Category_talk:Ships_by_location. I did remove Category:Ships by country from Category:Ships by location, because as you say, it's incorrect. But I reverted my edit because I wondered if Foroa had some good reason for adding it. ghouston (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Odisha

Next time please feel free to use "Move" link. Your skeleton template immediately removed various translations :-)--Praveen:talk 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't move it, I created a new one. I thought I should leave the old template in place. I had no idea what the proper translations were for the new name, so I left them out. But if you know how those languages should be handled, thanks for sorting it out. ghouston (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I also thought that the default "Odisha" would be fine for quite a few languages, and if using the default then the translation can be omitted. For other languages, I suspect some of them are transliterations of "Orissa" to their own alphabet, and they would need to be re-transliterated for "Odisha". The Indian lanaguages may have names of their own which could be carried across without change. ghouston (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, VIGNERON (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:ANZ_banks_in_Australia

Category discussion warning

ANZ banks in Australia has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Mattinbgn (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Apple microprocessors

Ghouston, I saw that you created Category:Apple microprocessors. Nice work. However, images related to the Apple A4 can probably also be in Category:ARM Cortex-A, as the A4 uses the Cortex-A8 microarchitecture. Images related to the Apple A5 and A5X can also be in Category:ARM Cortex-A, as the A5 and A5X use the Cortex-A9. The later A6, A6X, and A7 use custom microarchitectures that aren't Cortex-A microarchitectures. —RP88 (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --ghouston (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ten

So you found out one small number category that was slightly less messy than the rest, and you just had to make is as messy as the rest. Good job! (And of course, it had to be an admin.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think I messed something up, which change are you objecting to precisely? And who is this admin you are speaking of?. --ghouston (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for mistaking you for an admin. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Freeways

I see you merged Category:Freeways into Category:Controlled-access highways. In the U.S., at least, "freeway" is more specific than "controlled-access highway." It is distinct from at least two other types of controlled-access highway mostly found in the eastern part of the country: a "turnpike," which charges tolls, and a "parkway," which is more deliberately landscaped. - Jmabel ! talk 09:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't changed any US categories: there are still Category:Freeways in the United States‎, Category:Divided highways in the United States and Category:Highways in the United States, among others. Freeways in the US presumably still count as Category:Controlled-access highways, so can still be a subcategory of that. --ghouston (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Bay horses

Thank you for your help in the everlasting effort of cleaning out Flickr tag dump cats. However, you'll notice that none of the files you moves from Bays to Bay horses feature bay horses. In the future, feel free to use the super category Horses. It may be chuck full every now and then but it is regularly maintained. --Pitke (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea what a bay horse is. I assumed that adding "horse" would get them closer to the right category. --ghouston (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


Vehicles

I am quite mystified by the category which includes railway locomotives - it doesnt make sense and I see no precedent - are you sure that such a category link is correct sats (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean Category:Vehicles in Tasmania I guess? It follows because Category:Locomotives is a subcategory of Category:Motor vehicles. --ghouston (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That is a no-brainer. sats (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Schemes and Diagrams

Diagrams have an axis, schemes not. Who has decided, that all schemes are now diagrams?--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Schemes ≠ diagrams
Scheme (or Schematics)
Diagram (or Graph)
It was me, and the people in Category talk:Schemas. I'm pleased that somebody at least has a definition, I was completely mystified about how Schemes/Schemas and Diagrams had been distinguished. However I don't think your definition is a standard one, in English at least. Do you have any citations for it? I think what you are calling a "Diagram" is usually called a "Chart", "Graph" or "Plot". Somebody has even removed Category:Charts from Category:Diagrams, which I disagree with. However it seems that the whole area is quite murky. --ghouston (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I think Schematics is a more familiar word in English. But it still seems to refer to several different kinds of diagrams, if the Wikipedia page is any guide. --ghouston (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I've made a mistake as a non-native speaker. I think, we should differ between pure graphs and schematics.--Kopiersperre (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they are worth separating. However Category:Diagrams by type already identifies quite a few different types of diagrams. There are existing categories for Category:Charts and Category:Plots, but perhaps oddly nothing for Category:Graphs. These can be separated from other types of diagrams. There's also a category Category:Schematic diagrams and it seems from its talk page that there was a failed attempt to merge it with "Category:Schemes". I'm not sure how easy it is to separate "schematic diagrams" from other types of diagrams (is a schematic diagram anything that isn't a plot/chart/graph?). "Graph" is an interesting word but it has at least two relevant meanings: A mathematical concept which can be drawn, en:Graph (mathematics), and en:Graph of a function. It should probably be a disambiguation in Commons like it is in en: Wikipedia. --ghouston (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Beach of Skotina.jpg

File:Beach of Skotina.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Miniapolis 13:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

I see you have changed how some images were classified. Specifically you moved a heck of a lot of images from Category:Taken with Samsung GT-S7560M to Category:Taken with Samsung GT-S7560. One of your edit summaries says: "(redirect|Taken with Samsung GT-S7560 - it's probably a minor variant)"

Did you look at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Taken with Samsung GT-S7560M prior to your efforts?

@Allo002: created Category:Photos by Geo Swan using a Samsung GT-S7560M and Category:User:Geo Swan/Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10. I think that was uncooperative and wasteful of other contributor's efforts.

