User talk:Rocket000/Archive 5

	This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the this page.
	Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3 - Archive 4 - Archive 5 - Archive 6 - Archive 7 - Archive 8

I responded on Template talk:Clear#Template not working as designed[edit]

In a round about way, I basically said that for very popular templates, like Template:{{Rocket000/Archive 5}} and {{Clear}}, especially ones that are used inside of other templates so frequently, it's preferable to keep things consistent across the various WMF projects. That way, it's easier to forklift a useful template from one site and copy it over to a different site and have it work as expected. So {{Clear}} needs to be updated, but Template:{{Rocket000/Archive 5}} should remain as-is for the foreseeable future. At some point, you're right, Template:{{Rocket000/Archive 5}} should be updated to use the CSS code you suggested, but that should happen as part of an overall multi-project decision probably coordinated here or on Meta. Wouldn't you agree? --Willscrlt (Talk) 23:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree consistency is good, but if something's been a certain way here for awhile and users got use to it, it wouldn't be right to simply change it because of the way it is on another project. And why not the other way around? Anyway, it's not that big of deal. I've updated the code. Rocket000(talk) 01:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Somebody could be counting on things working the "wrong way" and might get upset if we fix something that didn't seem "broken". Fortunately, the last change was a little less than a year ago. Hopefully that is recent enough that nobody will be inconvenienced. :-) Thanks for the help! --Willscrlt (Talk) 09:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat names[edit]

See ? here: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Category_names. Thanks for the first response. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template expertise needed![edit]

{{Species categorization}}. If they use it on a gallery it categorizes the gallery into the genus and that should happen with the category but not with the gallery (unless the genus category doesn't exist).

Can you fix this or do I need to upgrade my template writing ability from beginner to mediocre? (I have been mis-spelling that word all of my life, btw) -- carol (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you want species galleries to be categorized into the matching species categories, and the species categories to be in their genus categories, right? Rocket000(talk) 22:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you for understanding. -- carol (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and do you want galleries to be in categories like "Species of {{{family}}}" and the like? Rocket000(talk) 23:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted exactly what you did there whether I understood that when I asked or not. Nice work. -- carol (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat[edit]

Seems like you'll soon be a bureaucrat! Good to see that it all went well ;) --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rocket, following community's decision on Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Rocket000 (bureaucrat), you are now a Commons bureaucrat. Welcome to the ~~cabal~~ group! Congratulations, you have just given yourself some extra work and headaches :D. You can now use this handy dandy user box {{User bureaucrat}}. I'm really happy you accepted this new challenge, and I am sure you will use it wisely, in line with your general conduct on the project. Patrícia ^msg 17:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. However, I hope that my remarks (and those of a lot of users here) aren't fell on deaf ears. Cheers.--Bapti ✉ 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my remarks (and those of a lot of users here) aren't fell on deaf ears. Never! :) Believe it or not, I basically stopped my deletion runs of category redirects because of your comments. I understand that just because something's a good idea to me doesn't mean it's a good idea to everyone. Fortunately, we have been making some progress with HotCat.js and some of our problems are now solved. If you ever see me deleting something useful (hopefully never!), please don't hesitate to yell at me. ;) Cheers, Rocket000(talk) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ! All the best ;)--Bapti ✉ 20:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, mate! TimVickers (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah. Now I can finally do even less work! Giggy (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concrateiulations :) abf /talk to me/ 11:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I missed this. Congrats from me, too; and know that I'd have supported had I not been focused on wikisource these last some weeks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me, too. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks to me!! I didn't think you should do this, heh. Can you fix that template problem soon? -- carol (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. Your support means a lot to me. And carol, forgive me, I'll take a look at it now. Rocket000(talk) 22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Rocket ignores template and goes off to eat cake, laughing. TimVickers (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Sorry I missed chiming in with support, but looks to me like it was not needed at all. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin questions again![edit]

This was really nasty. I wonder why people do such things, and how is your new bureaucrat tools going? :) --Kanonkas_(talk) 14:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it came at a time when I was really busy in real life, but hopefully I'll be able to have more time soon. Rocket000(talk) 21:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

o/~ who taught that weeping willow how to cry, cry, cry? o/~[edit]

This gallery for Salix alba and the corresponding for Category:Salix alba is very very beautiful. Nice that you took time from your celebrations for this. -- carol (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Species categorization failure[edit]

The cool change that you made to this template (to subcategorize galleries into species and to subcategorize categories into genus) is going to fail on galleries when the genus name is "Genus (Family)". It would be nice if you could also think about this problem since you know more about what the templates can do. -- carol (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we can't disambiguate and concatenate at the same time. The only solution I can think of right now is to have a manual override for these cases. I would make [[Category:{{{genus}}} {{{species}}}| ]] → [[Category:{{{cat|{{{genus}}} {{{species}}}}}}| ]]. You would then have to put |cat=real species name for those species. Rocket000(talk) 21:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you are active again. When you have the time, I might need one of those lists of genus that have parens in the name again. -- carol (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, in case this is not just limited to "cats" (she typed while cringing), perhaps |realname=species name. -- carol (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:2008 Election suffrage poll[edit]

(You are receiving this message because the poll requested it to be closed and tallied by bureaucrats)

You are kindly asked to express your opinion on the results of Commons:2008 Election suffrage poll at Commons talk:2008 Election suffrage poll#Poll results. Thank you, Patrícia ^msg 12:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain your deletion?[edit]

03:25, 31 August 2008 Rocket000 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Fairytale trash full.png" ‎ (scaled down duplicate of Image:Fairytale trashcan full.png)

The image was used in the Wikisource template Löschantrag and Commons delinker hasn't noticed us. --FrobenChristoph (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I apologize for that. The deletion was preformed shortly after one of our "check usage" tools quit working correctly due to MediaWiki changes. I was unaware at the time and believed it when it reported the image was unused and thus no commands were sent to CommonsDelinker. I noticed you used the past tense "was used" but if you need me to restore it, just let me know. Rocket000(talk) 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of SR Croatia.svg[edit]

Hi! Could you please move this image to Category:Historical flags of Croatia from current cat. Flags of Croatia (image has been protected). Thnks in advance --Suradnik13 (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rocket000(talk) 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Templates using ParserFunctions[edit]

Just closed this and had Giggabot remove most of the uses. The rest, I figure, are there because they use {{Documentation}}, but I can't for the life of me work out how to get the category removed. Any ideas? Giggy (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

old images.gif[edit]

The pink tags have been sitting on those images for 8 days. Do you have any comment on those images. Whoever upload this iamge is gone for at least two years, and hadn't been contributing ever since 2005 I beleive.--SCFR eew ays 22:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Neon 7-Eleven sign.jpg[edit]

You've uploaded a derivative work

We're sorry, but Image:Neon 7-Eleven sign.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Photographs of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this photo must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a derivative work, please explain why on the image description page.

čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ ไทย ∙ 日本語 ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

|EPO| ^da: 10:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you?[edit]

I hope you're just too busy with RL... you are sorely missed. Patrícia ^msg 13:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't the only one. --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I miss you, too! abf /talk to me/ 17:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snif, me too! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:52.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:52.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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 ∙ +/−

--Teofilo (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Library of Parliament by Galbraith.jpg[edit]

here? --Botaurus stellaris (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

change to Luke Ford template[edit]

Excuse me, but can you please tell me what this edit was intended to do? I'm just trying to figure out why images that were taken by Luke don't show that they're in that category if they have that template. For instance, look at Image:Maud Adams.jpg; it should say at the bottom "Category:Luke Ford", but it doesn't... Tabercil (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tabercil but Rocket000 doesn't seem to be active anymore. --Kanonkas_(talk) 06:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category is on. You just need to enable hidden categories (although it's debatable that cat should be hidden). -Nard the Bard 06:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thank you. Never knew what the HiddenCat bit meant. Tabercil (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's under "Show hidden categories" in the Misc section of preferences. -Nard the Bard 15:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Png images that should use vector graphics[edit]

Hi, Rocket. On 1 September, you deleted Category:Png images that should use vector graphics, with the explanation that it was an empty category or unused redirect. The category is used by the {{Convert to SVG}} template, however, and is not currently empty. Could you restore the category page? Thanks. Powers (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

68.39.174.238 01:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naval ships of the United States[edit]

Category discussion notification

Category:Naval ships of the United States and Category:United States Navy ships have 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 ∙ +/−

-- Jmabel ! talk 06:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gnome-window-new.svg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:Gnome-window-new.svg 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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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 ∙ +/−

99.183.167.159 02:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in the case you are in for a look-see[edit]

"THE woman driving turned the phaeton from the highway into a narrow road. Almost immediately the forest through which they had been passing for a mile or more deepened. It was now a rich woodland, little cut, seldom touched by fire. Apparently the road knew little use. Narrow and in part grass-grown, soft from yesterday's rain, dimmed by many trees, now it bent and now it ran straight, a dun streak, cut always in front by that ancient, exquisite screen of bough and leaf. The highway dropped out of sight and mind. The woman to whom this countryside was new, sitting beside the woman driving, drew a breath of pleasure. "Oh, smell it! It goes over you like balm!"

This is the first paragraph from Sweet Rocket by Mary Johnston, 1920. I had been thinking about the plants "Sweet rocket" and "Rocket" but the first, while it is known for its sweet smell has a species name with a word in it I am avoiding so long now. The second is one of the common names for a salad green, Arugula whose flavor I despise that overwhelms whatever other foods it accompanies and stays with the consumer for much longer than any other green I have ever consumed. I have found these taste qualities of that green to be persistent between my own homegrown attempts and that which was available to me commercially. So, neither one of these plants was suitable -- but the first paragraph of this old book seemed well suited.

I am not here in need of assistance, I am here because the status quo at the commons is deficient of one sweet rocket, and I wanted you to know that at least I know this. -- carol (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mis-information from the local "experts" needs some clever template manipulation[edit]

I don't have time to find some well named quote from an old tome of how a couple of level headed guys clean up a mess left by several dimwitted gals, but that is the situation that brings me here.

Perhaps you have some time in the coming weeks and I can show the problems to you? -- carol (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

carol.. that message above was one of the sweetest anyone has ever left me. This is the first time I've checked back since I left the note at the top and dropped my admin/'crat rights. I was expecting a little more besides the template spam but I guess it was my inactivity prior to "making it official" that deadened the crowd. Better that way. I didn't want to say anything that sounded like "bye" until it felt obligatory. Anyway, no one else would appreciate your words more. You know that. Thank you. I wish I still had the time to clean up those dimwitted-gal-messes with you but I'm afraid this is looking more like a retirement than a hiatus. Meh, who knows, maybe I'll reappear someday randomly and totally go to town. I'm like that. I have an addictive personality (just ask the chemicals) and probably a touch of OCD—when I'm into something, I'm really into it. Right now it's not Commons but that can change overnight. You, personally, make that a lot more of a possibility. Cheers, Rocket000(talk) 23:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One day they will say that being alive and having a brain that wants to work is a problem, and assign that an acronym. Being born successfully on this planet means a certain amount of addiction. Gravity, a nice proportion of oxygen, water, stimulation for the brain.... I don't know what "OCD" means but there should be more of it, perhaps.

I need a change to the taxonavigation template. It is a big one and while I think that possibly I could figure it out, it would just be better if you (or anyone with more experience with that stuff make that change. When "classification=Strasburger" then either that template no longer displays or the word it displays is de.wikipedia. And be sure to leave a note in the comments there that the person responsible for that is User:Brynn. When a project/group of people is getting the wrong information, the people who provided it should be known and invited to take their wrong information elsewhere. I actually had this problem with GIMP and interestingly enough, that person is still welcome there and I am kicked and banned. It is not good management to keep the problem people.

Seriously, that is so simple that it should bite a few of the people that don't do this.

What would be nice to see now is a german with the balls to confess that german wikipedia phished and then padded the taxonomy from GRIN. This generation of german will probably not be designing any really great cars or time pieces or all of those things I knew them for. -- carol (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you'll see this![edit]

		Motivation Award to Rocket!
		For all your great here at Commons work. I would truly like to thank you for showing me Commons, for helping and all. It's more than words can describe. One just can't express how much your work was appreciated if you understand ;)

Last, I'd like to thank you for helping a bunch of people here (including me) into becoming more experienced, more mellower and helping out on Commons a lot! --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Kanonkas. Thanks. I try to stay away from this site because everytime I'm here (checking messages, staying somewhat current with major changes, the occasional anonymous edit) I have a very strong urge to get back into the swing of things and start editing/admin'ing like before, but I know that's just not possible with my current RL situation. I'm sure that someday I will return. It won't be anytime soon. Maybe years from now, but I hope most of the major players - the group of active contributes that make this place more than just an image repository, like you - are still here. I see you're extending your admin work to en.wp (with much support). Of course they are in sore need of competent, image/Commons-minded (and mellow!) admins over there, but I hope it won't take your focus away from this project. You're one of the good ones. I'm glad I got to play a part in helping you become the valuable asset that you are to Commons. And it gives me even more joy knowing that you in turn will carry on the torch and help others go from being questioning newbies to first-class admins. Good luck in all your endeavors. Cheers, Rocket000(talk) 04:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this post since you posted it. I just didn't have any words, really. Thanks for your post, and message. It really "got" me, if you understand :) Hopefully I'll stick with Commons for a good time. I hope to see you back to full editing anytime in the future. I'm glad that you've started to contribute again, even though not as much. It's really appreciated! Good luck with your life. My sincere thanks, --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rigel[edit]

Why u delete http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:Rigel-star.jpg the rigel image???

The file was a copyright violation because. In fact, it had a massive watermark across it saying "(c) Thierry Lombry" — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:NavFrame.js[edit]

I know you are not active here any more, but any way i wanted to point out what where you doing wrong at the code.

When it was move at English Wikipedia the idea sooner or later of collapsable tables got created, so the one who created (if im correct im not sure) the MediaWiki:CollapsibleTables.js at english wikipedia decide to merge stuff by means of a function and created the hasClass function.

So at the end in the English wikipedia... Collapsible feature is a 3 set scrips: 1 called hasClass, MediaWiki:CollapsibleTables.js(that has 2 functions one for process and one to create button) and MediaWiki:NavFrame.js(that has 2 functions one for process and one to create button). And that should resolve your issues User:Cizagna at wikia.com

Just Great...[edit]

I stopped contributing here because of your unilateral changes to template tools after I asked you to stop... and now I find you're just a sprinter. Sigh.

What the hell... If you've the skill, the default size of:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Regions_and_Prefectures_of_Japan.svg

should be scaled up so the legend is readable when the image is clicked on.

