This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
As I said in my talk page, mixing those old pictures in the main category (for example: Bogor) can lead to a potentially confusing result. When people looking for images best representing Bogor, they have to sort through the masses of old stuff that they don't really care. Therefore I propose the old pics to be categorized to a subcategory, whatever it may be (Old pictures of Bogor, Black and white pictures of Bogor, etc). Really, I dont' want to see 2.287 pictures (as you suggested [1]) of b&w Indonesia in Category:Indonesia. Please think of this for a while before your bot & Siebrand's make any further edits. Let's invite other Indonesian Wikipedian first. What do you think? And since more and more volunteers are coming in, I dare to say that this is urgent. Bennylin (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You're exactly describing categorization. Move some image to a general category and then sort out these category into different subcategory to keep it workable.
Okay, that's for Category:Indonesia. How about Category:Bali that now has 1.718 pics, how did you plan to filter them if it doesn't have any temp category that's more specific? Could you combine category (Culture of Indonesia + Bali automatically Culture of Bali) with pybot? Thanks. Bennylin (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe some automatic work, but I guess a lot has to be done by hand. Lot's of categories still need to be created. I just went over Category:Provinces of Indonesia. Maybe you could have a look at the lower level categories like cities/towns/villages? Multichill (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Is the Black & White category I mentioned above out of the question? My fear is that once they're moved to the main category, there won't be any method for bot to recategorize them. Bennylin (yes?) 14:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not out of the question, but I just think we can find way better categories than that. Categories describing what you see in the image. This categorization process will require a couple of iterations. Multichill (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me
Excuse me for breathing! I was doing "something nice", some (as I thought) useful work, identifying Category:Unidentified Asteraceae, when I discovered five virtually identical images by this user, and several more sets of near duplicates, which it seemed pointless to go to the trouble of identifying and moving to another category. It also seemed pointless to leave them there cluttering up that page, wasting other people's time. I could have simply removed the category, but it seemed more valuable to bring it to someone's attention. I agree that Fale has uploaded lots of great images, and I've told him so, but I think that you are both missing the point. Have you looked at, for instance, the third 200 of his Category:Files by Fale, where there are 17 almost identical images. He's normally a reasonably good photographer, but these are all out of focus. He's uploaded 2,985 images (with lots of duplicates)! I'm just suggesting that he should be more selective, and choose only his best images to upload. Can you suggest a good use for 17 virtually identical blurry images within Wikipedia? "Move along" yourself. (I like the "Please be polite" guideline at the top of your page – doesn't it apply to you?) SiGarb (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's up, but yourcomments to other users haven't been helping discussions. It's been degrading them, and not very mellow. Look, you're an extremely bright person who has helped this project extensively, but that doesn't give you a reason to be rude to people who may not know as much about Commons. Killiondude (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) To be clear, that comment was directed towards Multichill. Threads on Wikimedia sites can be confusing sometimes as to where comments are directed, so I just wanted to clarify. Killiondude (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Keith D, thanks for your note. I thought I cleaned up all counties, but apparently not. I now put all the categories in Category:Towns and villages in the East Riding of Yorkshire. The dupes should be easy to spot. We prefer to disambiguate at Commons so the category with the longest name should be kept. The other category can be tagged with {{Move|<longer category>|Disambiguation/merge}}. Multichill (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
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!
...you've done a huge category move here and you haven't even bothered to consult someone that actually comes from England. We would never call it "Norfolk County". It's just "Norfolk". Fix this, please. :) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Category:Norfolk was tagged for more than two weeks and nobody bothered to comment. If you think the category should be renamed, tag it with {{Move}} please.
Thanks for uploading File:Drukfout-voorbeeld-rd.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).
Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.
I asked around at #wikimedia-commmons for help with mass uploads and someone suggested your name. Just today I was made aware that the Stockholm University Library has made very high quality scans of hundreds of maps of Sweden from their archives and made them available for downloading at the following site:
I have personally talked to one of those behind the project, Stefan Ene, who was very positive to the idea of getting these maps uploaded to Commons. Since I don't feel computer-savvy enough to handle the mass-uploading, do you think you could be of assistance in this matter?
Looks very good Peter! Of course I can be of assistance. Maybe you could drop by in #wikimedia-commmons again so we can discus it? Multichill (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I started a thread to verify the copyright status of the maps here. I'll dorp by IRC later when I get home.
While a little engaged in looking for obscure categories- I detected a error message that was following me round- so I spoke to Lupo: who suggested that I should contact yourself. I do hope I am not entering a turf war! Here is the posting and reply. But the geograph issue is far more urgent.