I think the {{Delete}} tag should have been removed when the DR discussion closed as "keep". Geo Swan (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, I didn't notice that discussion. I could reverse the change if necessary. However I'm not really sure about it at the moment, since in general the categories for identical models (or identical except in unimportant ways) are generally combined. E.g., see all the Category:Canon Digital IXUS categories, where each camera has three names apparently for purely marketing reasons. Mobile phones are similar in that there are minor variants for different networks. If they should all be split, then it would take quite a lot of effort and there would be a lot of extra categories. Then without a consistent policy, somebody could come along later and combine them all again. There's also the reverse problem, that sometimes different models have the same Exif, e.g., see Category:Photos taken with Olympus Camedia. Presumably these could be split in some cases, where the uploader knows whether their camera is marked "C-1Z" or "D-150Z", but I think it would be a lot of trouble for no benefit. --ghouston (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue about firmware is technically correct, in that the cameras differ in some way. However consider File:Caminia estate.JPG and File:Niederwald Denkmal Rüdesheim.jpg or File:Stortorget lund.jpg and File:Ala Archa 3.JPG, should these be put in separate categories too? I'd say not, because for every change that's visible in Exif, like these, there are probably many other firmware changes that aren't visible in Exif. It may be necessary to accept that there's a certain amount of variation in each camera model. The are also differences in photos produced by a camera in JPG vs processed from RAW, should they also have separate categories? --ghouston (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, by far the simplest approach is to use whatever name the firmware embeds in the image. It seems to me that any other approach would have to rely on contributors having expertise in cameras. Inevitably their "expert" opinions could differ. Using the name embed in the exif requires no expertise. This approach is unambiguous. This approach could be performed by a robot.
You wrote: "There's also the reverse problem, that sometimes different models have the same Exif, ... Presumably these could be split in some cases, where the uploader knows whether their camera is ... but I think it would be a lot of trouble for no benefit." That's odd. I've never heard of this phenomenon. As you said, the images could all be left at the name in the exif. Or Category:Photos taken with Olympus Camedia could be the parent directory for subdirectories Category:Photos taken with Olympus Camedia C-1Z marked as Olympus Camedia and Category:Photos taken with Olympus Camedia D-150Z marked as Olympus Camedia. Geo Swan (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The models can be linked to Wikipedia and Wikidata entries, like w:Samsung Galaxy S4. That gives the categories Category:Samsung Galaxy S4 and Category:Taken with Samsung Galaxy S4. Within that, there are over 20 different variants of that model. I'm inclined to call "Samsung Galaxy S4" a model and "Samsung Galaxy S4 GT-I9500‎" a model variant (Wikidata has no entries for model variants at present). I'm not going to bother creating all 20+ subcategories, but I'll leave them there if created by somebody else and let the bot try to populate them. --ghouston (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Scanned with HP ScanJet 4600

Hi Ghouston. Your bot added three of my uploads to this category. If such categories are necessary at all, could you at least have your bot run through Category:Images by Volker Prasuhn in one action? Like that, it would affect my watchlist only once, not constantly over a few weeks. --Leyo 18:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better to try to find 100 files randomly for each category, than to pick them all from one user, since it will give more variety. Also I wouldn't be surprised if more people complain about their watchlist getting 100 hits at once than complain about a few files per week. --ghouston (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Concerning the category mentioned above, (as the uploader) I am usually the only one who has these files on the watchlist. --Leyo 22:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps for this category, I was thinking of the general case. I'll see if I can fill this HP ScanJet 4600 category for you though. --ghouston (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Your bot ...

doesn't work correct. He set again wrong categories, now at File:Leuna, Kreypau -- um 1980 -- 4.jpg. He has set "Scanned with MS Scanner". "MS Scanner" is set be the scan software and wrong. The correct category "Scanned with Reflecta DigitDia 5000" was already set. Your bot should not set a second category of the same style. And please check why "MS Scanner" was set. It is a special name from Microsoft and does not depend to the scanner.--XRay talk 05:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get rid of the "MS Scanner" category. The bot doesn't deal with software. --ghouston (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Your content in Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision museum exhibition

Good afternoon,

My name is Lotte Baltussen, and I work at the Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision. We are the archive of Dutch public broadcasters and hold many other types of audiovisual heritage as well. We have recently opened our new exhibition "3FM Presents: Your Serious Radio", which looks back at the last 50 years of pop music on the radio.

One of the interactives of our exhibition is a videomapping installation that depicts a teen room. When visitors enter the exhibition, they provide information that builds up their profile: their year of birth, gender and the favourite radio show, song, musical genre from their teens. This information is used to recreate their teen room; a sparse white space with 25 different elements such as a white bed, desk, and couch that are projected upon when a visitor activates his or her profile. We've divided the teen room into 10 time periods: 1965-1969, 1970-1974 and so forth.

In creating the videomapping, we have used countless free to use images, textures and patterns, among which is your upload of a Philips stereo. We'd like to thank you very much for making your content available and thus making it possible us to use it. You can find a complete overview of the content used here, a blog post about the whole process here and pictures of the videomapping here, so you can see your content in action.

Thanks again!