Be well // FrankB 19:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. Well, kinda. I won't be active as much as I use to be, but I can't stay away. :) I think someone already made the improvements you were looking for with that SVG, unless you mean scaled down cause it's pretty big (2,480×3,175) Rocket000(talk) 22:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:All_your_base_are_belong_to_Wikipe-tan.gif[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:All_your_base_are_belong_to_Wikipe-tan.gif. 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).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:All_your_base_are_belong_to_Wikipe-tan.gif]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back?[edit]

Back for real? I'm glad that you're back! Also, I hope you're having a nice life. --Kanonkas_(talk) 23:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think so. I have a little more time now. It's good to be back. :) Rocket000(talk) 23:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've be needing some of that. Rocket000(talk) 23:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just ought to love Rocket ;) --Kanonkas_(talk) 23:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best news I've seen in quite some time here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Herby. :) Rocket000(talk) 13:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's been too long! I'm still catching up on everything. Rocket000(talk) 15:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I feel tempted to abandon my extended wikibreak! --Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do it! Rocket000(talk) 03:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit Rocket! About freakin' time! :D And Slaunger, you too, get back here! Seriously, I couldn't be happier. Do you want your tools back? Patrícia ^msg 22:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Patrícia! I think I'd like to hang around a bit before requesting the tools back. I need to get back in the admin'ing mode first. But I'll let you know when I'm ready. ;) Rocket000(talk) 03:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, take your time :). Patrícia ^msg 20:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see you back.--Túrelio (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Happy to be back. Rocket000(talk) 15:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see you happy. --Foroa (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looking forward to working with you again. :) Rocket000(talk) 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:All_your_base_are_belong_to_Wikipe-tan.gif[edit]

File:All_your_base_are_belong_to_Wikipe-tan.gif 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 ∙ +/−

ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re protected pages[edit]

Re the VP discussion on excessive page protections, is there a way to protect a page against having the current image overwritten, rather than a blanket protection against editing the text on the page? --Tony Wills (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. That would satisfy my want of a third type of protection. People sometimes forget that even images that "should never be change" undergo tons of perfectly normal and beneficial edits to the image's page (especially on a site that encourages translations). There's something on bugzilla for it, but like most things on there, the progress has been really slow. We could make a workaround like we had to do for the template namespace and transclude some unprotected subpage but that's not very practical. Rocket000(talk) 15:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, workaround: Have a "protected" list - Limit edits to registered users and have a bot to automatically revert image changes to the images, giving an edit comment of "Please discuss image changes on talk page first" (or similar) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. it's something to think about. I'm not sure it's technically possible but there's got to be a way for a bot to discern between an edit and an upload, right? The ~~image~~ file namespace always confused me. For one thing, the image's actual location has very little to do with the image's page (although they are obviously linked somehow). They're not even on the same site. All user uploads go to http://upload.wikimedia.org (fair use stuff and everything). Another thing is how our image pages show up on other projects... I have no idea how that works. Anyway, it's been awhile since the last time I studied up on MediaWiki's inner-workings but I plan to look into it more. Rocket000(talk) 23:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bots can monitor the log files? If so, they just need to watch for entries uploaded a new version of "File:example.jpg" --Tony Wills (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS welcome back :-) (although I didn't know you had been away as I hadn't been active for 10 months or so).

Thanks. Yes, bots can watch logs. I was thinking more along the lines of having a bot actually watching something in the software that registers an upload (like how some bots know when to tag an unlicensed upload), not listening to the logs for certain edit summaries. But that would work I think. Rocket000(talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CC-meta[edit]

What else is needed to complete this template besides documentation? I wonder if it would be possible to replace {{Cc}} with your template at some point. (Please reply on my talk page.) Kaldari (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bassoon.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
T206 Honus Wagner.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Got cake?[edit]

Your wish is my command. Patrícia ^msg 20:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's more like it! Hehe.. thank you! Rocket000(talk) 20:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure having you back. I look forward seeing you here again. Though, I took a piece of the cake :) --Kanonkas_(talk) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:) Rocket000(talk) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can I use you?[edit]

Welcome back! Can I use you and your recently re-established super-powers here? -- carol (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Rocket000(talk) 05:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have located the original pdf's for a set of images. Some of the earlier uploads of these images the pdf had been converted to jpeg. I am reuploading them as png and there is really no reason to keep the jpeg around. They really were not as much image stuff to work with -- I was impressed with the differences in the formats. For me, I can read about that kind of thing and it is my whatever to believe, but the hands on experience took the "whatever" away. But I stray and ramble now....

So, I just want to make a list of files to delete. I will do what I can to change the usage here and around (inter and intra). Where should I make this list?

Sorry I had nothing to say other than glad you were back. No lie. -- carol (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was wondering when you'd show up. :) You may make the list where ever you would like. You can throw it in one of my sandboxes if you don't want to make a new page. If there's a lot to replace, let me know and I'll help. Rocket000(talk) 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I appreciate the offer, but some of these also had some color adjustments made to them before they were uploaded. Not bad adjustments -- it looks like just the red channel was fiddled with (fiddling with the green -- the yellow of the paper -- really hurt the greens of the image), but there is a chance that the images I am getting are better to work with than the ones I started with. So, I got stuff here and my own problem with what I know can be the closest to perfect restorations of these images and a gallery to make that puts the book back together in the order it was written in. Heh, I got problems... I used to like people as much as I like these images. On the internet, I am the only person with these kinds of problems it seems lately. I will keep my problems like this and let the internet have its own inner-sense of perfection.

These really are beautiful, underneath the age problems and after removing where the facing page stuck to the image page. I used to grow the grass in that image. The colors had very noticably shifted and this one example is where I did the color matching completely from my memory and not with my jelly-making experience. I am going to be glad to have this task completed though. I am bored with looking at them. I will start the list somewhere and let you know when I have a handful of things there.

Thanks again! Just having this stuff done and done well feels good on my brain and not having to beg for assistance to complete it makes it that much nicer. -- carol (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Yeah, I'm looking at the category now. You've been busy! I love illustrations like these. Rocket000(talk) 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:CarolSpears/Seded <-- Super didn't feel right. -- carol (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I saw some were still linked from their other versions; CommonsDelinker should take care of those. Should I delete that page too or are you going to give me more? Rocket000(talk) 15:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete the page yet -- I am not certain how many of those were uploaded as jpeg -- all of the first uploads. I really tried to unlink them from everywhere they were linked at -- sorry that I missed some. Thanks for the clean-up! -- carol (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zanthoxylum sp Blanco1.27.jpg should be renamed to File:Zanthoxylum sp Blanco1.23.jpg. I did this with the others, but I would like if this rename could maintain its versions. Are you able to rename the file and its version stack at the time? -- carol (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, just like we can't "move" images. You can always just upload each version in the same order under the new name. :) Rocket000(talk) 22:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sorry to ask. Are you certain that the delinker was not changing links on image pages right before it deleted them? -- carol (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it do that? Rocket000(talk) 23:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software doesn't always know what it is going to be doing in its next step or perhaps doesn't exclude the page that is being deleted. There is a good chance that not too many image pages link to themselves like I make these, so perhaps there was no reason to write that the delinker exclude the page that is being deleted. I really did think that not only did I check them here but also on other wiki's. -- carol (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommonsDelinker doesn't delete anything. Actually, it doesn't really delink anything either. It only removes (or replaces) images not links to them (like the one above). I'm not sure what you mean.. did the bot do something wrong? Am I confused? Rocket000(talk) 23:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just found Category:Curtis's Botanical Magazine and most of them aren't categorize in any species categories. Rocket000(talk) 23:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. Also, the species are only identified in the gallery that shows the images and not in the image page description. The software authors will need to return, perhaps. I thought that there were beautiful paintings underneath the age problems in the Blanco images. There were. If the renovation of them could have been scripted (or if the renovation of them had been mostly very redundant) I would have scripted it myself. The Curtis stuff is a huge upload which could have been categorized by species upon upload. Personally, I would have been embarrassed to have such a large upload only partially completed. I am not every one, however, and I have no idea about how that Aussie or group of Aussies feels about that. Not my business. I was made to do much more than this kind of thing -- I really was. None of my "sins" or "transgressions" against the community were worse than the fact that I was never paid enough money to live within the community I was serving in and there is some other stuff about stores and restaurants not promoting or demoting with the idea of selling goods or food in mind but seemingly with other motivations. At some point, systems which say they want one thing (sales of goods or services, for instance) yet reward for other things (messing up schedules and/or preferring staff that talks on the phone to friends instead of being the manager of employed people) needs to fail. I suspect that one of the biggest problems right now is that every person I used to know is now King Lear and that also cannot work. Things were nicer when people were likeable and investments of time and patience in them felt like they were just that and not a waste of my short store of good. -- carol (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note: we can move images now. Yeah! Rocket000(talk) 12:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Vitruvian Man.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

one day, this might seem funnier than it does now[edit]

Here is something you might enjoy looking into: Commons talk:Category scheme flora. They never asked me what it was about and it seems they did not look at the gallery which (if I remember correctly) contained the documentation for it either.

My joke about cleaning up after a performance art was not so joking, actually. For me, personally, the mistakes I remember most to not make again are the ones I had to undo or clean up the mess of. I have heard the same thing about co-dependency relationships, like in the case of alcohol abuse. That one person does all the cleaning and the other person provides something to clean. I have no desire to become involved in a relationship like that.

I am sorry that those users/admins are involved in that; I am not certain what is best for commons with such a situation as that. -- carol (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, you were informed, but you refused to engage in the discussion. At least, that is how I interprete what happened. And disrespective of what happened, it does not seem very meningful to keep up digging up old stuff. How can that possibly bring us further? --Slaunger (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing that merge. Simple repair of a wrong. It is curious to me that another discussion was started when the previous one had piddled out. It is sad to me that the documentation was not apparently looked at by the little panel of experts there. It is difficult to not respect the lack of research and the disregard to the previous discussion and oh, I also have some problem with Foroa demanding documentation from me when there is no documentation provided to show everyone what was supposed to be in the plants of categories in the first place. How did not providing documentation for the existing tree justify a merge due to lack of documentation from the new tree? I suspect that you have the respect that is equal to the amount of respect you gave. -- carol (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Slaunger, I was not about here at the time, but from what I can see the problem was the usage of a bot to effectively undo many hours of work because the work was not understood and hence there did not seem to be a need for it.
The merge was not important or urgent, the obvious course of action would be to revert the bot's work as soon as the problem became apparent. If such bots can not be easily undone, then perhaps they should not be used, or should be used with greater caution.
Wikicommons is not a static project with fixed ways of doing things, and we will not get better ways of doing things (eg organisation of images) if people's innovations are reverted to the status quo without engagement or discussion.
The usage of bots and other automated editing is controlled precisely because of the power it gives over manual editors, perhaps bots should adhere to the maxim "first, do no harm" (Perhaps we need something like Azimov's Laws for Robots).
I think the ongoing niggle is because the merge was not reversed (too difficult?) and it was not acknowledged that there was any problem caused by the merge. The result was that no respect seems to have been shown for all the hours put into the construction of the new structure and the non-reversal of the merge was seen, by the contributor, as an abuse of "power"</soap box> --Tony Wills (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony. Basically you are right in your analysis. Just to give you a little more background information though - over the course of the summer of 2008, I and other users tried several times to open discussion about the plant of and flora of categories on the Village pump, on the TOL page and on various user pages to settle some guidelines of what should be in them, how they should be organized and whether it would be more meaningful to only have one of the two categories, and in that case which one it should be. Every single time an attempts was made to find a consensus the thread was detoured by irrelevant topics and/or alienated by polarizing comments. At some stage a bot operator made a decision, since the kindergarten of users could not manage to do so, tossed a coin (it appeared so), and did a manual merge. This was very frustrating indeed for all of us, who had tried to work on this in a meaningful manner and make the ends reach, and it was followed by a period of accusations and misunderstandings about who did what. It is now completely meaningless to even consider a "revert" of what happened then. It happened, it was not reverted so we have to move on. There is a reason why the wind screen is much larger than the rear view mirrors. Personally I felt very demotivated by the whole story and by the conduct and bad faith assumption of certain users, and I took a break of some months and I have only returned, like yesterday. --Slaunger (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Tony, but reverting the changes is not "meaningless", it is not impossible and should be considered. A software could easily run through the bots history and put the removed stuff back and make the old Plants of categories again. Perhaps the people who are using the nicks of those who at one time could author software should step away from the inherited priveledge and voting rights and perhaps the authors will return.

What are the reasons that administration here would be happy with decisions which handicap commons and makes them look like pre-kindergartners in an adult world? What ever reasons I can determine for this make me think that the users who were involved in doing this should perhaps grow up some and be as involved as it takes to undo their mistake. -- carol (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is need for co-dependency.wikimedia.org for administrators who are unable to "first, do no harm" and then are unwilling to repair the damage. It is so not funny still that I am back to my other idea of having a few months where POTD is replaced by Administrator of the Day, two administrators featured every day for a while. One that seemed to understand the scope, research and communication and others who enjoyed the power more than anything productive. -- carol (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Opie - Winter's Tale, Act II. Scene III unrestored.png[edit]

Heh, yeah. You think that's bad? I had to save it as six different files while working on it, so that I had some ability to go back if I messed up. That on top of a 194 megabyte Tiff (Tiffs are lossless, but, unlike PNGs, usually uncompressed), and seventh saved file to generate the unrestored PNG. The total's something like 600, 700 megs of Winter's Tale, though I've now deleted the TIFF as being redundant to the much smaller PNG. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, you should consider Linux -- although, lately the linux that is being installed here looks and works so much like Windows. That being said, the linux kernel and the way they manage the software is very thoughtful and saves incredible amounts of disc space. I haven't compared lately, but during the Photoshop7 days, my brothers 486 with 33Meg hard drive and RAM to match with Linux/GIMP was running circles around my friends IBM P2 with its K's of RAM running Windows/Photoshop. Then I inherited my dads 486 with double the RAM and two 70M harddrives, one had Windows installed on it and the other had Linux. The machine felt like it was trying to move through hardening cement with the Photoshop trial thing I downloaded onto the Windows disc -- meanwhile, the Linux disc was quick and while running GIMP and Netscape3 was also serving my website. The way I understand the differences in how the two different operating systems were designed -- if your computer was a house, Windows tends to install every single library an application needs with every application that needs it. Linux does much more sharing of these things. So, with the analogy, if your computer is a house, and every application a room in your house, each room would have its own full bathroom, kitchen, basement, attic, electrical system, garden, etc. Linux is more like a family of applications that share the bathroom and kitchen and other utility rooms nicely. While it pisses me off that Linux installations make my computer look like Windows and feel like Windows lately, this might be something you would like especially if it came with more free space and memory to work with. That is just something for you to think about (and not me any longer when I read about your computer problems). -- carol (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Png images that should use vector graphics[edit]

Hi, Rocket. I saw you restored Category:Png images that should use vector graphics, but the PNG parameter for the {{Convert to SVG}} template was removed in December. In theory, the category should no longer be needed. Powers (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Now it makes sense. Thanks. Rocket000(talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations with numbers[edit]

You merged the categories: illustrations with numbers and language-neutral diagrams. I think that was a mistake. Many of the illustrations in the resulting category are either without numbers/letters, which make them equivalent to any photos or drawings, and many use Latin letters, which is not language-neutral at all. The information provided by having a separate category for illustrations with numbers is now completely lost. --LA2 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the {{Merge}} on them instead of making a bot request because I thought they might need some human review, but there was considerable overlap that did need to be merged. However, you are right. I'll work on fixing it. Rocket000(talk) 18:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if I create Category:Language-neutral diagrams using numbers as a subcategory of Category:Language-neutral diagrams and categorize the language-specific ones under the appropriate subcategory under Category:Diagrams by language? This would leave only those without numbers (and text, of course) in Category:Language-neutral diagrams. Clearer names will help avoid the overlap. I could also create Category:Language-specific diagrams using numbers too. Rocket000(talk) 19:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jsi typek 50 cent rad byxch te poznal osobne mrte jsi good —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macekklacek (talk • contribs) 16:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Hope you don't mind that I replied back, Rocket. --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

Hi. If it interests you, see this script. You can speedy move a file - maybe the script will be useful for you. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 14:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try it out. What does it do that the [move] tab doesn't? Rocket000(talk) 14:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The move tab will stay - even when you import this script. --Kanonkas_(talk) 14:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that. What's the difference between the two methods? Rocket000(talk) 14:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The script is a bit faster. I can do a test move to show you, if you want. --Kanonkas_(talk) 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Rocket000(talk) 14:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moving categories[edit]

I have had a bad experience with this and have forgotten how to initiate one of these. Dysphania ambrosioides is the same name as Chenopodium ambrosioides.