A trail of Errors/searchable features
Several thousand edits down the road, I have noticed this error message on pages I have hotcatted on Commons. (Firefox 3.5.5/Ubuntu 9.10)
ReferenceError: addLink is not defined
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Populate-category.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s (33)
Hey. Is there a bot or something that can automatically add user-specific categories to somebody's uploads? Or does it have to be done manually? Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
No bot that I'm aware of. Shouldn't too hard though. Just make a list of someones uploads (toolserver query) and have a bot add a user category. Multichill (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Multichill, please feel free to unblock your bot as soon as this issue has been fixed. As this was already going on for days (see notice above by EugeneZelenko) and I didn't knew when you will have time to fix it, it seemed best to me to suspend the bot's activity. Cheers, AFBorchert (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This category was a mess. In dutch we would call it a "vergaarbak" (look that up in Google Translate ;-) ). Anyway, still need to sort it out. Care to help? Multichill (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I removed everything out of place from the Zwinger Dresden category and tried to add at least somewhat better categories for them. Fletcher6 (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Your bot complained in September 2008 that this picture needs a category. But it already has a category, always had, so could you please fix your bot and remove the complaint from pictures in that category? --LA2 (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Multichill, ik richt me even aan jou als beheerder. Ik probeer een transcriptie toe te voegen van de tekst in deze prent. Maar dit wordt me onmogelijk gemaakt omdat deze het woord "cock" bevat. Hoe kan ik dit probleem omzeilen? Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Beschrijving Icoonklaarland.jpg
Nederlands: De icoon van Onze-Lieve-Vrouw van Klaarland
Italiano: Icona di Nostra Signora di Klaarland
English: The icon of Our Lady of Klaarland
Hi Multichill. Thanks for your message. I have tried to use http://toolserver.org/~magnus/geograph_org2commons.php on several occasions, but have not been able to get it to recognise my TUSC account. However, have tried again and, this time, it's worked! Don't know why, cause I've not done anything different from the other umpteen tries I've had. Now that it's finally working, will certainly make things a hell of a lot easier! Skinsmoke (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
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!
My bot left this on you AWB account's talk page by mistake, so you'll probably need to log into it manually before your AWB will work again. Sorry about that, it seems the bot doesn't recognize redirects. Hersfold(talk/work)09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, MultichillAWB. The file(s) listed below have been marked with {{OTRS received}}, but there has been no complete confirmation of its permission status in the last 30 days. From what I'm able to tell, you were the person who added this template. Would you mind taking a look at this again? If confirmation cannot be found, this file should probably be marked for deletion. This should be the only notification you will receive regarding this image, so long as the comment I added to the image description page is not altered. Thanks! HersfoldOTRSBot(talk/opt out)09:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
If you are not an OTRS volunteer or did not add the "received" template to this file, it's possible I made a mistake identifying the correct user. I look for the most recent diff where the template was added, so if you reverted an edit where this template was removed, I can't tell the difference. If this is the case, please let my operator know at w:en:User talk:Hersfold. Sorry for the inconvenience!
I uploaded all these files. The problem I currently have with getting an permission is this: KRG.org uses a lot of images from Reuters,AFP and other news agency's. These are copyrighted and can't be used. However KRG.org also has a lot of pictures that is theirs. We are allowed to use these. The site-owner says that if I send him an email asking for permission he will send me one back granting me permission. But the email has to be set up in such a way that it excludes copyrighted images. Can someone give me an example? WP:BRP doesn't have any. ~ Zirguezi23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Wel heel veel tekst bij category