All best,

Lottebelice (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Taken with Fujifilm FinePix JZ200

Hi Ghouston. The automatic Metadata of the camera reads FinePix JZ200/JZ210. Shouldn't we move your category to "Category:Taken with Fujifilm FinePix JZ200/JZ210" then? Although my cameria is a JZ200 I assume that a JZ210 would generate the same Metadata... Regards, --Gereon K. (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I renamed it Category:Taken with Fujifilm FinePix JZ200 / JZ210. --ghouston (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


File:Anne Nicol Gaylor.jpg

Hi Ghouston, I'm not sure if I'm leaving this in the correct place or not. Still pretty new here. The license for this photo belongs to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who provided it to the NYT for the obit. Anne Gaylor founded FFRF, Paul Gaylor was her husband. NYT captioned the photo incorrectly, Paul took the photo, but it belongs to FFRF. I uploaded this photo at the request of FFRF creating an account, AndrewFFRF, belonging to FFRF to upload other files for use in articles. I have not edited any content of articles, but am simply providing files. Not only am I an employee of FFRF, but an attorney for FFRF. There is no copyright issue here.

Thanks, it looks like you found the best place: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anne Nicol Gaylor.jpg. --ghouston (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Copies

What makes you think those old photos and the newspaper article were? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdogmad (talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

--Jdogmad (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

About this: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jdogmad? A photo or scan of an old document is a copy, and may violate any copyrights it may have. --ghouston (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
If you have any details about the original authors and publication, it may be possible to show that they are public domain. --ghouston (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Lucio Fontana

Sono un po' confuso perche' non capisco questo: se mi viene data, dal museo, la possibilità di fotografare un' opera, perché la mia foto non posso condividerla su wikipedia? non sto guadagnando nulla e non e' a scopo di lucro. Non capisco anche questo. La foto non e' mia? Grazie attendo risposta. Sono in buona fede e se non sarà possibile salvare le foto provvederò a cancellarle al più presto. --Pensierarte (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It's possible to take photos of copyrighted works of art for personal study (the law may permit it, or the copyright holder won't know about it and can't take action). However Commons requires a proper license from the artist. --ghouston (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ghouston!

Happy New Year!

Ghouston, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar
Thank you very much for adding all the additional and/or missing categories to my latest car-photo-upload-binge! Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Nino Caruso.jpg

Hello Ghouston, I'm writing you about the file Nino Caruso.jpg The picture reported represent my father that passed away last january 19, He was a well known ceramist sculptor and i am trying to publish a page on the italian wikipedia community. Regarding the picture, was made by a friend: Niccolò Crisafi . Niccolò gave the picture to my father as a gift and was published on different art catalogues and books. My father own the picture and as he passed away the picture belong to me and my brother. I hope that this can help, differently please help me how to solve it. Regards

Stefano Caruso

Hi @Stefano: . Please put your explanation at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nino Caruso.jpg. The request will be reviewed by an administrator in a week or so. The problem with this kind of photo is that Commons only accepts files that can be used freely by anybody. Usually the copyright holder needs to release it with a suitable license, e.g., from Creative Commons. If the photograph was made by Niccolò Crisafi, then that's probably the copyright holder who would need to provide a license. Simply owning a copy of the photo isn't enough. --ghouston (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrator?

Any interest? I'm looking for suckers experienced candidates for RFA. lNeverCry 20:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but the administrative tasks don't really appeal to me. Somebody made me a file mover a while ago and I haven't even used that. --ghouston (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
That's OK. I go by the law of averages: If I pester enough people I'll get an RFA going sooner or later... lNeverCry 00:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Ha Ha - I just noticed that I'm the one who made you a filemover when I was still an admin. lNeverCry 00:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh I remember, I made a rename request on something I'd uploaded with the wrong name. Hopefully I'll find something else to rename some day. --ghouston (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Have a good one. lNeverCry 00:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Add category

Hi Ghouston can you add category Taken with Sony Xperia V LT25i with your bot to all my pictures [1] located here and others? Greetings! --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The bot would put them in Category:Taken with Sony Xperia V, but normally would ignore them because the category already has over 100 files. However, I suppose I can run it on all your uploads if you wish. --ghouston (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
That's right. I want from you to start bot. Thanks in advance. :) --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, it's done. --ghouston (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Add category (2)

Hi there. Would it be possible to let your bot add Category:Taken with DJI FC300X to the uploads by Dronepicr, provided that a) it results from EXIF data (which applies for ~300 photos of overall ~1,500 uploads by this user), and b) the category isn't there already (which applies for ~200 out of these 300 photos). It's unfortunately rather tricky with VFC, Cat-a-lot etc., so that I cannot manage to complete it. Thanks. --A.Savin 15:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

And here too: Special:Contributions/Wuestenigel, should be at least ~100 photos with FC300X but without corresponding category. Thanks. --A.Savin 15:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If I run it on these user's uploads, it will process all their files with Exif data, not only DJI FC300X. It won't add categories that are already present. They have maybe 6500 uploads in total, I suppose it can be done. --ghouston (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I did all of Dronepicr's uploads, and the DJI FC300X uploads from Wuestenigel (just a small hack needed). --ghouston (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. --A.Savin 09:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Invalid equipment in Exit?