I do remember how RocketBot worked though. -- carol (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would take me awhile to get that working right now, but there's not much. I'll do it by hand. Rocket000(talk) 20:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, I could have done that! You were quick though. Thank you! -- carol (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Rocket000(talk) 20:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

species synonym template suggestion[edit]

I really like the idea of the search here to be able to find common names and old/alternative species names. Your problem reminded me of this and also that I once said that I would consider making a synonym template.

Honestly, if I had my Materia Medica here with me I would 1)spell the title of it correctly and 2)attempt to put those species names on any that the botanists have changed in the last 100 or so years -- I can't remember when it was originally published, but it was still filled with excellent and useful information. Homeopathy is a lifestyle that I choose not to live -- no coffee (which I can and have done before) but the show stopper for me was the no strong flavors requirement. No garlic, onions or mint. A possible definition of blah.

I would still like to be able to look up those species names here and find the new name and be able to trust it.

Could you help to think about a synonym template for this goal?

Here is a problem also that perhaps can be managed at the taxonomy template level. It would be nice to shield the information contained within the template from the search results. That way, common names, the category/gallery name and the synonyms would be found first. I don't know if the search here limits itself to the first 25 words or something, but that would explain my perception of some of the problems I have had with it. -- carol (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking about that too. I also wanted to make a decent {{VN}} template. Both ours and 'Species suck. Maybe we can combine those. I'm working on it here. Rocket000(talk) 21:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your skill at template construction makes my skill look like, well, a cheap knock off of a small set of your skills. Interestingly enough, that is what my skills are with them. I enjoy this challenge of an international image server that hosts images for people of very many interests and languages. I suspect that even the people who are interested in plants for non-botany reasons, as I have been, will be grateful for the current and possibly sequenced name when it comes down to it, whatever "it" is.

I have been kind of busy, did I tell you that I am glad you are back? -- carol (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. :) I created {{Synonyms}} and {{VN}} but they're not done yet. Rocket000(talk) 23:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe template[edit]

{{Tribe}} can be safely deleted now.

I am curious to know when the "Plants of" categories are going to be replaced.

-- carol (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask this because I can see the difference between changing a template out for an improved one, especially when it allows me an opportunity to non-sequentially get rid of problems which were introduced very wrongly here -- and the "co-dependent relationship" I suggested was enjoyed by some here on other talk pages.

Can you see this difference and what do you suggest is the way to prompt the replacement of that other stuff I was working on? -- carol (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need another new template: Athyrium filix-femina. :) To get rid of templates, first put {{Deprecated}} on it linking to the replacement. Then get a bot to do the replacements. Redirect the template to the new one, wait awhile if it was used a lot, then speedy it (or ask someone). Rocket000(talk) 03:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for karma or the golden rule or whatever to make things right again is not being good enough. There needs to be more people with a greater feeling for the obvious rights and wrongs to step in.

For instance, something is obviously wrong when every person I have ever known in real life is no longer accessible and instead I have people who do things like merge the "Plants of" categories into the "Flora of" categories for no real reason and many reasons not to.

This was mostly about overpaid, over-intelligence rated and wrongly behaving people I do have access to. Being left with idiots and eh, the intellectually challenged the likes of whom conducted that merge is seemingly a symptom. -- carol (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I did that kind of thing to anyone or any project. -- carol (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The golden rule is overrated. If you're going to make some rule golden, instead of "treat others how you want to be treated", it should be "treat others how they want to be treated". Anyway, when people start messing up what I'm doing, and if compromise isn't in the cards, I start doing something else. Rocket000(talk) 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems easy enough -- but this wiki here, it shouldn't be like that for those improving things. Doesn't it seem like people who are not improving things should find another place to go? What you are suggesting is perhaps the way to empty all of the public places out. I have never seen a public park where nice people do not go due to mis-behaving eh, law enforcement and politicians. This wiki should be similar to that. -- carol (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Treating people the way they want to be treated" is simply not doable. Too much guesswork involved and this is unyielding to real life chemistry. I thought about it. If what you are suggesting has been what has been done to me the last few years; there has been a lot of very wrong guessing. I am anxious for it to cease. -- carol (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Adobe Photoshop & Template:User Adobe Illustrator[edit]

I know it is a little bit late but thank you very much for the modifications that you made on these templates, they looks so much nicer on my user page :) ■ MMXX^talk 00:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're welcome. I'm glad you like them. :) Rocket000(talk) 00:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Rocket000!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Howiseethings.png is uncategorized since 19 March 2009.

Invisible images[edit]

Just found User:Rocket000/Invisible images... Do we really need all these images? I wonder if a redirect would be appropriate for most of them. Also, you should probably delist a few that currently redirect to File:FFmap-bg-_.gif (that page lists its redirects) and there's one that might be corrupted or something, as the thumbnail couldn't be generated. Finally, several of the bottom ones are white, is this intended or did they change after you create the list? You might want to check out http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&sort=img_size for a few ones that might not be here (most of which, I suspect, represent corrupt uploads). Cheers, Waldir ^talk 08:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I created that page because there seemed to be so many. My plan was to redirect/replace all but a few but this was harder than I thought. Some were used in a way that was dependent on their name, like in a template. Others needed to be a certain size. Maybe some can be merged now, I don't know. And yes, those white ones used to be transparent. Rocket000(talk) 12:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed that anyone has the time to even *think* about bothering to clean them up, what for? - the size is neglegible and no doubt more will be created in the future :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Violett weiß gold.gif may be worthy of deletion, not used and gimp tells me "Image dimensions 1x1, No colors, Compressed size: 2 bytes, Uncompressed size 43 bytes". I suspect the cost to wikimedia of opening the image page and downloading it, to see what it is, far exceeds the cost of storing it :-O) --Tony Wills (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That probably is true for most of the other images (1x1, transparent, ~40 bytes). So there's a good reason to bother cleaning them up. What could be the best way to do it? --Waldir ^talk 08:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was an argument for leaving them alone! All should have their copyright licences replaced with pd-ineligable.

Anyway delete the following:

File:Violett_weiß_gold.gif

File:Spaceball_tom_delonge.gif

File:Spaceball tom delonge.gif

File:Orga Monster Mutant Thing.gif

File:Predator X eating Prehistoric Lochness Monster.gif (not in this gallery)

as they are duplicates, some are already marked for deletion and can probably be speedied. The others I would be very cautious about as many are used in many, many places and making wrong assumptions would screw up a lot of things for virtually no gain. There are a couple that are protected, so I expect any that are showing as duplicates of those can be deleted through the {{Duplicate}} process. I would probably leave all the SVG versions alone unless they were exact duplicates (too many complications). I would leave all the horizontal and vertical lines alone. As always, when deleting duplicates, ensure any other information on the page is copied to the surving copy before deletion. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All gone. Thanks. I wouldn't spend too much more time on this guys. Yes, I created the gallery, but weird like that. :) Have you seen my other gallery? It's slightly more interesting. Very slightly. ;) Rocket000(talk) 20:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick work :-). I suggested spending no time on this, but now you've got me started, I've labeled a lot in your gallery which I think definitely should be kept. Just started looking at the others. File:Pixel.gif is an exact duplicate of File:Pix.gif, intersting a lot of wikis have their own version of File:Pix.gif. Maybe someone else with too much time on their hands might bother doing this. As for your other gallery, aaarrghhhh! ;-), I'm not even going to go there :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! I went through the first page of the list of smallest images and just deleted a few corrupt uploads (some of them had been reuploaded correctly but the 1x1px transparent gif was left behind, some others I had to upload the good version myself, under a different filename since they weren't GIFs). I also found 3 intentionally transparent ones that I added to the transparent gallery, and 4 (2 white ones and 2 black ones) that I added to the colors gallery. If someone decides to continue this work, at least they're already listed :) --Waldir ^talk 10:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Want to add this one somewhere (before it's deleted again)? Patrícia ^msg 10:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only accept completely transparent images. That one has some white in it. :) Rocket000 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How picky. Patrícia ^msg 16:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

template limitations[edit]

{{VN}} seems to have a limit to the number of characters it gracefully manages per language: Category:Senna alata. -- carol (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that would happen. It should be ok now. Rocket000(talk) 17:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! 'tis beautiful. -- carol (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

	Hello, Rocket000. You have new messages at Yarnalgo's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

--Yarnalgo (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your (temporary?) VI galleries[edit]

Hi, I don't think these are needed anymore: Commons:Valued images by subject/People, Commons:Valued images by subject/Animals/Birds, Commons:Valued images by subject/Plants. We now have an overall gallery and a lot of subgalleries (gallery and category names may change in the next days). Conversation about it is here, if you want to have a word (would be appreciated). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll delete them. When I made them I wasn't aware the VI galleries were already started. They were mainly to see how many subpages we were going to be needing in certain areas. But I see this work has already been done. I'll head over to that talk page in a bit. Rocket000(talk) 23:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Notodonta dromedarius.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Thirty-fold escalation[edit]

Please respond at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#3 months? -- Avi (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or here Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#Apparent thirty-fold escalation in block length. Whichever you prefer. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping 2[edit]

Hi. I'm just wondering if you've got my mail? It's not urgent at all. I'm just used to getting fast replies from you. If you've already seen it, ignore this. Thanks, --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:On Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Rocket000. Could you add az, the language code for the Azerbaijani language Wikipedia to this template please? I had a quick look at doing it myself and don't want to risk breaking it. Also, from looking at the talk page, it looks like the io code would be appreciated as well. Cheers. Adambro (talk)

Done Yeah, that isn't the friendliest looking code. :) Rocket000 (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fan art template[edit]

Hi. You couldn't knock up a basic {{Fan art}} template could you? I was going to do it myself based on something like {{Trademarked}}, but I can't pretend to understand all the code. It could have a warning triangle rather than the R logo. The idea comes from my Fan art proposal.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Maybe you can give the specific wording, and I'll do the rest? Rocket000 (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like this:

This is a work of Fan art, namely an unauthorised artistic representation of elements or characters in an original work of fiction such as a movie, TV show, computer game or comic book/graphic novel. It is believed not to violate any copyrights held by the owner of the rights in the work of fiction, but re-use of this file may be subject to legal constraints in some jurisdictions. In particular, the rights owner may have trademark protection, and may also be able to prevent certain types of re-use by the laws of passing off and/or unfair competition.

For details as to when this tag may be used, see Commons:Fan art.

Before using this content, please ensure that you have the freedom to do so under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's legal rights. See our general disclaimer.

This is an informational tag and not a license tag. A normal copyright tag is required as well.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{VIC-thumb}}?[edit]

Hi Rocket, Is it a temporary thing that you have greatly increased the image size in thumbnail which is again used in COM:VIC? --Slaunger (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I forgot to change the sizes. Fixed now. Rocket000 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the last view days that the candidates list on COM:VIC, which is basically a two-column list of {{VIC-thumb}}, extends well beyond the usual page width. Could that be related to your recent reimplementation of that template? --Slaunger (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, I see it happening quite often. I'd say it depends of the text contained in the review, but I have actually no idea of how the layout is calculated. --Eusebius (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, not a public talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too. That's why I reverted my changes at first, but then realized it wasn't caused by that template. I believe the problem lies in {{VICs}}. I was going to try a couple things on it, that was before I looked at the code and remembered all the trouble we had with it in the beginning (remember {{N!}}?)

Yeah, I remember all the pain we had with that template! I have the feeling the wide pages occur, when there are voting results on some VICs. --Slaunger (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may be it, because it's not doing it now. It's probably because we indent (pre-format) the results. The text doesn't wrap then. Rocket000 (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that could be hanlded by a refactoring of {{Vicl}} then (and then use that template consistently for closing nominations). The tt style results formatting used currently is something we have inherited from QIC and FPC, but who says they should look that way? --Slaunger (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Eusebius: Sure it is. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

Welcome back. Globbet (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Rocket000 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
The Garden of Earthly Delights.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Info I almost made this a MVR because there's an edited version that may be considered a contender. It's actually used more across the wikis. I think this is because, even though it's much lower quality, the brighter colors and smaller size make it clearer as a thumbnail. (IMO, the colors are wrong.) At full screen, it's no contest. The higher resolution is important (more so than normally) with this painting because sections of it are commonly cropped out to illustrate certain details. Rocket000 (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that it is the best representation we have of the inside. It is a major work of a major artist, so the scope is obviously ok. I wonder whether we should include the exterior view and make it a VI set? It's part of the painting as well. Also, should we geolocate the work in the museum (or in hell)? --Eusebius (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The outside view is not of the same quality, so i'm not sure about making a set. Geolocating of the museum would not be helpfull imo. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok for me. --Berthold Werner (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not sure if I am supporting this version or the painting itself... Wonderful and disturbing picture. A shame we don't have a higher resolution, it would be a great FP candidate. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. This is one of my all time favorite paintings. Rocket000 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Should we include the artist's name in the scope? --Eusebius (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes -Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, we should make that a rule then for consistency. We already have Vitruvian Man and 36 views of Mount Fuji, but then we also have Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew. Rocket000 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you have a proposal for improving the guidelines, then to the talk page! --Eusebius (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin count[edit]

I have just discovered a useful admin counter: {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}, which I have added in a couple of places to the Admin page. Do you know if there are (or would it be easy to create) similar counts of bureaucrats and CUs? The obvious Template:NUMBEROFBUREAUCRATS doesn't work. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try this: {{NUMBERINGROUP:bureaucrat}}. That works for any group. There's also {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} and {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}. Have fun. :) Rocket000 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we can't create anything like these since they're not templates but magic words that only developers can create for us. Rocket000 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Banana Islands (рок-фьюжн)[edit]

I’m sorry,

Why you did delete the pic. (CD album cover)?

This picture has been created by my son and myself and used for CD production.

Therefore this picture under my personal Copyright and was not sold to anybody!

Please, restore the image in the “Beyond the Banana Islands (рок-фьюжн)” article!

Please answer ASAP

Thanks

gc --Yury Chernavsky (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page Beyond the Banana Islands (рок-фьюжн) never existed. Maybe you created it on Wikipedia? We don't have articles here. As for the image, a name or a link would be nice. It was probably deleted because it was not freely licensed. We only allow images here that may be used for any purpose, including commercial use. Rocket000 (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. The page Beyond the Banana Islands (рок-фьюжн) in the Russian part of WIKI

Link is http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbi .

And picture was loaded under the free license. Please check it out. What I have to do?