Multichill, ik zag bij Category:Cork (city) die je hebt gemaakt wel een heel erg lange lijst van tekst in alle talen. Naar mijn mening zou de bot alleen de Engelse tekst moeten gebruiken en - als de bot dat kan onderscheiden - ook de taal van het land waar het onderwerp op van toepassing is (voor zover dat relevant is). De functie van de tekst bij de categorie zie ik in eerste instantie als hulp voor de gebruiker zodat die weet waar de categorie over gaat. Bijvoorbeeld zoals bij Category:Cork dat men weet dat die niet voor kurk bedoeld is. Alle interwikilinks vind ik prima. Wouter (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Nee, ik vind dat de beschrijving er in zoveel mogelijk talen op moet zitten. Om te voorkomen dat het zo'n lap tekst wordt gebruik ik vaak {{Multilingual description}}. Goed dat je het zegt, ik zal Magnus meteen even vragen of hij dat sjabloon kan gaan gebruiken in sumitup. Multichill (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Goed initiatief. Bij voorkeur zou de tekst enkel in het Engels, in de gebruikerstaal en in de landstaal van de item moeten getoond worden. Een beetje veel gevraagd misschien, vooral het laatste (tenzij dat het systematisch als eerste op de lijst gezet zou kunnen worden). --Foroa (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Ter informatie. Ik heb het eens geprobeerd bij Category:Bezirk Deutschlandsberg met {{Multilingual description}} en sumitup en een "platte" tekst verwerker. Copy/paste werkt niet - zoals ik al eerder bij andere Commons aangelegenheden heb gemerkt - omdat kennelijk bepaalde (onzichtbare) karakters via de platte tekst niet goed worden meegenomen. Zelfs wanneer ik alle japanse, russische, etc teksten heb weggelaten. Het resultaat is dat totaal niets van het gekopieerde via de preview te zien is. Wouter (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Heb je daarbij uitsluitend gebruik gemaakt van browersvelden bij de copy/paste en edits of heb je gebruik gemaakt van een aparte editor waarin je de sum-it-up gegevens hebt gekopieerd en daar find/replace. Dat laatste werkte bij mij dus niet. Ik ga het in ieder geval proberen door binnen de browser velden te blijven. Het is een elegante manier om compact informatie voor de gebruiker te presenteren.Wouter (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Via de brower gaat het goed. Handmatig controleren is wel nodig want wanneer er voor de eerste regel een plaatje is gegeven wordt daarvan een stuk van de tekst gebruikt. Bijvoorbeeld van [[Datoteka:Deutschlandsberg im Bezirk DL.png|Položaj grada Deutschlandsberg u okrugu Deutschlandsberg|300px|thumb]] het gedeelte Položaj grada Deutschlandsberg u okrugu Deutschlandsberg|300px|thumb]]. Wouter (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Ik heb gebruik gemaakt van "sum-it-up" bij Category:Gevelsberg. Het blijkt dat daar ook de taal Nedersaksisch wordt vermeld zonder omschrijving. In de links is er geen naar Nedersaksisch (nds-nl). Een directe kopie van sum-it-up geeft een juiste weergave van al de talen. Het is bij gebruik making van {{Multilingual description}} dat het probleem optreedt. Enkel wanneer ik Plattdüütsch (nds) geheel weglaat, komt de vermelding Nedersaksisch niet meer voor. Weet jij een oplossing? Wouter (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Multichill. I finally had enough time to care about the language subpages for Template:ID-USMil. The problem is that I don't have an idea so far how an issue could be fixed. I created Template:ID-USMil/layout so that you don't have to write the same code (colours etc.) over and over again. {{{fail-text}}} is section where the 'You have forgotten to include an ID'-message should be included and which should be displayed if you haven't entered an ID. That message would also get included on the main page if you use {{Autotranslate}}. Any ideas how to change that? I don't created a */doc subpage, because I think */doc is not flexible enough. I created Template:ID-USMil/info/lang instead which shows all the information you need or might be interested in. I just didn't found the right place for Template:ID-USMil/info/lang. Right now I placed it at the bottom of the page but that doesn't look really good. I thought about a small box (on the right side) below the "Usage" headline just like en:Template:Commons where the languages could be selected from the box. I also thought about a small box which says "Display this page in: Deutsch, English, italiano, {{#language:whatever}}". I would use a link to Template:ID-USMil?uselang=lang for that purpose. Off the topic: How did you include User talk:Multichill/Editnotice on your userpage when you edit it? regards --D-Kuru (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
{{cy|Injan Stêm Glynllifon}}
{{en|Glynllifon Steam Engine}}
became:
{{en|1=Injan Stêm Glynllifon Steam Engine In the extensive estate workshops the steam engine has been restored and regularly operates.}}
The extra description text presumably came from Geograph.