Hi, you added an "invalid equipment in Exif" tag to an image I uploaded:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CARMA_MASER_timeStandard_1437.jpg

It looks like the problem is in the camera model field of the EXIF data. The field should contain: Canon PowerShot SX1 IS

The EXIF data was wrong in the image I uploaded. I didn't do it intentionally and I am surprised that it could even be done at all without editing the file directly, I use Paintshop Pro mostly and that doesn't provide a way to edit that field. Anyway, please do what you like with regard to this. If you would like I could upload a new image with that field corrected.

-Dave

Hi Dave, I suppose it was a bug in software that saved the file at some stage. Sometimes the metadata is bad because Mediawiki didn't import it correctly, but in this case it's bad in the original file. Some of the resolution fields also have strange values. I'm not sure that it's worth bothering to fix it, the "invalid equipment in Exif" is just a tracking category for files with this kind of damage. --ghouston (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:300-349-meter-tall structures in the United Kingdom

Why are we using US rather than UK spelling for these categories? Are we now the 51st State? Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

They've been using the US spelling for years, and I guessed nobody cared. It's a bit easier if they are all the same, you don't have to remember which spelling is used for which country. --ghouston (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Taken with Sony ILCE-77M2

There is no such camera as the ILCE-77M2. The ILCE prefix is used by Sony for it's E-Mount cameras, and there's never been a 77 model in that range. The Category:Taken with Sony ILCA-77M2 is correct. The ILCA-77M2 is the Sony Alpha 77ii A-mount camera, which I own. What's the easiest way to move all the photos into the correct category and delete the old one? Is there any way to query my own uploads to determine which were taken with the A77ii (earlier photos were taken with an A33), and automatically put them in to the right category? -- Colin (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I apparently created that category by mistake a couple of years ago. I just moved its contents to ILCA-77M2 with Cat-a-lot since there were only 106 files. --ghouston (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I could run my bot on your files to assign them all to the right category, although it's scope is normally limited to collecting a sample (100 files) for each camera type. --ghouston (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, it isn't important. Don't know how much anyone cares about these categories. If you just want a sample, then that's fine. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Structured Commons focus group!

Hello! Thank you very much for signing up to the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

How to organize ourselves?

This focus group is new and experimental, and I welcome your tips and thoughts on how we can organize this in the most convenient and productive way. For now, I have posted a few separate topics on the focus group's talk page. Please add your questions there too! If we all add that page to our watchlist, that's probably a good way to stay up to date with current discussions. Steinsplitter has also initiated a brand new IRC channel specifically for Structured Commons: wikimedia-commons-sd (webchat) which we invite you to join. Please let me know if you have other ideas on how to work together.

Current updates

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 13:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

For your text on Northern Tasmania - sheer dogs breakfast how some public authorities regionalise Tassie.

Appreciate that - have added the wp en version links - cheers JarrahTree (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult with things that don't have a single definition. I only just noticed that Category:Regions of Tasmania already exists. I guess Category:North West Tasmania should be created, but I'm not sure if it should be a subcategory of Northern Tasmania or not. --ghouston (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The enwiki category en:Category:Northern_Tasmania manages to include Devonport and Circular Head Council, but not Burnie or North West Tasmania. Who knows. --ghouston (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons focus group update, Nov 21, 2017

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

IRC office hour today, 21 November, 18.00 UTC
  • The IRC office hour about Structured Commons takes place at 18:00 UTC in wikimedia-office webchat. Amanda, Ramsey and I will give updates about the project, and you can ask us questions. The log will be published afterwards.
Tools update

Many important community tools for Commons and Wikidata will benefit from an update to structured data in the future. You can help indicate which tools will need attention:

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons focus group update, December 11, 2017

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

Later this week, a full newsletter will be distributed, but you are the first to receive an update on new requests for feedback.

Three requests for feedback
  1. We received many additions to the spreadsheet that collects important Commons and Wikidata tools. Thank you! Now, you can participate in a survey that helps us understand and prioritize which tools and functionalities are most important for the Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata communities. The survey runs until December 22. Here's some background.
  2. Help the team decide on better names for 'captions' and 'descriptions'. You can provide input until January 3, 2018.
  3. Help collect interesting Commons files, to prepare for the data modelling challenges ahead! Continuous input is welcome there.

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) - 16:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Children at the Wainuiomata Intermediate School, Wellington Province (28471230432).jpg