Thanks

gc --Yury Chernavsky (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the page is ru:Beyond the Banana Islands (рок-фьюжн), and the image is File:BBI-pic.jpg. I will restore it, however, a letter of permission may be requested in the future (this would be a verification email from your band's website). Rocket000 (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rocket000

Thanks a lot for your help to restore the pic!

gc --Yury Chernavsky (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Sorry it got deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

template:VN[edit]

Hello Rocket000, thanks for changing the names from among each other to the side by side form. I think, the vernacular names are very important in Commons and should be used as the head of every page. But I think also, that here the Media files should be visible as soon as possible. This is the way of the "Template:Translation table" also. Can you modify the "Template:VN" in the same way of the "Translation table", that the vernacular names are be sorted by this rules Interwiki_sorting_order automatically? BTW it would be a very great relief if the interwiki links would be sorted automatically too. (Are you or you are expert for such a wonderful job?!?!) Greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it sorts alphabetical by letter code automatically. This matches other templates such as {{On Wikipedia}}, {{Lang links}}, and some of the /lang pages. There's the problem that some codes/languages do not have equivalent wikis (and thus not on that list). To me it's easier this way—you don't need to know the local language name. I usually have no idea how to order languages written in non-Latin characters. See my chart - there's a lot that isn't easily alphabetize (for a en speaker). Another thing is that the order and even the language names change more often than the codes. However, you are right, there should be a consistent order and following the English Wikipedia's (and others') order makes the most sense. I'll change it for {{VN}} but I'm not sure if I can do it for pages in general (running a bot). I'll have to look into it.

P.S. If {{VN}} gets to big, you can use {{VN|compact|...}} which will make it more like {{Translation table}}. I'm still trying out new things with it, so if you have any ideas to make it better, please let me know. Rocket000 (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rocket000 (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rocket000! Now two further proposals btw wishes. The simple to use name "VN" should be generally used in Commons for the "VN compact" format. (The main page writes the side by side form for the different languages also). "VN" is in my opion best placed as head of every page in Commons. In botany or zoology the group of taxonomy informations shoud be the second block. Orchi (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Template order and crappy galleries. I need to figure out a way to get rid of that last bullet without requiring the languages to be in order inside the template. It's harder than it sounds. Rocket000 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's compact now. Rocket000 (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PAGESINCAT[edit]

You seem to be a template guru, so I take the liberty to bother you a little bit: is there a way to make {{PAGESINCAT:...}} recursive, or to simulate such a thing? --Eusebius (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's no way to do that. (Of course, if you know the subcategories beforehand, you can do something like {{#expr:{{PAGESINCAT:Cat}}+{{PAGESINCAT:SubCat1}}+{{PAGESINCAT:SubCat2}}+...}}) Rocket000 (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sad news. Thanks anyway! --Eusebius (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media needing chemical classification[edit]

Hi Rocket000. Please have a look at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/03/Category:Chemistry (unsorted). IMHO this category should be restored and the other two should be deleted or redirected. --Leyo 08:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did I miss that CFD notice? Restored, but I'll leave the rest to you guys. Rocket000 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interesting relationship between complaints and pretti-ification[edit]

There seems to be a relationship between a very legitimate complaint I have been making about a merge that occurred here (involving a person I remember you having a lot of talk page correspondence with about styling templates with) and the prettification of the taxonomy templates.

Is this relationship an actual fact or is it just a random fact?

I have two minds about the pretty templates. One mind is that they are very nice and elegant and good to have. The other mind is that they are something that (I guess) I will need to manually paste or replace existing templates with and not a very good trade for the software merge which removed lot of work that needed to be accomplished manually.

The creation of pretty things does not replace the undoing of something that should not have been undone.

If the relationship I have noted here is random, what can be done to have the facts and activities show this also?

Do you think that creating a pretty thing that needs to be manually applied is a fair replacement of the removal of a lot of necessary manual work?

The best way that I know of for human people to learn what software can be trusted to do is to have to manually undo the things that software should not have done. It is a difficult lesson sometimes. It is not as bad as loosing a life to learn personal drug/alcohol thresholds but it is a similar experience perhaps. That is my very strong feeling about that merge.

When your templates have stabilized, don't you think that it would be really good for commons to have software replace existing templates with the new ones? Some tasks are good for software and the people who sit at the controls of the software that works here should know the difference or give up their position at the controls.

It seems really simple to me. -- carol (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a random fact. I tend be involved with anything template related. I hope you don't feel that you must use or convert to any templates I make (or anyone else makes). They're just tools, use them if they make things easy. IMO, standardization is up there with symmetry in terms of beauty, but not the main goal of our work. No, I don't think it's a fair trade—I don't think it's a trade at all. I'm not sure what you're implying, but I don't think my templates have anything to do with that merge (that I'm aware of). What existing templates would need to be replaced anyway? Rocket000 (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are beautiful and I appreciate the work you are doing on and with them. My implications were motivated by the relationship between my complaints and the improvements to the templates in the last week.

I honestly think that the beautification of the little bits of information that is contained in the navigation here is a level of nice that approaches necessity and if I needed to vote ever, this would be my vote -- independent of the last week of relationship observation. (How is this as an honest apology with its big words and all?)

I think software could very easily change "translation-table" to "VN" in the taxonomy categories. More complicated and less useful would be to change ";Synonyms" to "{{synonyms" and "," to "|n=" the closing curlies need to be thrown on the end of that and it could be done. "n" makes it much less of a junior high school level assignment (that is how I judged my learning when I got back to writing software 15 years later!!).

I haven't minded manually following those instructions I wrote when cleaning up the family categories and templates, but especially {{VN}} -- more could be done with software that way. The intrawiki links, when not to the same family name could be included with simple regexp check and replace.

I am going to start to ramble soon so better to end. -- carol (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could be done by a bot, but I don't think the template is stable enough yet. For example, I notice someone (an IP) revert your conversion to it back to {{translation table|<insert a bunch of useless confusing crap parameters here>}}, I think because it had many translations and using {{VN}} tripled the size of it, so I added a "compact" parameter for those cases. I also have to figure out what to do with the language order. As you can see above, it was requested to put them in alphabetical order by local name (instead of by language code, which they are now). This can easily be done but should it? Just today, our main page language list was re-alphabetized by code instead of language. To me "by code" makes using it easier, however, it looks nicer when it's "by language name". Rocket000 (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To what do you explain IP edits like that? They decided that something would be nicer and were not logged in? They wanted to make a change without having it in the edit history of the logged in user? They wanted to be checkusered? Perhaps there is another reason that I can't think of.

It should be easy to count the "|" and make a decision about VN or VN compact.

It is easier to edit with the language codes being alphabetical in the editable text. It is easier to read/see with the languages being alphabetized by their non-code first letter. I think I just agreed to what you said.

I was going from the Blanco images into the family categories and cleaning things up. I became distracted (and was glad for something else to look at and think about for a while) with an old text that contains what could be some interesting quotes for some of the species that are in the Blanco collection and well, other things have distracted me but this is one of them http://books.google.com/books?id=JvoaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA17 "A Voyage to China" 1771. I figure that these were not mild little bookworms that took these voyages, I don't think that it was often a very easy or comfortable ride. This book needs the fancy "f" to be replaced by "s" (I wonder if the printer lost all his s...). On the page I pointed at, the author (I assume Pehr Osbeck, namesake of Category:Osbeckia) sees a flower that is undergoing heavy cultivation, decides to head to the suburbs without his translator and gets tormented by local punks. Somethings never change.

My little cleaning break has been spent some looking at stuff like that. -- carol (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What categories should a species gallery be placed in?[edit]

I noticed that you removed the genus category from several Anas galleries.

For instance: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Anas_formosa

I have seen a variety of approaches as to how to categorize a species page: 1. Category of the species only. 2. Category of the species and the taxon above it (genus). 3. Categorized with the species name but with a pipe character separating the species and the genus. 4. Categorized with the family name only 5. Categorized with the genus name only

You seem to favor option 1. Is this now established Wikimedia policy?

I favor option 2, but if option 1 is established policy then I'm fine with it. I like option 2 because I like to see all the species galleries in the genus category and for a couple of other minor reasons. I understand that the galleries can be found by just expanding the subcategories but I like to be able to see a list of them without any additional searching.

Anyway I'd appreciate your input on this. I have created many of the genus and higher Anseriforme galleries and I would like to follow established procedures.

Thank you, Dave --Davefoc (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I follow:

That is, I always put pages in the most specific category that exists. See Commons:Categories. I don't mind putting species in a genus category if there's no species category (but I like to think that someday we will have every species so I usually make the species category myself). As far as sort keys go, I think it's normal to use a space so it's always first on the list in a category of the same name. What that graphic above illustrates is one of the most fundamental and established policies there is, however, anything TOL seems exempt from any rules (including logic :), so I'm not sure if there even is a policy regarding this. One rule I do know that is established is the categorization of species categories in genus categories and you sort by the second part of the species name (always lowercase), which sounds like option #3 above. Rocket000 (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the overall wikipedia rule: don't place anything in 2 categories if one of these category is in the other category.

So you cannot place an article/category in a species category and in its genus category.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. I have no doubt that it is established Wikipedia policy to put everything except galleries/articles in the lowest level category that fits. That policy makes sense to me and I agree with it.

However it seems to be far from established Wikimedia/Wikipedia policy that articles/galleries only belong in the lowest level category and not the category above it.

A great many species pages are either in the genus category or they are in both the genus and species category. I was looking at the categorization of cities in Wikipedia a few days ago and noticed that the cities in Orange County, CA tended to be in the category of that city and a category that was Cities in Orange County. I think there is a good reason for putting the article/galleries in two places. When one looks at the Cities in Orange County category one expects to see a list of the Cities in Orange County pages and of course when one looks at the city category one expects to see a page about the city in that category. One doesn't expect to have to click on the individual city categories in the county category and then find the link to the city article there. In a similar way, when people click on a genus category they would like to see a list of the species article links.

This is an area that does not seem to have well established policy or even an area where there is a clear consensus policy. --Davefoc (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think many of those double categorized galleries were made before the species category existed and were never removed from the genus category when recategorized (I can't speak for similiar situations on en.wp). All the users who are very active in this area seem to be working towards eliminating this, but you're right it's not as established policy-wise as other areas. Maybe you'd want to bring it up at COM:TOL and get some others' input? In the meantime, I'll leave Aves alone. :) Rocket000 (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. I took Rocket000's suggestion and posted a topic on the tree of life discussion page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Up_to_date_sample_galleries

The main point of the section was that the suggested galleries did not seem to be consistent with the current consensus about how a species gallery should be done, but I also posted a few words about why I thought species galleries should be categorized both with the species and the genus. This is a suggestion that I expect to lose on since the tide seems to be turning against me on that if it was ever with me, but I was hoping to get some discussion on it. And hopefully some discussion about the sample galleries that use an out of date or non-standard approach (if they do).--Davefoc (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source for {{Taxa}}, {{Genera}}, {{Species}}, {{Species2}}[edit]

Hello Rocket000, I like the idea of those templates, but I have a wish before using them:
I am currently working on groups that have very unstable classifications (cnidarian, arthopoda...). So when you provide a classification, you have to provide the source (like the classification= parameter of {{Taxonavigation}}).
What do you think of an optional named parameter |source= ?
{{taxa|subfamiliae|Lycaeninae|Miletinae|source=[http://www.itis.gov ITIS]}} would then display
Included subfamiliae (for ITIS):

Lycaeninae, Miletinae

What do you think of it ? I can do it, but as it is your baby.... ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I was using the title parameter to change the "Included ..." part, but for something like this it makes sense to include it's own parameter. Maybe we can even make it easier by having built-in source options, e.g. all you would have to do is |source=ITIS. What other sources should we include? Rocket000 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like build-in sources. I can think of those I already use in commons

welknown web sites:
- adw = ADW
- catalogueoflife = Catalogue of Life
- fishbase = FishBase
- iucn = IUCN
- itis = ITIS
- msw = Mammal Species of the World
- ncbi = NCBI
- tpdb = TPDB
- worms = WoRMS
well known classifications (see {{Taxonavigation}})
- Cronquist = Cronquist System
- Ehrendorfer = Strasburger = Strasburger
- APGII = APG II = APG II Classification
- APWebsite = APWebsite
- Sibley = Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy
- Smith = Smith System

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'm not sure about the classifications, though. It doesn't seem to be needed. What CarolSpears has been doing is simply putting the template under the {{taxonavigation}} which states the classification. For example: Category:Magnoliales. Rocket000 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my understanding, Ehrendorfer = Strasburger = Strasburger = Nonexistent and the quickest way to repair the damage is to make it Ehrendorfer = Strasburger = GRIN and GRIN being an article which says that an interesting yet unnamed classification exists at that site which sometimes gets used. de.wikipedia was using it but one of them took the time to tell me that what they did was wrong and that it was going to change. What that user said jibed with what I had seen in that de.wikipedia just used the NRCS/GRIN stuff. Other than that, most of my suggestions for the templates have already been suggested and managed -- nicely, also. -- carol (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Category:Magnoliales. Is "Included familia" correct for multiple families? Shouldn't it be "Included familiae" ? Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I made that typo before too. Silly Latin. But what about the classification thing? Do we need it? Rocket000 (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that we will need some classifications. But maybe not the botanic one for the reasons you said.

We can add them later if needed ;-)

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just created {{Taxasource}} to centralize the urls. Don't hesitate to rename it or correct its (french? ;-)) documentation Liné1 (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I modified {{Genera}} to take a |source= as parameter and improved the documentation.

If you don't mind I will propagate the change to {{Taxa}}, {{Species}} and {{Species2}}

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How that is different from "classification"? Are you using commons to send people directly to other websites? If so, why? Are you more interested in increasing traffic for other websites or are you interested in making commons complete? Will I be asking these questions and similar until other people take an interest in what it is you are doing and do something about it? -- carol (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. Sorry, I got distracted. And carol, stop looking for arguments. :) Rocket000 (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing something yesterday and I had that feeling I had done these things before. That has little to do with my comments here with this exception. Of all the classification stuff, everything had an article attached to it except for the one that Liné1 was pushing, that had a link directly offsite. I noticed it because it was inconsistent, not because I was looking for wrong-doers or whatever. I cannot help but think that Liné1 is being consistent now though. It is not looking for an argument when a person is looking at things that happened before. At least not the way I add stuff up. I never want arguments. Intelligent discussion sometimes seems like that. What are you accusing me of? -- carol (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just the way you phrase things. The person has to understand you and how you are not to take things the wrong way. And you know as well as I do that not everyone gets it. Rocket000 (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is better? -- carol (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Rocket000 (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you said {{Taxasource}} provide links to external sources. It is a general habit in science to provide the source/reference to your assertions. That has has many advantages

prove that the information comes from a reliable source
allows to verify that your sources have the same copyright than wikipedia (legal problem)
allows to thank the source
provides a way to verify that there where no error introduced during the copy from the source
provided a way to check if the source has not been modified in the meanwhile
clarify that the information is not "theee absolut truth", but the point of view of a specific source

All this has been forgotten by wikispecies that tries to provides its own truth (without real scientific) without revealing their sources as if they had none but their own absolut knowledge.

But don't worry, as you already experienced it, these external sources are not sexy enough for wikiusers to quit wikipedia ;-)

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten. I haven't forgotten and I also actually enjoy not inventing things. I like/prefer an article that explains the source and then shows the external link as an external link. I don't think it should be a problem. I forget things but I remember many things. -- carol (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just modified {{Taxa}}, {{Genera}}, {{Species}}, {{Species2}} and their documentation.