Does this mean that already-localized descriptions in multiple languages are all overwritten when a fuller description is loaded from Geograph, then stored as one of those languages? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes. A lot of images weren't properly transfered from geograph (wrong license, wrong attribution, no location etc etc). I restored these descriptions based on the geograph database. That might cause a couple of translated descriptions to be overwritten. Multichill (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
If the bot does any more over-writing of well formed image descriptions, I would report it as with any other user problem for discussion. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I pretty much cleaned up all crap. I am going to add location templates because some people don't seem to understand how to add these at upload right away. I don't understand why people don't just use the tool. Multichill (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
niet goed. Wordt het gedeelte |zh-min-nan=Pò·-tē-hì (布袋戲) door het template niet goed behandeld of heb ik ergens een typfout gemaakt? Wouter (talk) 12:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
New category for photographs from the G.R. Lambert & Co. photography studio
I think that replacement of the existing image description should be more cautious than replacing every one with the geograph version. The bot copies points of view, external links, unreferenced material, and copies the whole lot even if it is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. The bot overwrites the image description that was specially manually written for the wiki at the time of the original transfer to the wiki. Please rethink this total overwrite of the previous image description. If the licences need checking, then why not do that and correct the licence. I welcome checking and correcting the image location template, but there is no need to change scores and scores of image descriptions. I think that a lot of repair work is needed in the wake of this bot. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately wrong license was not the only problem. Besides that: Missing and incorrect description, author, source, date or location. Multichill (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I would ask that all the original image descriptions of all the hundreds of image descriptions overwritten are checked and revered if necessary. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I have found lots of errors in the new image descriptions and I think that it would be better if these errors were not copied from geograph in the first place. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The Bot is doing a great job- and getting the geograph database is an enormous prize, and edits can be remade. I only mention this concern so I can possibly prevent an embarrassing error.
I have examples of poorly documented images with inaccurate Grid References on Geograph. For example File:Falcon Mill, Victoria Street, Chadderton - geograph.org.uk - 696671.jpg given as SD 910 055 when it is SD 911 057, which makes it impossible to expect an accurate georef- giving 53.54605870;-2.13729419 rather than 53.54785809;-2.13579081 but during the cleaning process I am concerned that some of the alterations to visually correct positions give a result suggesting that the Helmert transformation between OSGB and WSG84 has not taken place. If this is true, every geograph file uploaded will have a coordinate error, but as we have discovered it now it should be easy to program the bot to overwrite a correction as it is a mechanical process and the maths is known.
Using a sample of one file File:Osborne Mills, Chadderton 695142-by-Chris-Allen.jpg it looks as if the algorithm used to convert the OS reference is wrong- no Helmert conversion has been done. The latitude and longitude given wrongly uses OSGB36 as R Haworth used to do in his template {{Oscoor}} and not WSG84 which commons, wikipedia and GPS uses.
The clue is that the camera location SD913056 appears to be 112m out. On this image, the camera is clearly in field with a prominent path. This is a spot close to {-{Location dec|53.547503|-2.132168|heading:67}}(original). In cleaning this has been changed to {-{Location dec|53.547864|-2.130659|heading:67}} which is a point in the middle of a car park pointing away from the target. I wrote [OSTOWIKI] as a tool for geotagging. This was written to apply the Helmert conversion accurately- and using this with the grid reference SD913056 gives 53.54696265;-2.13276957. A rule of thumb- 4 decimal places gives an accuracy of -+ 7m. If we look at the -2.13276957 (mine) and -2.130659 (cleaned) this predicts a shift of 0.0021 1057 or approxiamately 147m very close to the 112m that a Helmert error would generate, and certainly over the 100m limit of accuracy claimed on Geograph.
If however the error was random, and the uploader had done a manual correction then information has been lost in the cleaning and a list of each file that had its coord changed would be helpful to manually correct back the changes.
If the file has been wrongly referenced then we are shafted and can do nothing about it- but I cannot see a mechanical way to correct carelessness or stupidity.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)b
I'm using two fields in the databaes, wgs84_lat and wgs84_long:
For 696671, wgs84_lat=53.547767 and wgs84_long=-2.137149
For 695142, wgs84_lat=53.547864 and wgs84_long=-2.130659
I think that I need to find a very dark corner, close my eyes and hope it all goes away! wgs84_lat=53.547864 and wgs84_long=-2.130659 does sound like a reliable indicator that they are using the WGS84 datum- it is annoying that it has got it wrong.
For 695142, wgs84_lat=53.547864 and wgs84_long=-2.130659- back converts to SD 91440 05700
The geograph description---with my conversions appended
OSGB36: geotagged! SD 913 056---->WGS 53.54696265;-2.13276957 (Using google map and bookmarklet it is {-{location dec|53.5473|-2.1335}-}
View Direction
East-northeast (about 67 degrees)
The horrid truth seems to be that:
this coord relates to the subject location not the camera coord required on commons
Geograph software only works to 5 decimal places so introduces a cummulative transformation error (possibly of excess of 7m each conversion)
Some geograph contributors lack precision when filling in the upload form.
Thats my best shot using the data from one image I know. The correct 'photographer_wgs84_lat' and 'photographer_wgs84_long' could be generated from 'photographer_osgb36_gridref' if that is known. But there is no potential to do a less accurate linear correction as we are talking about different points. So I am looking for that darkened room! --ClemRutter (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
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!
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!
.jpg){kind=link}
Resolved
_-_geograph.org.uk_-_678599.jpg){kind=link}