@Ghouston: Hi Ghouston. I am interested that you changed Wainuiomata from Wellington to New Zealand. May I know your thinking on this? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem, it's because Wainuiomata is part of Lower Hutt, not part of Wellington City. It seems that Category:Wellington and its subcategories refers to Wellington City, not the Category:Wellington urban area (which I just created, since it has useful links to Wikipedia). --ghouston (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Umm, not sure I agree with those distinctions but I have the idea there has been plenty of discussion on these subjects. Can you show me where you found the basis for your concept. I should explain my concern is for the events of various years in various places. "1970 in New Zealand" is just a ragbag of stuff. I've done the old 'four main centres' and now you are taking stuff out! It'd be nice if you could set up the last 150 years for Wainuiomata or Lower Hutt or Wellington urban area wouldn't it. Anyway please may I see where this was discussed? Eddaido (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not a concept I invented. Wellington and Lower Hutt are separate cities, and Category:Lower Hutt isn't included in Category:Wellington, and it seems never has been. It may seem a bit confusing, because "Wellington" can refer to either the city, the urban area, or the region. --ghouston (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Try thinking of it as the region. Unless you are really set on creating 150 new individual year categories for Wainui or the Hutt or wherever I really do think this file should be back where it was in Wellington. Don't you? Eddaido (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
No, there's already a category for the region, Category:Wellington Region, which has existed since 2010. I don't think it would be a good idea to make loads of intersection categories for individual years and cities, but intersection categories need to follow the definitions of their parents. I suggest renaming the category to "1970 in the Wellington Region", or creating that category with the existing category as a subcategory. The file from Wainuiomata would then fit. --ghouston (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, until you follow your own suggestion and create the set of categories for the many years for the Wellington Region I will return it to plain Wellington (which as you acknowledge covers the region). This is simply a question of practicality. If you are still anxious then you should take us to a higher authority of your choice. Eddaido (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

hi

please write your answer here again because talk moved.--5.234.41.60 09:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons - Design feedback request: Multilingual Captions

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the the community focus group for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons.

The Structured Data on Commons team has a new design feedback request up for Multilingual Captions support in the Upload Wizard. Visit the page for more information about the potential designs. Discussion and feedback is welcome there.

On a personal note, you'll see me posting many of these communications going forward for the Structured Data project, as SandraF transitions into working on the GLAM side of things for Structured Data on Commons full time. For the past six months she's been splitting time between the two roles (GLAM and Community Liaison). I'm looking forward to working with you all again. Thank you, happy editing. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


after you created a category...a bot was created to get more data

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Taken_with_Sony_DSC-WX70

have a great day — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.218.11.43 (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


Barnstar - Ghouston (section) nice work

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
great job on the amazing code and super bot(/) 30th of january 2018 (UTC)

Ajout de catégories à 1 fichier

Merci d'avoir ajouter 1 catégorie.--Tonnegrande (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data feedback - What gets stored where (Ontology)

Greetings,

There is a new feedback request for Structured Data on Commons (link for messages posted to Commons: , regarding what metadata from a file gets stored where. Your participation is appreciated.

Happy editing to you. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Rietschen, Turnerweg, Info-Tafel Neißeland-Radtour am Erlichthof 01.jpg

Hallo Ghouston, you nominated my photo for deletion: File:Rietschen, Turnerweg, Info-Tafel Neißeland-Radtour am Erlichthof 01.jpg Its a photo of an Information board on a public street, ist public domain and therefore not a copyright violation. Greetings --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

First structured licensing conversation on Commons

Greetings,

The first conversation about structured copyright and licensing for Structured Data on Commons has been posted, please come by and participate. The discussion will be open through the end of the month (March). Thank you. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Request to contact STL viewer developers

Hi Ghouston,

I note that you created the STL files category and wonder if you could point me to the relevant person(s) about a possible bug in the Wikimedia model viewer. I'd posted the following on the Computer help-desk but didn't get any replies:

“ I created a few STL files below and found that artifacts appear in the Wikimedia viewer and occasionally the thumbnail. I've checked that the direction of facet vertices is anticlockwise, the normals are sensible and polygons are not duplicated. It seems to happen more where the polyhedron is thin. All these polyhedra render correctly on http://viewstl.com . Would anyone know how to fix these artifacts?
  • Severe artifacts
    Severe artifacts
  • Severe artifacts
    Severe artifacts
  • Major artifacts
    Major artifacts
  • Minor artifacts
    Minor artifacts
 ”

Thanks,
cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 15:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You've reported it on Phabricator -- that's the right place.
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T191213
--ghouston (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Ghouston. Someone told me to report it there. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 00:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Map_21st_century_skills_NL.png&curid=64728393&diff=295733846&oldid=295733828&diffmode=source BeeBringer (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

File:CTOYAC car parking lot entrance 20080724.jpg

In the edit summary(see: [2]), I saw you write: "does not comply with renaming guidelines; it seems to show the entrance." You mean that "parking lot entrance is an entrance", and not "car parking at the entrance to the parking lot"?--Kai3952 (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I read it as "CTOYAC car parking lot, entrance". It's not unusual for short titles to be ambiguous like that. --ghouston (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
And since there's no car parking at the entrance, that interpretation makes sense. --ghouston (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't understand why not rename to "CTOYAC car parking lot, entrance - 20080724".--Kai3952 (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Because COM:RENAME says: "Which files should not be renamed? As a matter of principle it's best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist. So for example: ...", and it seems to me that name would be only slightly better. --ghouston (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you want to tell me that "Files rename is not very important"?--Kai3952 (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, generally it's better for files to keep the same name so that incoming links don't break. They shouldn't be renamed unless there's a good reason. --ghouston (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Remember that there's also a "Description" part of the file page where the file can be described in detail. --ghouston (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I will watch out for these in the future. Thank you for pointing this out.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

quick!