I have a small bug in {{Species}} that you can see in Category:Colobocentrotus where both "Included species" are separated by a double carriage return.

Look at Category:Echinometridae that has similar calls to {{Genera}} but has less distance between "Included genera".

It is a problem I have already encountered (and solved ;-)) with other templates.

{{Species}} must return additional unneeded carriage return. But I cannot find them. Sniffff. Help. Help. Liné1 (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I can't figure out where that extra line break is coming from either... too many things involved. Rocket000 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either we're missing something obvious or it's possibly yet another MediaWiki line break/whitespace bug. I think we can avoid the problem if we have {{species}} never collapsed and {{species2}} always collapsed (and really if you include more than 300 names, you're gonna want it collapsed). Rocket000 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did it! I is now corrected!!

Well done. Liné1 (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where do sharpies come from?[edit]

I just found the coolest old how-to and other from 1821: The Quarterly Journal Volume XX (Google books are actually easier to manage without javascript enabled, I have found).

Check out the Contents section. One of the headings is On the Employment of Common Salt for the Purposes and the keywords are intriguing: common salt, manure, sown with salt.

The plant stuff, mostly boring but on occasion extremely interesting stuff. -- carol (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpies are plant juice? Rocket000 (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stinky plant juice. Here is another one. I couldn't look at this one: see "Contents" again Another method, a recipe and the keywords are cider, rennet, bung hole. The Mysteries of Trade. 1800s copyright infringement big time because this one republished the stinky ink article.

Google just doesn't seem to be dishing out any pastel colored urls for me today. Not a complaint, an observation. -- carol (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wiktionary[edit]

thanks for the explanation, tho i still think that mediawiki needs some better method for dealing with spelling & capitalization issues. it's bad that google is better at searching wikimedia materials than wikimedia itself is.

why shouldn't i got to wiktionary?

lol

Lx 121 (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're definitely right about MediaWiki needing to improve in this area. The thing about not going to Wiktionary (which was a joke ;)) was referring to their policy of no redirects whatsoever and they are the only wiki whose titles' first letters are case-sensitive. Rocket000 (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey[edit]

Can you please delete this? It was for a bug fixing on meta but there is no need for it more. My IP is displayed, so it will be nice if you can delete it. THX. --Seha bs (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rocket000 (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Seha bs (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome very much. :) Rocket000 (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories on templates[edit]

On Commons:Village_pump#Categories on templates you said: MediaWiki doesn't parse the noinclude parts when transcluded (it stopped over a year ago).

But what about edits to the template? I knew that the noinclude section is not parsed. But I observed, that all cached instances of pages transcluding a template will be rerendered if I do an edit to the noinclude section of that template. At least I observe the very long loading time typical for editing heavy-used templates. I guess, the software cannot recognize whether or not I edited transcluded parts of the templates.

Editing the documentation obviously will force a rerendering of the main template. The remaining question for me is, whether rerendering the main template will subsequently also mean a rerendering of the transcluding pages. --Slomox (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread your question. Yes, MediaWiki can't tell the difference when editing the template page, so it doesn't matter if it's noincluded or not. The point I was making was it doesn't matter what you have in the noinclude part. You can have 500 ifexists or just a {{documentation}} and the transclusions are unaffected. However, any edit does matter. Editing a doc page that's transcluded in noinclude parts will only cause the transclusion to be updated not the whole template page (and thus not its transclusions). You can think of it like this: Each transclusion is an individual copy. When you update one, you start a chain reaction and they all update. How many copies are there of {{../doc}}? Two. And that's all that needs to be updated. Not the contents of every page it's on. Rocket000 (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would then mean, that categories should always be on the doc page and the noinclude section should contain nothing else than

<noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

--Slomox (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I just said what's inside doesn't matter. If you're concerned about edits that only change the category, well I wouldn't worry about that. They hardly ever change. Besides, I think there should only be doc pages for protected templates (which are also heavily used). We're not suppose to worry about performance (if we ruin the servers, it'll get them to work on those areas), and it's not fun having to go to another page just to change something in the documentation. I guess it comes down to personal preference. Rocket000 (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you like the /doc thing, so don't mind me. :) Rocket000 (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Userrights-summary[edit]

Good work, much appreciated. →Na gy 07:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Rocket000 (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Templates[edit]

Hi, thanks for your advice. I'll try to check all my edits and fix this carriage return issue.

About the "must be substituted"/"should...": I think that all the message templates that create a new section on a talk page must really be subst'ed in order to create the new section. For the others, you're right, there's no need to be substed and I'll remove the "must..." message on the template pages.

Thanks again for your help,

Best regards from France,

-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I forgot about the headings. That makes sense then. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No re-uploading template[edit]

Hi,

I see you've warned a user with {{No re-uploading}} when he tried to reupload a deleted file. I think that can be a bit confusing because 1) it seems to be intended for people who want to change the descriptions of their files but don't know how - when people reupload deleted files, that's not usually the case, they just want the file to exist (also thay *can* change the description by reuploading in such cases so the template text is incorrect); 2) it's not very helpful to tell someone to use the edit link to change the description, and then immediately delete the file. (In general, immediately deleting files that are missing a license is very bad usability practice IMO - it unnecessarily annoys users, and it makes it much more difficult to explain them what they did wrong. It is one of the main reasons why people are afraid to use Commons.) --Tgr (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. The main reason I use templates like that (which is almost never) is because users feel it's their right to get warnings like that before they get blocked. Rocket000 (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it never hurts if users know why they get blocked (or their images deleted for that matter) :-) Though it wouldn't have made much difference in this case, as the user doesn't speak English, and the template wasn't localized yet to his language (it is now).

Anyway, I just wanted to suggest that maybe you should make a different template for reuploads of deleted files ("please don't reupload or you will be blocked, if you don't understand what's going on ask at the helpdesk, blah blah") because this one seems to be aimed at users who are struggling to edit the description of a non-deleted image. --Tgr (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought about that after I posted it. I thought "this template is poorly worded and not really what I meant to say" (I did post a follow up comment, though, in English). Like I said I normally don't use templates like this, it just seemed the most appropriate from the list of messages (what the "User Messages" gadget adds to the sidebar). I was just saying to someone else that all these user messages and the script that adds them need a complete overhaul. I've been putting off working on it because it's such a huge task (and I suck at javascript) but this is added a little more motivation.. help would be appreciated. Maybe you would be interested in writing this one. I can do all the autotranslation/layout stuff, but you'd probably be better at wording it. We really need a template for in between {{Copyvionote}} and {{End of copyvios}}, kinda like how the vandalism ones are done, in stages. Rocket000 (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like this?

I see you have once again uploaded {{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[:File:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]|a file}} after it has been deleted. Please don't do that -- as long as you don't fix the problem with it, it will just get deleted again, and you might eventually be blocked. If you don't know what the problem is, ask the administrator who orginally deleted your file -- you can find out his name from the {{#if:{{{1|}}}|[{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=delete&page=File:{{{1}}}}} deletion log]|[[Special:Log/delete|deletion log]]}}.

Also, I would be glad to help with javascript problems. Does Commons still use the go-to-edit-page-and-emulate-click hack to send notices? I'm just about finishing a javascript library over at Hungarian Wikipedia that uses the API to edit any number of pages without leaving the current one. --Tgr (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I'll make the template. Yes, we still go through that whole edit-page/emulate-click thing. MediaWiki talk:Gadget-UserMessages.js and it's redundant sisters: MediaWiki:UserMessages.js, MediaWiki:UserMessages-dev.js are so badly in need of attention. They haven't been updated to accommodate for the auto-translation work done with the templates. I would be so appreciative if someone could help out with it (and many other people would be too). We have only a few (one?) javascript maintainers and they don't seem to care about this script even though it's used a lot. Rocket000 (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made {{Dont reupload}} for now, but I also found the template I should have used: {{Dont recreate}}. I always assumed that was for pages only, not uploads. So maybe this template isn't needed, at least not for the script which already has too many. That {{No re-uploading}} probably can be removed since I don't see it being used that much. Rocket000 (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important proposal[edit]

I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle FPC needs you :-)[edit]

It seems that the proposal gained consensus. Slaunger said that you have the coding skills to realize the change. Can you have a look please ? Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Site notice[edit]

I want to put up a Commons Site notice to announce the opening of voting for the final of the Picture of the Year Competition. Can you tell me how to do that? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Sitenotice. --Eusebius (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a template needing tweaks[edit]

Hi. It's been a while. I'm back on en:wp ;)

Could you look at COM:AN#PD review, at the end, and see what I'm doing wrong with the automatic values for the args? The intent is '~~~' for the user and the current date. I just realized this should require subst!

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we would want to substitute the whole template so I created {{PDr}}. Rocket000 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. I'll take a look and sort what I was missing. If I'm understanding how this will be used the subst version will be the way to go for most reviews. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very complicated in there; now I know where to look for techniques ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's not that complicated. :) It only looks that way because I added some noinclude stuff to make the display on the template page look nice. The important part is:

<includeonly>{</includeonly>{PDreview|1=~~<includeonly>~</includeonly>|2={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}}-{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTH}}-{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}}}}

Once you remove the includeonly parts, you can easily see what it's doing. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect ID-USMil images[edit]

Hi rocket,
Category Incorrect ID-USMil images should actually be empty. It's a category where all images get collected where {{ID-USMil}} is incorrectly used. In fact it's the same as Category:Unknown but for now the guys who use the template know how to use it.
--D-Kuru (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Sorry about that. It's hard to tell what categories should be empty and what categories are just no longer needed. Rocket000 (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:71 iran.JPG[edit]

Delete also the following files:

--Common Good (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sorry I missed those. Thanks for letting me know! Rocket000 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates request[edit]

Hi Rocket - do you understand how to edit those plant classification templates? There's a problem in how they list the subcategories, see e.g. Category:Juglandaceae or Category:Vitaceae where the genera which have templates don't get listed by alphabet the way normal categories do (e.g. Category:Juglans isn't under J at Category:Juglandaceae, Category:Leea isn't under L at Category:Vitaceae). It leads to bad sorting of subcategories. I think the problem probably lies in the formatting of Template:Genus categorization, but can't work out what or where it is. Can this be corrected, or is it a fault inherent in the template system? - Thanks, MPF (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket000 should be able to look at the template and tell you that the genus names are still being sorted alphabetically. Curious how you don't ask the person who has been researching the classifications and who knows how to edit the template. Is that "pro-active"? -- carol (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. See how Meta sort key works and the way things are sorted in major categories and in the templates. (mostly with blank and asterix prefixes as in your case)

2. Try to locate the mysterious person who has been researching the classifications and who knows how to edit the template, explain gently the problems you cannot grasp with your little experience. --Foroa (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came here because (a) Rocket is the last to have edited the template page, (b) he's been helpful rapidly with an earlier request (on the ToL talk page), and (c) I've not had an altogether kind reception at other times from the person who created the template (sorry, but yes, that does affect who one approaches with requests!). The genus names are not sorted alphabetically; currently in Cat:Vitaceae they are in the following order: Cissus, Leea, * Unidentified Vitaceae, Genera of Vitaceae, Species of Vitaceae, A Ampelopsis, C Cayratia, Cyphostemma, P Parthenocissus, T Tetrastigma, V Vitis. Cissus isn't under C between Cayratia and Cyphostemma as it should be, and Leea isn't under L. On the "how Meta sort key" link, that's what is not working; they should (without a pipe bar, simple [[Category:Vitaceae]]) appear by default as the equivalent of [[Category:Vitaceae|Subcategoryname]], but they are not doing so, instead appearing as [[Category:Vitaceae| ]], indexed (I think) under [space] instead of Subcategoryname. The template needs to be changed so they are indexed under Subcategoryname. - MPF (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is done by {{Genus categorization}} and appears to be the desired result, so there's no technical issue here. I would gladly change this for you, but I think this is something we need to work this out with the template creator (in truth, I prefer not to get in the middle of this :). It actually does put them in alphabetical order but all under the space heading. The reason Category:Vitaceae is out of order is because the template hasn't been applied to all genera in that category (only Cissus and Leea). Rocket000 (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I can see what needs changing, from |[[Category:{{{family}}}| {{{genus}}}]] to |[[Category:{{{family}}}|{{{genus}}}]], but I don't dare do it myself for fear of messing up the whole thing. Maybe I could try and then revert if it doesn't work, but I'll wait to see if Carol can clarify. I consider it important to have the templated genera appear in order with untemplated genera, as so many genera are not templated (after all, there's all those genera which are still red links, and someone starting one of those for the first time isn't likely to know about templates) - MPF (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand a little about templates. Once the templates are on all of the genus categories, the problem you perceive will not exist any longer and sorting keys can be determined via discussion. It looks to me as if the author of the templates is trying to keep genera names separate from categories with common names and categories with occurrence of the genus or species in artwork categories, etc. Other things need to be thought of, like should the genera appear first in the family categories when the family includes subfamily and tribe?

Does it make sense to make the template match a categorization character sorting scheme which was non-existent previously? -- carol (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all you would have to change is [[Category:{{{family}}}| {{{genus}}}]] to [[Category:{{{family}}}]]. Personally, I think genera shouldn't use a sort key mainly because of the thing carol pointed out, what do you do when there's tribes and subfamilies also in the family category? But that's the beauty of templates. Once implemented, you can change all pages with a single edit. This allows you to spend your time discussing what way it should be instead of having to edit tons of pages to make it a certain way that might need to be changed again (and again). Rocket000 (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a "random" attribute for the templates? I was thinking that if indeed the goal is to make the template categorization reflect what existed here before, the templates should display random classification and give the appearance of no conclusion to which classification scheme commons uses. If the templates have this random capacity then making the categories have the same appearance as they used to can be one of the options that is discussed. (Assuming that the previous categorization was intentional....) -- carol (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You can use something like [[Category:{{{family}}}| ]] which means there's no order whatsoever because the sort keys are all the same. The order appears random (similar to WhatLinksHere) because of various factors like the order in which you added the templates and when those pages last updated (you could go even further and throw things in there like {{LangSwitch}} and {{CURRENTDAY}} so order changes based on the user's interface language and what day it is ;) But it wasn't really random before since it merely used the default sort keys ({{PAGENAME}}). Rocket000 (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that is the wrong kind of random, unfortunately. The random I saw was random classification, so it would have to be a template function. An accurate reflection of the previous taxonomy here should randomly show individual classifications (APG II, Cronquist, etc).

There is a dispute based on classification about the genera Magnolia and Melia, for instance. The "easy to work with" ToL person removed the Melia categories and moved them all to Magnolia. So sad to do all that work twice when a somewhat simple template edit could easily have displayed and categorized with the recent past name and the present name. This ask another person policy that seems to be adhered to by the ToL group has some large short comings for being "easy to work with". -- carol (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, taxonomy doesn't always follow a logical hierarchy (especially when you try to combine multiple classifications) like many believe our category system should follow. To me the important thing is the structure, not so much the names. I rather merge two identical categories and keep the wrong name (or rank) than try and make everyone happy by keeping both names. With redirects people shouldn't have a problem finding it. A thing to keep in mind: The more powerful a template you create and the more time you spend implementing it, the greater the power you have yourself.. Rocket000 (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(tab reset) This is already being done at the family level though. Personally, and for not very good reasons, I was glad to move some of the magnolia out just because the genus is very overcrowded. But that is not the point. What is the point is that it is simple enough to make the template give those particular species the name "Melia" for some classification systems and "Magnolia" for others. It isn't so much a matter of everyone or anyone being happy as it is how things were when they were classified with this system and how they changed for the new system.