This is not a complaint! I was reloading and trying to change the filenames in the links to list... Thanks! --RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Multilingual captions testing is available

Greetings,

The early prototype for multilingual caption support is available for testing. More information on how to sign up to test is on Commons. Thanks, happy editing to you. - Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Scanners and scans

In case you are wondering: a while ago I kicked a bunch of Category:Scanned with Canon CanoScan LiDE 500F categories out of their respective scanner category (like Category:Canon CanoScan LiDE 500F). The reason for this is that when you go to Category:Canon scanners for example and load all pictures from there and subcategories, you would also get hundreds of completely random images that were scanned with that scanner, where you would only expect images of scanner hardware. (and maybe some scanner documentation. packaging or advertisement if that happens to have a free license) - Alexis Jazz 15:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I've created {{Scanned with category}} that can be used instead. - Alexis Jazz 15:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I think you misunderstand how the category system works in Commons. Subcategories can be related to their parent categories in arbitrary ways, and in this case they are obviously related. There are hundreds or thousands of other examples like Category:Taken with iPhone X being a subcategory of Category:iPhone X. Structured Data is supposed to improve the situation at some point. --ghouston (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The same issue was discussed a few years ago at Village Pump: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/07#"taken_with..."-Categories_in_the_Categories_of_the_camera_manufacturers_leads_to_heavy_miscategorization. --ghouston (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
So this was discussed in 2013 with the solution being "kick the scanners/cameras out of the scanned/taken with categories" (which sounds reasonable enough). In 2015 the same discussion came along and now we have the same discussion again and "Structured Data" would solve everything. Works for me: let's kick all the scanners and cameras out of the scanned/taken with categories and when (if..) this "structured data" materializes we can put them back in. - Alexis Jazz 01:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
You can do that if you like, it may turn into some sort of edit war, but I'm not really interested in getting involved. I'll just add parent categories on any category I create, since that's my understanding of how the category system is supposed to work. Obviously it's not optimal, and fixing one thing will sometimes break something else. --ghouston (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Considering the number of categories, I probably won't. But it would be right. The category system is basically a complete mess, but putting cameras and scanners in "taken/scanned" with categories just makes things worse. And it doesn't make sense either. Adding the scanned/taken with category to the scanner/camera (adding Category:Scanned with Canon CanoScan LiDE 500F to Category:Canon CanoScan LiDE 500F) makes vaguely more sense and at least doesn't seem to break much. Structured data will be "the same technology as used for Wikidata", Wikidata has some serious issues of its own so I'm looking forward to that.. Thanks for the information. I guess I'll just let it rest, I can't do much about it. - Alexis Jazz 01:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

BotAdventures

Hi Ghouston -- can your BotAdventures add Category:Taken with Sony ILCE-7RM3 to the uploads by Satdeep Gill where it applies, unless the category is already there? (Some weeks ago I added, but meanwhile there are many new uploads.) Thanks. --A.Savin 12:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's done. --ghouston (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Buildings in Taiwan by former function

I noticed your edits to Category:Buildings in Taiwan by former function. I think we should not add "Repurposed buildings" category. Not all buildings will be repurposed, and some no longer exist(it was demolished). It would be nice to get a consensus from more people, but I don't have much time to waste on this issue. If you oppose, you can submit to COM:CFD.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kai3952: This is exactly how Category:Buildings by former function is defined: "Buildings which are not used for their intended function anymore, but remain in existence." Destroyed buildings go in Category:Destroyed buildings in Taiwan. I don't like the way this has been set up, because people may not understand that categories like Category:Former banks shouldn't include demolished buildings, but that's how it is now. --ghouston (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Because "Category:Former structures by country" is the parent category of "Category:Destroyed buildings by country." In my opinion, I will define it as such: "Former buildings also contains Category:Destroyed buildings in Taiwan." I can only say that this "troublesome" issue is not caused by me.--Kai3952 (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's also a flaw. All I can suggest is that destroyed buildings and buildings that have changed usage should be kept in separate categories. --ghouston (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll put it on hold for now. Because I have "more important" things that need to be resolved first. If I have free time, I will report this issue to COM:CFD.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I've begun to discuss the issue. I welcome you to participate in the discussion at "COM:HD#Former buildings shouldn't include demolished buildings?".--Kai3952 (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

about the deletion requests

Thanks for your careful review, I've checked and made changes in these files, hope you can check again, thanks again.

--Dquai (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to say they are all ineligible for copyright? An administrator will eventually decide whether to delete them or not. --ghouston (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

COM:VPC

Hi, Why did you revert Jee? i.e. [3]. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Jkadavoor, it was a misclick. I clicked something on my watchlist before the page finished loading. --ghouston (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
No worries! Jee 12:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Bot request

Hi Ghouston, is it possible that your bot adds Category:Taken with DJI FC6520 to all files where the exif data contains camera model "FC6520"? --тнояsтеn ⇔ 10:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It already does. It seems not many have been uploaded to Commons. --ghouston (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
We have only those 4 files? I almost cannot believe ;) --тнояsтеn ⇔ 11:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I workin to change this by adding uploads :) --Ordercrazy (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
For completeness: could 'Category:Taken with DJI FC220' (Exif:Model: FC220, ->Example) & 'Category:Taken with DJI FC300X' (Exif:Model: FC300X) also be scanned? - there are currently only 269 and 661 images categorized for Mavic Pro & Phantom IV - is it really not more drone-footage of these two really common models on commons? --Ordercrazy (talk)
The bot only adds to categories with fewer than 100 images already, as discussed at the original request at Commons:Bots/Requests/BotAdventures. --ghouston (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons IRC Office Hour, Tuesday 26 June

Greetings,

There will be an IRC office hour for Structured Data on Tuesday, 26 June from 18:00-19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. You can find more details, as well as date and time conversion, at the IRC Office Hours page on Meta.

Thanks, I look forward to seeing you there if you can make it. -- Keegan (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

rename template

Hi! You have cleaned up several of my mistakes and I really appreciate it.

I am having problems with my latest greatest mistake: File:Missing page.jpg, specifically with the template. It looks fine in the preview but after saving the page, the template escapes the requesters name. I filled the whole template in using 1=, etc., but still the problem persists.

If there is anything I can do differently to make the template work right, please let me know.

In my defense, it is a good name for where it lives on my computer....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi RaboKarbakian, your usage of the template looks OK, although the file hasn't been added to the category of files for renaming. I asked about it a Village pump. --ghouston (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
It was nice that I could drop this big problem off. Especially as I am currently busy-ish elsewhere....--23:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

What properties does Commons need?

Greetings,

Structured Commons will need properties to make statements about files. The development team is working on making the software ready to support properties; the question is, what properties does Commons need?

You can find more information and examples to help find properties in a workshop on Commons. Please participate and help fill in the list, and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy tagging

Fyi, when tagging pages use {{SD|G10}} or {{SD|F10}} {{Speedydelete|G10}} or {{Speedydelete|F10}} format, if you add comments such as {{Speedydelete|G10 because I think so}} it isn't categorised correctly.

If you need to add comments, you can add {{SD |1=G10| 2=this is big advertisement}} or {{Speedydelete |1=G10| 2=this is big advertisement}}

Unless it's unclear, you normally don't need to add a comment.--BevinKacon (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Previously I only nominated using gadgets, but there doesn't seem to be a gadget that can handle every speedydelete reason. --ghouston (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data feedback - Depicts statements draft requirements

Greetings,

A slide presentation of the draft requirements for depicts statements on file pages is up on Commons. Please visit this page on Commons to review the slides and discuss the draft. Thank you, see you on the talk page. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

image rotation

OMG. This is not a question and definitely not an answer.

Sometime in the development of gimp-1.3, maybe in the 2 series, an option started popping up for the rotation of images. I always tried to opt to keep things they way they were. The rotation suggestion was a reaction to the exif data.

Years later, I ran into a friend who was using a cellphone to view images with and when looking at mine, they did not rotate correctly when the camera was turned. It was a moment of "oh that is the reason for that". And a moment where we were both annoyed.

I have not one single idea of how to solve my problem as I do not want to rely on software to rotate my images, but my friend was annoyed due to the expectation that my images behave correctly on the phone.

Maybe the answer to your question lies somewhere in this but more, it is a warning of a potential oncoming logic conundrum.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue is images that have an "Orientation" setting in Exif, which GIMP detects and gives a message at startup. In previous times, there were broken image viewers around that would ignore the Orientation setting completely. For this particular file, there are two different Orientation in Exif, so the behaviour is random (more at Template_talk:Wikidata_Infobox#Rotated_image. --ghouston (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data feedback - structured licensing and copyright

Mockups of structured licensing and copyright statements on file pages are posted. Please have a look over the examples and leave your feedback on the talk page. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

New discussion on Commons talk:Structured data

Hello. I've started a new, important discussion about creating properties for Commons on Wikidata. Please come join in, if the process is something that interests you or if you can help. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - upcoming changes to viewing old file page revisions

How old revisions of file pages work are likely going to have to change for structured data. There is information about the change on the SDC hub talk page, please read it over and leave feedback if you have any. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - IRC office hours today, 4 October

There will be an IRC office hour for Structured Data on Commons today, 4 October 2018, from 17:00-18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. You can find date/time conversion, as well as a link to join the chat in your browser if needed, on the IRC Office hours page on Meta. I look forward to seeing you there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - search prototype

There is a search prototype for structured data on Commons available. Please visit the search prototype page on the structured data hub for information on testing and feedback. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

PD-old-assumed

Please avoid using PD-old-assumed when there is no uncertainty that an image is public domain. In the case of File:Withering Botanischetekening.jpeg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), published in the 18th century, there can be no doubt and so no need to worry reusers. I have changed the template to {{PD-old-100-1923}}. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right, once the maximum recorded human life span is reached one can stop assuming. --ghouston (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
There's also the logical application of UK copyright law. That's why the British Library chose a limit of 1874, as nobody could reasonably argue a potential copyright claim for publications before that. --Fæ (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I already did the math for human life span and copyright: COM:WORSTCASE. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - IRC office hour today, 1 November

There will be an IRC office hour for Structured Data on Commons today, 1 October 2018, from 17:00-18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. You can find date/time conversion, as well as a link to join the chat in your browser if needed, on the IRC Office hours page on Meta. I realize this may be short notice for some people; I am experimenting with advanced notice times to see what works best for the most people, I'll be giving more warning before the next office hour. I look forward to seeing you there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - IRC office hour today, 1 November

The above message says 1 October in the body when it should say 1 November, as the subject line says. Apologies for making a new section by mass message, it's the only way to get this out quickly. See you in twenty minutes! -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - copyright and licensing statements

I've posted a second round of designs for modeling copyright and licensing in structured data. These redesigns are based off the feedback received in the first round of designs, and the development team is looking for more discussion. These designs are extremely important for the Commons community to review, as they deal with how copyright and licensing is translated from templates into structured form. I look forward to seeing you over there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Multilingual captions beta testing

The Structured Data on Commons team has begun beta testing of the first feature, multilingual file captions, and all community members are invited to test it out. Captions is based on designs discussed with the community[4][5] and the team is looking forward to hearing about testing. If all goes well during testing, captions will be turned on for Commons around the second week of January, 2019.