It is cool to me to use the software here and be enabled to not have an opinion and just show what they have been doing since 1980 (when computers started to become more affordable -- not that there is any relationship between that and these classification systems....)

The templates here are stronger than I ever would have guessed simply looking at user boxes, messages and the occassional citation template. Seriously, strong and capable stuff. My complements to the authors and the template designers. -- carol (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

list moving[edit]

Hi, can I move my list of deletions somewhere here? Maybe User:Rocket000/Blanco cleanup or something like that? It is very close to being complete.

I have to ask one of the finer members of the ToL (WayneRay) what the intentions are with the gallery that exists for these images now. I am curious what the response will be. -- carol (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Rocket000 (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its been moved. I need to find a non-ToL gallery maker (I guess) to ask what to do with the existing Blanco gallery. "Easy to work with" not that you do this, but the ToL just moves things and changes things without talking about it or warning. Do you have any clue what a person should do to be "easy to work with" as they define this trait?

I would have thought that a well constructed gallery would be welcomed by the lot of them. Thinking has not been a successful approach to understanding though. -- carol (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I'm not sure what to do with the move ones. We lost that ability right after we got it because it was causing problems. Rocket000 (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YAY for the red links there!! I can wait. Ayacop was kind of schizo with that upload -- forgetting between the two volumes to save as png. Also kind of schizo recently to ask about (my suspicions involve a user here who used to be a GIMP expert and I am quite certain that it is not that same person now -- once people switch they don't go back a basic rule which gets stronger with the amount of involvement). The upload history is still really good though and where it isn't good is where I messed it up, usually.

It is good to see them gone! -- carol (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of insight requested[edit]

Hello. I tried to find someone by not-so-random method which tries to choose one who is trustworthy, active in delete requests but doesn't seem to be maniacal deletionist. If I missed one, tell me before answering. ;-)

You're not involved but your input would be valuable on Commons_talk:Licensing#Banknotes_question.2C_esp._EUR. I'm not really active in Commons politics, and I definitely do not intend to get all banknotes removed, but it seems that most related [bills and coins] license templates were written with a lenient approach (to put it nicely), most [bills] images were uploaded by people with huge amount of copyvio warnings on their talk pages, and nobody on the licensing talk page seem to have a clue [but good advices, which unfortunately I possess a lot myself as well]. If you couldn't care less you're free to say that, or maybe point to someone who would like to share some insigths on the matter.

(Main reason to come up with that is that I have to understand the Euro case before I start to ask for legal permissions of various kinds for Hungarian money.)

Thanks! --grin ✎ 13:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is area I'm unfamiliar with. Being in the U.S. where we can basically do anything with money except counterfeit it, it's not something I ever really looked into. A couple users that always have valuable input are Lupo and MichaelMaggs. You may try asking them for insight. Rocket000 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

taxonomy[edit]

I am reading the above exchange with great interest.

Do you know that this "science" is hardly different from perhaps arguments about how to sort and store your music collection? Only this argument has been going on for centuries. Where in music there was once just a simple "genra" scheme: Classical, Jazz, Rock-N-Roll, Country-Western, Folk, Indigeonous, Historical then came the need to divide out rock and roll "lite", "heavy", "southern". Then a new "genra" Electric which was more electric than the difference between Folk and Rock-N-Roll. Lately, I don't bother to know the genra of the music it is so sub-divided and such. Such subdividing is only interesting to those few real devotees of one of the original genra (I think).

That being said, when I go into a store to purchase music, it can be a challenge to know which area to look for what I want. Music has this one advantage due to being commercially available; each store maintains it own sorting scheme. Plants and animals as subjects of study, really straddle the worlds of commercial and shared knowledge (which is what science should be).

I am writing this here because of something interesting I discovered while expanding the Cleome article at en.wikipedia and I would like to share this with Rocket000 and suggest to not waste personal resources studying taxonomy at a university. The typification rules. I have this problem reading "rules". I actually don't have a problem with it, I simply rarely read them. Here is my take on that:

The rules of typification have stuff in them like to be a type species for a genus (which could project into being the type species for the family) there has to be either a preserved specimen or an acceptable drawing with the auth's signature and a description and it has to be referenced after that by other published authorities. These rules make the history of the family Cleomaceae make sense more than any scientific observations of the group.

They are a natural group, very much like the mustard family with the exception that cows and other grazing beasts don't eat them. This is the problem that makes the published people want to abolish the family. The type species is only found in this one guys 1600s scrapbook so (to me) any photograph claiming to be this species is highly suspect. There is no way to verify this and the need to see it makes that document too valuable to be available to a humble and honest scientist wanting to "straighten the shared music collection".

One of the 1800s scientists (John Lindley) tried to redefine things by including a description from the source of the successful species with a beautiful and accurate painting. One set of seeds was sent to Europe and successfully found its way into living herbariums and also gardens and occasionally into the wild. But the rules say that the first published occurrence of the name (in this case the species) is the type and that is unavailable. And it should be the type species for the genus, but it isn't, because of the rules.

They even suggest renaming them and I suggest that even those looking at the DNA (very tiny stuff) are trying to free themselves from this type species that the rules have imposed on their science.

I could not write any of this in the article. It is all my personal guessing and observation. It does make sense of the history though. The problem is the name and Cleome is such a beautiful name for a beautiful group of species. The fact that Linneas chose the name is the deal breaker though because that means that the type species is unavailable and that access to it is wrongly inflated economically (perhaps).

Without those rules though, I think it would be a worse mess.

Taxonomy is a more interesting study when there is no care for the way they say things are sorted. Finding the type species drawing from the 1600s online and uploading is also kind of a cool experience. Putting it on the article page, only (perhaps) a few hundred people alive today know how great that is though....

Good luck with that classification project there.... -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's a difference between what we're doing and what taxonomists are doing. They're trying to do the actual classification, we're trying to figure out what classification(s) to use. On Commons, I don't mind what classification we use here. We're not teaching people taxonomy. We're just trying to group similar images so people can find them by using established names. The people that make the rules sometimes forget the point of classification in the first place. It's all made up anyway so why try to make it follow nature? Basing classification on things like DNA or evolution is stupid (or more correctly stated, it simply has a different goal in mind). I find so many errors and contradictions in authoritative and respected sources (and I don't mean sites like ITIS, but the actual printed documents that we reference after names), I can't take it seriously. But that's what makes it kinda fun in a way. Rocket000 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it would be like if one genra of music was defined by this one recording that one person owns even if there were versions by the same singer-songwriter in existence and owned by many people, versions that may be better even -- no one would know unless they could hear that original recording.

People are simply crazy. Get a group of them together and it becomes not sane soon after. Evidence of this not being the case is rare and for certain housed somewhere that regular people who might actually enjoy seeing the evidence that this is not the case will never be able to actually see it.

Putting some nodes upon the templates of these points in time and definition where there was some agreement is the best way for the commons to go, especially to avoid all that insanity that is available from those with an opinion. Points of agreement are interesting that they exist at all.

DNA based classification is still going to be the same thing? Just smaller? Honestly, I have an image collection on my computer where some of the families are so over crowded in their directory that I have often considered to "subdivide". I completely understand the tendency and even the need to redefine things. I stand on the brink of one form of insanity and understand. Enough to want to avoid that here, at the commons.

"Commons". Interesting name, eh? -- carol (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cleome ornithopodioides. Perhaps it is a case of not seeing the tree for the forest. Or even the branch for the tree/trees.... -- carol (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Rocket000 (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VISC-nom-preload - what am I missing?[edit]

BotMultichill tagged this with {{Uncategorized}} this morning, so I added a cat, which you removed. What am I missing? Was the noinclude category included in the preloading? Hm, that was probably it... should have checked that. --Dschwen (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we can't categorize preloaded text. See Commons:WikiProject Templates/Category scheme#Templates that shouldn't be categorized. Sorry, I should have had a better edit summary. Rocket000 (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:You're the lucky es admin choosen randomly[edit]

Oh, great and mighty goddess of fortune! Let thy wheels roll! XD Rocket000, this is my opinion. Because you were the admin who initially took the unblock request I wanted to know if you agree (or disagree) with my POV before taking any actions. Cheers, KveD (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment templates on translations[edit]

Hi, please don't put templates like {{Picture of the day}} or {{Assessments}} on versions of a file that were not actually a POTD or FP. Thanks! Rocket000 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did that? --Berru (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno-ban[edit]

Peço desculpas mas apaguei as páginas de algumas imagens que eu criei e tenho certeza que não serão mais utilizadas. Não apagaria as páginas de imagens que eu não teria criado. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno-ban (talk • contribs) 19:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well...[edit]

We may be moving away from that style soon though. We may be able to implement these classes in just as interesting ways. ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

huh[edit]

Why did you delete Commons:Deletion requests/2009/04/18? Aren't we supposed to keep archives? ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The archive is at Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/04/18. Rocket000 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD review tweak[edit]

Hi. See this thread: Commons_talk:PD_files#Summary. Could you add a switch to the PD review such that if we don't use the switch, it's as it is now, but if we use it, it says something like "see image talk page for why this image's PD status was endorsed by PD reviwers? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind and it's not too much trouble, this: Commons_talk:PD_files#Images_that_fail_PD_review would be a good thing to have too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, do you want a separate template for that or another switch in the main template? (I'll probably get to this tomorrow since I don't have much time right now.) Rocket000 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just make it two optional switches please. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sorry for the delay. You may want to tweak the wording a little. Rocket000 (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/&action=edit[edit]

since this seems to be a common error, what about making a redirect instead of just blocking it? Lx 121 (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to what? People would just make the same mistake some place else. Rocket000 (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mentioned![edit]

..though it is nothing glamorous; it is just related to Commons:PD files/reviewers. Can you check out Commons talk:PD files/reviewers#Script modification_request please? NuclearWarfare (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiki MagneticBase OFF.jpg[edit]

Hi,

I just saw that this file was deleted. I have a feeling it shouldn't have been deleted, but was due to a poor move from wikipedia to the commons. I just cleaned up the related file File:Wiki MagneticBase ALL.jpg, and think that the same is all that was needed for this file. Can you undelete it so that I can fix the licensing issues? Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and I fixed the info too. Rocket000 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it! Wizard191 (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Egypt[edit]

OK. I just removed it because it wasn't right. --Botev (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was image removed?[edit]

Hi there... I see that you have removed an image from the wikipedia article: John Gillespie Magee, Jr.

I would like to understand why this image was removed. I admit that I do not understand all of GFDL (and not terribly much of wikipedia itself), but I do know that this particular image is considered in the public domain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-BritishGov

Could you please reply either the John Gillespie Magee, Jr. wikipedia page, or to my wikipedia account RJHaas.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHaas (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted from Commons[edit]

In reference to my message above, here is the message on the wikipedia history page:

(cur) (prev) 03:11, 4 May 2009 CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs) m (16,882 bytes) (Removing "John_Gillespie_Magee_Jr.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Rocket000 because: not GFDL.) (undo)

I am not certain what all "GFDL" means, but I do know that that particular image is in the public domain.

Could you tell me what I need to do to get the image back?

Thanks.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHaas (talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea on strange Category:Standard Model[edit]

Hi, any idea why the {{Move}} results in such a strange display in Category:Standard Model. Thanks. --Foroa (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was on the en:wikipedia without noticing.--Foroa (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pages kept for historical reasons[edit]

In my travels I keep coming across old pages that are no longer live but that probably should be kept for historical reasons - old proposals and so on. Do you know if we have a convenient template to label such pages? We have {{Archive}}, but that's really just for archived pages. Something along the lines of {{Delh}} would work. If you don't know of anything existing I'll make one. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have two options: {{Historical}} and {{Inactive}}. The latter is more for inactive WikiProjects, {{historical}} is what I've been using when I come across old proposals and the like. It's nice because it allows you to customize the message (like to give a reason why it's inactive or to direct people to a more current page). Rocket000 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. I knew you'd know. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

documentation in subpage[edit]

Hello my friend,
You know how much I like templates about references. Some of them are protected which is a good thing.
But I dont even have rights to modify their documentation. Bouhou, snif ;-).
Could you move the documentation of those templates in a subpage:

You can do the same modification I did on {{FishBase genus}}: this + this
Thanks in advance Liné1 (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I would support you if you ever wanted those rights, BTW.) Rocket000 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the template amd the support ;-) Liné1 (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VN/title[edit]

Hello, Rocket, following thinking: Is it good, to use the english VN/title "Vernacular names" by general changing from "template:Translation table" to the better "template:VN" by a bot? For plants and animals ok., but with my small english knowledge I believe, for example here: Barack Obama the header name is not the best way. My proposal "Name by countries" was not accepted by User:Slomox. Do you have a better formulation or is the english use of "Vernacular names" always ok.? Greeting. Orchi (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for that I would recommend "Translations" or "In other languages". VN/title was made specifically for common names of organisms. It doesn't really apply to Barack Obama, since he doesn't have a "scientific name". Rocket000 (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Senedd public gallery.jpg[edit]

Hi Rocket, I found your name on the list of Administrators. So your name was random. Anyway can you please look at the above image, as it is from a site that I have used before and would like to know if the info on the image is okay for Commons. Thanks. Seth Whales (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perfectly acceptable for Commons. The site looks like it has some good stuff. I'll have to bookmark it. Rocket000 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seth Whales (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

I just have to show you this! :) I have a feeling you may not know what it is, hehe. God 17 Mai og ha en god dag. Mvh, Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 23:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, the mixture of pop music and nationalism doesn't really hold my interest. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dignitaslogo.jpg[edit]

Hey there, regarding the missing permission for this picture. I'm in contact with Team Dignitas Ltd., the company who owns the logo, could you let me know what I need to provide? I had entered the quote I got from the owner but if that's not enough, what do I need? As for URL, they won't code a site just for the permission now, will they ;) --MepHiii (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you'll need to forward the permission to OTRS. See COM:OTRS for more info. Rocket000 (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eupithecia[edit]

Uffa... :-} --Olei (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a lot of species. Looks like I'll have to expand {{Species2}}. BTW, there's a little javascript tool that you may find helpful for making these lists. See the code under "Replacer" on User:Rocket000/monobook.js. It's a nice quick way to make regex replacements right inside your edit box (like after you copy'n'paste a list from somewhere else). I also use Notepad++ a lot (which is good for counting the line numbers in case you need to disambig). Rocket000 (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now it takes up to 1,600 names! The only problem is that it now too has a line break problem. This was introduced by my attempt to reduce the code for page load speeds (and the servers' sake). I also removed some of the rarely used optional features including the hidden and linkto parameters. I guess you would always want it hidden with this many names so that's not an issue. I'll try to make an optimized version one of these days but for now it can at least handle that many. Rocket000 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the template was the error... I created this list (and others too) from this Excel list. It is simple. ;-) I guess Eupithecia is the largest genus. Who knows... And I have a nice tool for you. Install activaid_v131.exe and have a look at HotStrings. Helps a lot pasting templates, references, long names etc. pp. For your replacer I have to take a look at regular expressions... --Olei (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try it out. As for regex, there's not much you need to know to start using it. If anything you can use it as a literal search and replace (like in Excel). Special characters (like "." or "|") will be treated literally if you precede them with a "\". New lines are represented by "\n" (n by itself is just n). Let's say you grab a list of species and you want to remove the genus part from the name, you would put "Genus " in the search bar and nothing in the replace with bar. That's it. You can replace the line breaks with pipes (for the template) by searching for "\n" and replacing with "\|". To capture text, use (...) and to call it back, use $1... the best way to learn is just to try things out, but those special characters I just mentioned are basically all I use most of the time (and "*"). As long as you have some tools that work for you, that's the important part (don't want you to be doing this stuff manually ;) Rocket000 (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...[edit]

...for deleting the empty gallery lehragksmühle. the creating was a mistake, i mixed up gallery and category and forgot to ask an administrator to delete it. greetings --Z ^thomas 13:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts on some Eupithecia galleries[edit]

Hi Rocket, I was asked at the german IRC-channel #wikipedia-bio for the reason for reverts like this. What is wrong with these edits? --Olei (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category itself was being transcluded, which made everything on the category page appear on the gallery including {{Lepidoptera}}. That template shouldn't be used on pages other than categories because of it's auto-categorizing thing. Those edits were duplicating the content and making the categories/galleries seem even more redundant by making them contain the same thing. This is the opposite of what I was trying to clear up on Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life/Lepidoptera. Also, when I made {{VN}} and {{SN}}, I asked that they not be used on gallery pages unless no category exists to help make them visually distinct and prevent redundancy. Rocket000 (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. :-) --Olei (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help request[edit]

Hi Rocket. Thank you for deleting Flexible-fuel vehicles in the United States which I created by mistake when actually I was trying to create the new sub-category Category:Flexible-fuel vehicles in the United States. I am requesting your help because I did a spelling mistake at Category:Neat ehtanol-powered vehicles. Should I do a redirect or as administrator can you somehow fix the spelling of the word "ethanol" for me?---Mariordo (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Rocket000 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt action to my request.--Mariordo (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RC patrolling[edit]

Hi Rocket. Would you care to enlighten me about what kind of actions are the non-automatic patrolling actions listed in the log that you mention here? I just don't get it. --Eusebius (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, go here. Now click on one of the pages. In the bottom right corner you'll see a [Mark this page as patrolled] link. By clicking that, you just patrolled a page. Rocket000 (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. It's only about new pages in the main namespace? Not about individual diffs? --Eusebius (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's only for new pages but in any namespace. However, mainspace pages are all we really patrol (sometimes I hit the talk pages too). We get too many files to patrol each one individually and the other namespaces attract very little vandalism. You'll find a lot of vandalism/test/out-of-scope pages if you start patrolling them. Sometimes it's as bad 50% or more of new pages. Rocket000 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info. I think that on fr.WP there's a RC patrolling schedule so that it can be checked 24/24, but I'm not sure we're there already :-) --Eusebius (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan deletion requests[edit]

Hi Rocket000, i see you worked on orphaned deletion requests like Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Map_Ruta_CH-11.svg in the past. I was thinking about having my bot automaticly add requests like these to the log. What do you think about that? About 3000 hits btw. Multichill (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I don't know about automating it. Many of them don't need to be listed. Sometimes the file/page is already deleted or the request can easily be speedied. I guess we can try it out, but not all at once of course. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably test with a subset (say for example all orphans created in March) to see how it works. I'll keep you posted if you like. Multichill (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yeah. Thanks. Let's see how it works out. Rocket000 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed[edit]

Hi, could you please help me with File:World Map Icon.svg? I've made optimized version of it but it seems not to be rendered correctly by MediaWiki renderer although Inkscape and Gecko web engine renderers render it OK. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 12:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what was causing the problem. I noticed the last path was missing a fill attribute making one of the islands black (when rendered correctly) so maybe there's some rsvg bug with that. Or with the doctype/namespace/version/. I always leave the version and doctype out - it's valid without them and they only cause problems. I messed around with it for awhile and couldn't figure it out so I just created a new version. :) Rocket000 (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help[edit]

Hi! I was looking at this beautiful photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coscinocera_hercules It made me feel relaxed, yea I'm weird :D I really need to relax, hihihi! Can you help me? I am new. What can you do? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coscinocera_hercules.jpg&action=history found you after clicking link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coscinocera_hercules.jpg I want to help. I do not understand much. I have some photos to share. Bought a camera, maybe I can put pictures here? Do not know how. Got some photos on my new laptop from the cam. Sorry for intruding you dear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frksilje (talk • contribs) 01:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, welcome to Commons! :) It would be awesome if you upload your photos here! Uploading seems kinda confusing at first but it's really easy after you do it a couple times. All you need to do is go here (also linked in the sidebar), fill out the form and then click upload. Don't worry about getting everything right the first time you can always edit the information. I can help you with categories and all that if you need me to. Rocket000 (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to upload a file. But I don't understand the Licensing: and Summary. Help please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frksilje (talk • contribs) 10:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For licensing, see Commons:Licensing. You can choose one of the licenses from the drop down menu (GFDL, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA are popular choices). As for the summary, simply say what the photo is of. For species, I usually just add the scientific/Latin name, the location where the photo was taken (important for identification of some species), and if it's a male or female if known. Rocket000 (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What license is the best in your opinion? Looked on the page link you gave me. Is flickr same thing as commons? http://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiegall/343785345/ is OK to upload? Dunno. <Anyone can see this photo> is on the picture sidebar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frksilje (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that depends on what you want. Personally, I release all my uploads into the public domain (meaning they're no longer copyrighted and thus can not be "licensed", however on Commons we sometimes call {{PD-self}} a license anyway). But this means you no longer have any rights whatsoever. It's not for everyone. If you want to retain the right to be attributed, I would choose {{Cc-by-3.0}} and if you also want people's derivatives of your work to be licensed the same, then choose {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} (by = attribution; sa = Share Alike). Most of the options on the upload form also contain {{GFDL}}, which is ok too (that's what all the text on Wikipedia and Commons is licensed as). Flickr is kinda the same as Commons as it allows it's users to choose a Creative Commons (CC) license, however not all CC licenses are allowed here. Only CC-BY, CC-SA, and CC-BY-SA. The ones that disallow commercial use (NC) or derivatives (ND) are not free licenses, which is against the goal of Commons—to be a repository of freely usable media files (that's free as in freedom; think open source, Linux, Wikipedia, etc.).

Actually, that Flickr image is ok to upload here but not because it says "Anyone can see this photo", which doesn't mean anything in terms of copyright/licensing. That just means it's public instead of private (don't confuse "public" and "public domain" - those are very very different things). It's ok to upload here because it's licensed under CC-BY. See where it says "Some rights reserved" under Additional Information; when you click on that, it links to the license (well at least a summary of the license, the actual legal part is here.) Now when you upload images that you didn't create you can't choose whatever license you want. You must use the same exact license as the author/copyright holder chose (this is obvious, but sometimes needs to be said).

Hope that helps. Rocket000 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You can sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end. Rocket000 (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! File:Lorikeet.JPG OK upload? Frksilje (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Bot reviewed image Frksilje (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Senta[edit]

Hi, this one needs a dismbiguation - and I found no rules on the project page, but I remember that we talk about it somwhere... --Olei (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I brought it up on Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Lepidoptera, but I'll add something to the main page. Basically, use the family name in parentheses. So it would be Category:Senta (Noctuidae). Rocket000 (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Genera}}[edit]

I have created a discussion on Template talk:Genera after User:Orchi's modification of {{Genera}}.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. My watchlist has been steadily getting useless lately; I think I need to be more discriminate with what I add to it. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once, I reach the limit of the wiki watchlist (arround 10000). I had a lot of problems with it and had to ask an admin to empty it.

Since then, I am much more careful before putting something in it ;-)

Cheers

Subspecies[edit]

Hello my friend,
I am lately working on mammals which have a lot of subspecies describes.
I use Taxa to describe the subspecies, but it does not a correct job (no italic, no genus truncation)
Look at

What about a {{Subspecies}} that would call {{Species}} with title=Included subspecies{{#if:{{{source|}}}| (for {{Taxasource|{{{source}}}}})}} ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it, but in the area I'm working in, it's very rare to have a need to categorize by subspecies (in mammals, however, I'm sure it's much more common). Sometimes, though, I do want to list the subspecies because many times they were treated as species previously or when there are common names that refer to a specific subspecies. For this I've been using {{Clist}}. For example: Euphilotes pallescens or Aricia icarioides. Of course, I'm sure your purposes for listed the subsp. are more for navigation than just sorting out taxonomic messes and preventing conflicting classification from being used. I'll work on making a new template. BTW, am I totally abusing taxasource by putting all kinds of things in there? ;) Rocket000 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you can start using {{Subspecies}} if you want. It's pretty simple right now, but I'm planning to expand it allow other formats (e.g. for plant subspecies that use "subsp.", maybe even it will work for varieties, cultivars, forms, aberrations, and hybrids!) Rocket000 (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zizina is really good. thank for {{Subspecies}} Liné1 (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Image[edit]

Sorry, I'm not too familiar with where to report this and you're the only administrator I know of. User:Mets0907 continually re-uploads the image File:Tsim and mick foley.JPG. As you can see, the image has a YouTube watermark and thus cannot be added to commons. The user has been warned many times, but will not stop uploading the image. Darth Mike (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If I see it again, I'll block the user. BTW, if you can always report things like this on the Administrators' noticeboard (or one of it's subpages like COM:AN/V for vandalism), but going to any active administrator works too (and sometimes brings faster results ;) Rocket000 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision delete[edit]

Can you do me a favour and delete the 17:19, 14 June 2009 revision of File:Flag of Dallas.svg. Thanks. --Svgalbertian (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any maybe 18:12, 14 June 2009 (I accidentally distorted the star) --Svgalbertian (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rocket000 (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Svgalbertian (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{GeoGroupTemplate}} and taxonavigation[edit]

Hi Rocket,

I've had some fun trying this template out in my user categories. It is cool to see the distribution of the images in a given category. I came to think that it could be embedded in the taxonav templates, giving a distribution link, which would open a map based on the geocoded images in the category. I know you have never been as keen on geocoding of living species as I am , but I think that could have some perspective. The downside is that most images are not geocoded so users could be confused if none or only a few images show up on the map in a large category. On COM:GEO they are discussing ways to make it work for galleries and recursive in categories. I have not looked at the details, but I think it would be cool if, e.g., taxonavigation at the genus level could then show distribution where the next level of species categories are included. Anyway, just an idea I would like to hear your opinion about. --Slaunger (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I like geocoding. It was just making it mandatory for VIs that wasn't keen on. I'll check out the template. We could easily make it recursive if it allows sending multiple pages/categories to be mapped. Rocket000 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HI Rocket. Thanks. It will be interesting to see what kind of magic you can make. --Slaunger (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, it ~~works~~ (maybe not; it strips the second part we I link it but you can do it directly). The only bad part is we will have to add each category or page to the template to do them all at once. Not sure if putting it in the taxonav template would work. For individual categories/pages, a gadget would be better so there's automatically a link (in the sidebar) no matter where you are. For multiple categories/pages, we would have to add them manually anyway, so I'm thinking something like where we simply add {{GeoGroup|species1|species2|species3|...}} on a genus page. Or if TOLers start structuring their areas of interest in a way like I did with Lepidoptera (via {{Lepidoptera}}) it opens up the door for all kinds of things. For example, I can create categories like Category:Species of Satyrinae or Category:Genera of Ennominae which a single edit to the template (I planning to make categories like "Species of Lepidoptera" pretty soon once I get most of the thousands of species categories updated with the template. Generating statistics is my motivation but geo-mapping an entire order will be interesting :-). Rocket000 (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about the gadget solution. It seems to cumbersome if we need to add a lot of parameters manually. Your {{Lepidoptera}} looks kind of complicated and I do not fully grasp how it works and what makes it so cool. What is it TOL should do differently to do it smart? --Slaunger (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Lepidoptera category system is controlled via {{Lepidoptera}}. It's cool because if I want to subcategorize some family by tribes, it only takes one edit. If I want to know how many species of Lepidoptera we have in total, it only takes one edit. Same goes for genera, families, any rank. If I want to update major sections of the classification all at once, it only takes one edit (although I won't really do it this way). Many things are possible. For example, all families' taxonavigation bars used to include the superfamily ({{Lepidoptera/superfamilia}}), we decided we didn't need them, so I simply removed it from the template and now their gone from all families. Also, it makes adding the taxonavigation template a lot easier since you don't have to keep adding the higher ranks. Rocket000 (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think I grasp most of it. Thank you for that link to the discussion. that helped. To fully understand it think I would have to work actively with (which although I would like to is just not going to happen due to IRL time constraints). I very very much like this whole idea of centralizing maintenance and information. I hate, hate, tripple hate redundant information (which is why I disliked species categories, when we had the species galleries (and because the latter could be organized), and now that we have decided to use species categories, I am tired of the galleries because they are redundant to the species categories (which can, unfortunately not be organized, but that is an entirely different issue which is not worth debating anymore)). --Slaunger (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the vast majority of gallery pages I see are simply a list of images in no specific order, have zero captions, have less images than the category has, and are unmaintained (since many people, like me, don't get it and would rather invest time on the categories). To me, it's simply trying to do manually what categories are there for and failing miserably. I'm mean, compare Category:Pholodes sinistraria and Pholodes sinistraria. What am I missing? Rocket000 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. As I said it is not worth debating anymore because the galleries have fallen apart. So I agree with you. From where we stand today there seems to be little if no reason to maintain species galleries expect when you have perhaps a very large species category and you want to extract a few images showing representative and the most illustrative images of the species, e.g., VIs, QIs, and FPs... So you are not missing anything. I have long ago acknowledged that what I perceived as a better method of organizing the media was not in line with what most other users wanted. No problem, I am adaptive. I just wish you could do more with categories from the file pages where you do the categorization, like parsing small captions, icons etc. But we can't and I have adapted to that as well. --Slaunger (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Keep in mind I'm a late-comer to the TOL side of Commons and wasn't involved back when all the debate was going on or when the galleries were in better shape. I wish we could do more with categories as well. Or more category things with galleries. Rocket000 (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Discussion menu[edit]

[1] That's not really a discussion page. Rocket000 (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commons_protected_edit_requests is a kind of request page, listing individual talk pages where discussions about requests can take place. I can hardly think of a better way to inform the community about these requests, than providing a link to this category. How about renaming Template:Discussion menu into Template:Requests and discussions menu ? Teofilo (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that category's really more for admins. It's not for the community at large since those requests are not for more discussion. They're merely technical requests. We have tons of other requests pages/categories; I don't see why this one should get special attention. Rocket000 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The requests are made on talk pages so that anyone can discus. The difference between these requests and other requests is the archiving mode only. All the people who have the page in their watch list are welcome to intervene if they have something to say about what is being written on the talk page.