Multilingual captions are plain text fields that provide brief, easily translatable details of a file in a way that is easy to create, edit, and curate. Captions are added during the upload process using the UploadWizard, or they can be added directly on any file page on Commons. Adding captions in multiple languages is a simple process that requires only a few steps.

The details:

  • There is a help page available on how to use multilingual file captions.
  • Testing will take place on Beta Commons. If you don’t yet have an account set up there, you’ll need one.
  • Beta Commons is a testbed, and not configured exactly like the real Commons site, so expect to see some discrepancies with user interface (UI) elements like search.
  • Structured Data introduces the potential for many important page changes to happen at once, which could flood the recent changes list. Because of this, Enhanced Recent Changes is enabled as it currently is at Commons, but with some UI changes.
  • Feedback and commentary on the file caption functionality are welcome and encouraged on the discussion page for this post.
  • Some testing has already taken place and the team are aware of some issues. A list of known issues can be seen below.
  • If you discover a bug/issue that is not covered in the known issues, please file a ticket on Phabricator and tag it with the “Multimedia” tag. Use this link to file a new task already tagged with "Multimedia."

Known issues:

Thanks!

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk), for the Structured Data on Commons Team 20:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - file captions coming this week (January 2019)

Hi all, following up on last month's announcement...

Multilingual file captions will be released this week, on either Wednesday, 9 November or Thursday, 10 November 2019. Captions are a feature to add short, translatable descriptions to files. Here's some links you might want to look follow before the release, if you haven't already:

  1. Read over the help page for using captions - I wrote the page on mediawiki.org because captions are available for any MediaWiki user, feel free to host/modify a copy of the page here on Commons.
  2. Test out using captions on Beta Commons.
  3. Leave feedback about the test on the captions test talk page, if you have anything you'd like to say prior to release.

Additionally, there will be an IRC office hour on Thursday, 10 January with the Structured Data team to talk about file captions, as well as anything else the community may be interested in. Date/time conversion, as well as a link to join, are on Meta.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to seeing those who can make it to the IRC office hour on Thursday. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

FileExporter/FileImporter: feedback about finding imported files?

Hi Ghouston,

Your comment in this discussion sounds like it's hard for you to find files that were imported with the FileExporter/FileImporter extensions. If you find the time, it would be very helpful if you could describe the workflow and tools that you use to find imported files. This information could help us improve the feature. The best place for feedback is the central feedback page. Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Johanna, but I don't think it's really a much of a problem. A solution is available using the upload logs, and it's probably such a rarely used workflow that it doesn't matter if it's a little less convenient now. --ghouston (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Ghouston. That's good to know. If you have any other feedback about this feature, you know where to find me. :) -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Aloy's Portrait.jpg

Hola Ghouston. Recibí tu mensaje. Gracias por el aviso. Me molesta un poco el hecho de Wikimedia borre la imagen. Pero no debería sorprenderme, no es la primera vez que lo hacen. Puede que ya no suba mas imágenes durante un tiempo. Solo me dedicare a escribir artículos. Solo espero que Wikipedia tampoco los elimine.SamBrowning (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons only accepts free images. If you think it's eligible, the details can be put at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aloy's Portrait.jpg. --ghouston (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - development update, March 2019

This text is also posted on the Structured Data hub talk page. You can reply there with questions, comments, or concerns.

A development update for the current work by the Structured Data on Commons team:

After the release of multilingual file captions, work began on getting depicts and other statements ready for release. These were originally scheduled for release in February and into March, however there are currently two major blockers to finishing this work (T215642, T217157). We will know more next week about when depicts and statements can likely be ready for testing and then release; until then I've tentatively updated the release schedule.

Once the depicts feature is ready for testing, it will take place in two stages on TestCommons. The first is checking the very basics; is the design comfortable, how does the simple workflow of adding/editing/removing statements work, and building up help and process pages from there. The second part is a more detailed test of depicts and other statements, checking the edge-case examples of using the features, bugs that did not come up during simple testing, etc. Additionally we'll be looking with the community for bugs in interaction with bots, gadgets, and other scripts once the features are live on Commons. Please let me know if you're interesting in helping test and fix these bugs if they show up upon release, it is really hard to find them in a test environment or, in some cases, bugs won't show up in a testing environment at all.

One new thing is definitely coming within the next few weeks, pending testing: the ability to search for captions. This is done using the inlabel keyword in search strings, and will be the first step in helping users find content that is specifically structured data. I'll post a notice when that feature is live and ready for use.

Thanks, let me know if you have questions about these plans. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ghouston/Archive_1&oldid=349880857"