I have added COM:DEL on "Template:Discussion menu" (diff), as the main entrance for all kinds of deletion requests. Are there many (tons of ?) other request pages still being unlisted under "contact administrators" ? Teofilo (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, for example: Category:Requested moves, Category:Incomplete media renaming requests, Category:Requests for unblock, Commons talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands... The thing is, Category:Commons protected edit requests is automatically filled. It's not where you go to make a request. Watchlists are irrelevant since this doesn't affect them. Rocket000 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bot[edit]

Hello my friend,
I have bot requests for you after the discussions/votes we had: On all page using {{Taxonavigation}}:

replace authority=<small>Owen 1858</small> by authority=Owen 1858 now that authority is displayed small
replace [[:category:Genus|Species]] by [[:category:Genus|species]]
You almost promised this one to me, to have my vote, you cheater ;-)

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. I keep meaning to start on this. The second one is harder than it sounds, because a bot has no way of knowing if it's a species category or not unless you supply it with a hand-made list (which takes time). The first one I didn't know was an issue, but should be much easier to solve. What would be a good area to start in? Rocket000 (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the second one I can supply you with a list to check and a bot to fix it. You do have to supply me with one or more parent categories so I can travel down the tree. Interested? Multichill (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. How high on the tree can I make the list from? Rocket000 (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, a good parent category would be Eukaryota ;-)

But if you think I am over ambitious, try Category:Animalia.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the second robot, the Page or category must be named "Genus species", contain regex "^Species|Genus species|$" and "[[:category:Genus|Species]]". The last one is very important as most species articles are now in species cat and should still contain "[[:category:Genus species]]". Liné1 (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If i keep it below around 15 layers of recursion, the server probably won't explode.

You can find the source here. Multichill (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Image[edit]

Hi, I see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Image%3AChicka.jpg was deleted, yet then I looked at the referred link given for the reason (http://tineye.com/search/6d584afb48decf50ab40516b2d5963b4a16e8224) nothing was turned up... thus could be it please be restored? Thanks. Mathmo (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those tineye searches are only stored temporarily. That's why it says "Query expired. The original search image has been discarded" What is your reason for wanting this particular image restored? Rocket000 (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your support :-) wadester 16 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{VN}} vs {{Translation table}}[edit]

hello Rocket000,
There is a heavy concurrency between {{VN}} and {{Translation table}}. It is a bad thing.
Could'nt we vote for one and pass a bot ?
(This time I won't change my edits without vote+bot, if you see what I mean ;-))
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO! :) They serve different purposes. Vernacular names != Translations. {{VN}} should only be used for things that have universal scientific names (e.g. taxa). {{Translation table}} is for translations of the language-specific names we use here. Rocket000 (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first to think they're redundant so I added a message on the template page. Rocket000 (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand when {{Translation table}} should be used (the "language-specific names" part of the sentense is not very clear).

Personnaly, I only work on taxa pages with {{Taxonavigation}}.

From what I see on those pages there is a concurrency.

Liné1 (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Language-specific names" refers to names that are only used in one language. For example, Category:Animals uses the English name, whereas Category:Animalia is the universal name. {{VN}} would only be appropriate for the latter. "Animals" itself is a vernacular name so names in other languages are simply translations (not VNs of the English word). Likewise, the reverse doesn't make the most sense either (although is more acceptable) since we don't call common names "translations" of scientific terms since both are used in a given language (e.g. how can you translate something already in that language? But when used this way, I think people understand it's a "translation" into layman terms). Rocket000 (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we launch a bot to transform all {{Translation table}} on a page containing a {{Taxonavigation}} into a {{VN}} ? Liné1 (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose we could. I just didn't want to force the newer design on everyone when I made it and wanted it to stabilize a bit before converting everything to it but I guess it's as stable as it'll ever be now. (What, you don't like {{tlf}}'ing templates? I think linking to the same page multiple times in the same paragraph is kinda silly. :)Rocket000 (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz by Carlos Latuff[edit]

I am in utter shock that you would delete this category without discussion with me. We don't blind revert each other without discussion on the Commons.

The consensus for this category emerged in last deletion debate for this image. It is the only compromise that will work for those who want to maintain the image and those who want to delete it. Frankly, it does not belong in the category, as categories stand now; since on Commons, categories are the primary way people display images. Inclusion of the image on primary gallery pages, categories, and articles flies in the face of the Board Resolution on Biographies of Living Persons as this image literally degrades the subject for whom it depicts. --Bastique ^demandez 16:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know from the DR, I don't agree regarding the BLP issue(s). That said, I'm in complete agreement regarding the category - your deletion was inappropriate since there is widespread agreement to use the category for that image (and similarly for other images as well). If you're in doubt as to the community's wishes, we could discuss it, but simply deleting the category is a bit beyond rash, I think. — Mike.lifeguard 17:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"similarly for other images as well" Which ones? Rocket000 (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry if I missed the last discussion but up until then the consensus was strongly against this (and every policy on categories there is). The reason I deleted it without discussing it was because I was in utter shock you would even create it after all the discussion we had. It seemed you were completely going against consensus. I guess I was wrong...

I think it would be much better to simply remove the offending category (yes, anything you do with it will be controversial) instead going against everything I thought I knew was the purpose and function of categories. Rocket000 (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose and function of categories is to categorize. There are absolutely no hard rules on this. We have also, always, made every effort to be inclusive on Commons and avoided unnecessary discord among our members. If that means compromising by creating a separate category to "hide" a particular image that is not only highly offensive to its subject but also to a rather large number of users of our project, we do that; in order to keep the peace. The only other option is deleting it, and I think the community decided that it did not want to do that in any way whatsoever.

I have been spending an awful lot of time moderating this issue--primarily in private emails, but also on IRC and on wiki; and I believe that you are a reasonable enough person to accept this compromise and move on, so that we have no more nuclear wars over this image in the future. --Bastique ^demandez 17:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private emails and IRC aren't much help in terms of evidence of consensus (not that I don't believe you). A single revert is a nuclear war? Wow... where have I been? Everything here's changed. Rocket000 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear war is the madness that has existed before now. The compromise is the only way to prevent it. If I can get people... Dror is not the only one, and I assure you, it will keep coming up, again and again, as people get involved in the project from places that will find such an image offensive. Can't you see, I'm trying to find a way to keep the image without having this come up all over again and again. --Bastique ^demandez 17:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you meant war between you and me. And of course, you're only trying to help stop the madness. I wasn't accusing you of having the wrong intentions. Is there something in my tone that makes you think I'm going to fight this? It's not a big deal to me, I was just under the wrong impression when I deleted the category. Rocket000 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the BLP argument doesn't make sense. It's not a biography. It's not user-made. Political criticism is allowed if sourced. We still have the image so we would still be in violation. It's ok, you can say the real reason it's being treated this way: It's highly offensive to some people. I can handle that. Rocket000 (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm in agreement with you regarding the BLP issue, and I'm sure the motivation you mention is certainly true for some people. For myself, the motivation is somewhat different: it's not that the image is offensive (maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't care either way) but rather that it has the potential to tear the community apart. On that, I am willing to compromise (only as much as necessary), since the community is the only reason Commons will ever be successful. The insane times we've just been through need to be reined in, and this is one step along that road. This is an acceptable compromise, which has widespread agreement, as I mentioned previously. — Mike.lifeguard 17:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP thing wasn't why I deleted the category (although not agreeing with it is why it didn't stop me). The reason was simply because I thought it was against consensus but now I know I missed the latest developments regarding that. It was a mistake. Now, on a personal level, I share the exact same view as you regarding the compromise. Rocket000 (talk)

What I'd like to see is people (those of you who know me, and you are one of them, Rocket000) take my action, look at my rationales, try to see that I've been aware of the situation and working on this. Try to see that if anyone has the best interests of this project in mind, it's me, and try to work to agreeing to what I'm trying to do instead of making me paste endless diff after diff. Something which I should be only marginally involved in is taking up a great deal of my time, and putting me at odds with community members who should know better. My concern is now, and always will be the community. When our policies put us at odds with members of the community, we allow for exceptions in the name of compromise. You, and Adambro are not going to run off because this image has been in a single category of itself. Because there is an exception to some rules which are not hard anyway. Or, if you did, this would be a extremely petty reason. There are who knows how many single image categories on Commons and this would be one more. On the other hand, the perpetuity of this war over this image remaining in the main part of the Alan Dershowitz category is an intense and intolerable drain on the community and will never end. Please help me, accept this compromise and move on to being the very wonderful and active Commons user you are.--Bastique ^demandez 17:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)17:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Cary, are you talking to me? "making me paste endless diff after diff" What? "accept this compromise" I never rejected it... It doesn't sound like you're reading the same thing as I'm writing. Rocket000 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess I should not have tried to analyze your motivations for restoring the category. I see things a little clearer now. --Bastique ^demandez 19:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just so you know there's no need to worry about me doing things like that again. Damn cartoons. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agrotis subterranea.jpg[edit]

Ah, I was not aware that you can sign up that easy. I was under the impression that becoming a member of that site would require some more effort and perhaps payment. Will sign up and upload bigger versions from now on. The medium size pictures are pretty good too though. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear contributor&commons-nist "Ruigeroeland" ;)),
if you ever have set any of your work 'free' = under a free license, as you imo did with http://www.forestryimages.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=1178030, you will never-ever be able to revoke such. In case you ever might like to earn anything from selling a HI-res file of some LOWer-res upload, you must never-ever upload the hi-res under any free licence:, No-Nay-Never ... [as some Irish would sing ;].

Chances to ever earn money on COM"+"-files [if I understand right] seem, nevertheless, not extremely high ;)))]]]. One relatively possible chance might be to use {{Pink CC}} instead of the generally (by wikimedia's general upload mask) proposed tags. Contact me by wikimail for more details, if required.

Besides, it would seem nice&polite most wikipedians&wikimedians to put some minimum of self-introduction either to your user page, or to redirect thisone to the user talk page and put the introduction there [as I-for-myself usually do] -- such is generally accepted in most wiki projects, except svWP, fyWP and enWikinews, as far as I can see, but: No REAL need to go there.

Best, [w.] 11:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not his work. He can't choose the license. Anyway, we shouldn't be encouraging users to use Commons to make money. Rocket000 (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Populate category}}[edit]

I noticed this edit. This template only works when images are tagged with {{Uncategorized}}. Multichill (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that was kinda a test edit because I wasn't sure. I thought maybe it would check for the absence of categories instead of the presence of {{uncategorized}}. Good to know. Rocket000 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pink_CC, and multilingual approach to COM[edit]

Hi, I take today's additional language ca and its author, who is en~0, as a reason to ask you:

Do you think, it would be much of an effort to create&establish a "TL:TOCleft" as a counterpart to "TL:TOCright" ??? On deWP, they have such, but I'm not aware whether it is of very much use there.

On COM, on the other part, such would make things easier to be overseen if some en=0 user lists half a dozen or more languages in which he/she might be contacted, which would move the at-this-time COM-possible TOC at a place where it can not be seen without considerable scrolling. See. e.g., User talk:Claudefa &its history.

How do you think about?

Best, Wolfgang, from Austria. [w.] 10:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure what you mean here. Are talking about a left aligned version of {{TOCright}}? You don't need a template for that since TOCs are automatically left aligned. Just use __TOC__. Rocket000 (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant. Please pardon an old man to have been be too stupid to use it correctly ;)

-- I had tried without success, besides {{TOCleft}}, {{_TOC_}} as well as {{__TOC__}}, both seeming to redirect to {{TOC}}, which of course produces something quite different. TX, [w.] 08:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

__TOC__ is not a template. Try it without the brackets. I wouldn't write it that way if I meant something else. ;) (Normally underscores are treated the same as spaces, that's why {{__TOC__}} goes to {{TOC}}, it's like writing {{ TOC }}). Rocket000 (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I had found this out just before replying here, but not before you mentionned it above ;) -- [w.] 08:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:Flag of the Republic of China.svg[edit]

In section File talk:Flag of the Republic of China.svg#Colors_used_by_government_websiteswe have three votes of support for the colors #fe0000 and #000095, with no one opposing. How long and how many more votes do we need before we can call it a consensus? Readin (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not see that. I only read through the section where the {{Editprotected}} was. I made the changes since there was no opposition. Rocket000 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Readin (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adapting image width to Babelbox width, on User pages, on an international level?[edit]

Hi, if you know a simple way to create a box which contains just an image and can be arranged like bable boxes, being of same width as bable boxes, but its height varying according to image proportions, and if this would be possible in most projects, please let me know.

As there are boxes for e.g. artists or musical groups &similar in many or all[?] projects, "this my" problem seems to have been resolved for a while -- I only am unable to adapt this "at wish" to my user pages. I'm meanwhile active on ~60 projects and I try to keep same scheme of self-introduction on all of them (not necessarily with same pics, see e.g. en:user talk:W. or es:user talk:W. or sv:user talk:W. or user talk:W., and being a "work-in-progress", as other content is concerned. Most actual, as-of-now, is itWP version.

As always, I'd prefer the most slim way to do it -- even if such would require to adapt the procedure in some projects (it feels that bable boxes are not of same size in all projects -- but I could be wrong on this).

Besides, I'd like to ask you whether it might be difficult to design a bot which adds links to commons categories in all local projects where ...

there is already such link in an enWP or deWP article (for instance -- that's e.g. from where I work from ;) and
where there are "language links" to other languages' articles, where such link-to-COM is missing.
(which is basically what I do manually, as of now, in most of the projects where I'm interested, and where same link to COM is missing, no matter whether I understand the project's language or not.

Thanks, Wolfgang [w.] 09:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only practical way to do that is to add images like this: [[File:Self-portrait, -w.- 200906~.gif|243px|right]] on each wiki. It will probably need to be tweak for each wiki (if they have different sizes). As far as adding commons category links on other projects goes, there's already a bot made. You can use commonscat.py (a pywikipedia script) which was created by Multichill (who runs it on some projects I think). Rocket000 (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 'tweaking', I feel unable to find out the preset size of bableboxes in a certain project -- can you give me a link where, e.g., in enWP and in COM I woould find them? Seeing those, I might be able to find similar out in other projects.
On adding commonscat.py I'll contact Multichill. -- TX+Best, [w.] 08:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the easiest way is to go to some user page that has a Babel box. Edit the page to see the templates being used (listed under the edit window), find the one that looks like it is the main one (on Commons it's {{Userbox}} or {{BUser}}) and then go there and look at the source to find the size. It will probably be in the first couple lines and should be close to "width: 238px". Rocket000 (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If.you.can.make.it.there, you'll make it everywhere ;)))[edit]

Hmmm, I'm sorry to admit that your explanation seems 'too high' for me.

I moreover have to admit that this=my question, for me-myself, is more of a seemingly vanity project as.of.now, but I think that for future multilinguality of any WP projects, it might be one more little contribution / step / hint, nevertheless.

Clicking {{Userbox}}, {{Babel field}}, {{BUser}} on COM, I did not see any term like ~'close to "width: 238px"'.

On jaWP, I recently found out by trial+error that width=250 seems to fit -- on my FF3/WinXP.

No idea about other browser's displays.

Question:
Can it be taken for granted that Bable boxes are, as of now, at some "pixel-defined" width, and never "soft-scaled", as is e.g. possible by ~|thumb|upright=x.y ???

Best, Wolfgang. [w.] 15:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look at [2]. See the first line? It goes

<div class="ubx" style="float:left; margin:1px; width:238px; border:1px...

The green part is what to look for. Rocket000 (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta! - Ta! - Taaa!!! ;) (~en:Pitkern for ~"Thank you very-very much" ;) [w.] 15:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]