Why don't we redirect categories to galleries[edit]
... ;-)
Ok, only joking :-)
Perhaps what we need to do is create a 'prototype' for different types of galleries, probably the best time to create the prototypes is when we create category schemes, as the structures of both seem inter-related. That is, the subdivisions on the gallery page might well reflect the sub-divisions of categories (or visa-versa). I can certainly conceive of other sub-divisions for galleries. Of course some will not want to follow the prototypes (and if they are willing to maintain their own versions I have no trouble with that), but we would at least have a direction in which to encourage gallery creators (perhaps post a message to their talk page, suggesting 'have you tried this'). --Tony Wills (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. But the higher up galleries are usually pretty decent (e.g. the ones for countries or general topics). I just made a new folder in Firefox and I'm bookmarking every good gallery I come across. Maybe you can start a list too and we can create a sort "this is what a gallery should be" page (maybe it can even lead to something like "Good Gallery" project which would really help out and give some attention to the gallery namespace). Rocket000 (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's going to take me a long time to collect them. I tried out Special:RandomPage awhile and only got a few half-way decent ones (not example quality though). More than that it was pretty discouraging to see so many single image pages (which by definition is not be a gallery; each image already has it's own page to describe it...) I can only take so much at a time. Rocket000 (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got 'em. Thanks! Yeah, the size thing is probably a better method than random, but some small ones would be good too—the ones that have potential. Rocket000 (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember something about this popping up elsewhere, but I just came across Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Help. Looks like a lot of people looking for help, but probably not being heard :-). Perhaps the template {{Help}} should throw their pages into a category somewhere that people can monitor? --Tony Wills (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it probably should. All that template does is create: . I'm kinda surprised people would think that would magically bring help their way. I'm guessing the template {{Help}} on Wikipedia functions like that or these people really need help. ;-) Rocket000 (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I supposed that, and we're right w:en:Template:Help, redirects to template:Helpme. I suppose it would be reasonable to replace our Template:Help with the 'pedia one as the current usuage isn't that critical. I'll have a look and see if any instances of {{Help}} are not from people wanting help. I suppose, as we're multilingual, that I should check what template (if any) other 'pedias use for this too :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list of the pages where template {{Help}} was not used to signal that help was needed:
;-). The other 30 odd pages appear to be calls for help :-) Although most are now fairly old (at least one back to 2006 :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda hesitant to start up a help system like that. We tried it before (Template:Helpme) but no one took care of the requests. It was "deprecated" for a while but at least it pointed people to the help desk if they happened to use it. That might be better. Rocket000 (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Help}} was actually a left-over template from Commons:Journal (where I subst'ed them). I didn't delete it because I saw that it was used but didn't look into how it was being used. If others show some interest in watching a Users requesting help category, then let's do it. If not, then let's at least have message that directs people to the help desk. Rocket000 (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is a community support thing rather than something needing admin input, so I'll post a message on VP and HelpDesk talk, and see if there is a bunchof people willing to monitor these things, and if people can think of good ways to impliment it (assuming there's not enough volume to go the en:wp way) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, mainly it was the SVGs ones (like [1] for example) that got my attention. It wasn't so much that they were wrong but that you wanted to changed the naming convention by simply making tons of requests on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. That's not what that page is for. It's to request simple non-controversial renames that don't following the naming convention already established. When something involves that many renames it's much better to go to COM:CFD. My fear was that if you were able to give the bot commands directly you would do mass renamings like this without discussion. Rocket000 (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foroa suddenly removed that very convenient section, where I would have made a general request to remove the hyphen from the SVG coats of arms categories. As I was facing a situation where general requests can no longer be made, I had to transform that general request into a series of detailed requests. You seem to forget that Foroa approved most of my requests, and begun to perform the one concerning SVGs, and that we were at least two people (he and I) to approve the proposed change. It is only after a while that user:Cwbm (commons) came and wrote what is now moved to the top of Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/06/SVG category names. You can see that Cwbm does not disapprove the removal of the hyphen, but instead asks for a bigger change, consisting of putting the topic at the beginning and SVG at the end of the name. Compared to what Cwbm proposes, the change I requested was a small change.
If you want to look consistent with your disapproval of such changes on my adminship candidacy page, considering that Foroa approved a large part of them, you should consider requesting Foroa to be unsysoped.
An other thing you should know is how I came to this SVG naming problem. I was making a series of category renaming requests concerning countries like the Philippines or the Netherlands where one must use "the" in category names, which is often forgotten by users : instead of , for example, "Cars in Netherlands" one should write "Cars in the Netherlands". So, while exploring the Philippines or the Netherlands or the Maldives' categories, I came along to these "hyphen Netherlands" or "hyphen Philippines" categories, and I thought that they should be changed into "of the Philippines" or "of the Netherlands" as so many other category names are formed. Then I found out that it was a general problem for some whole SVG categories subsets, and I thought that I should make a request for all of them, not only the Philippines or Netherlands ones, for consistency or harmonization's sake.
When making these requests as a non-admin, I had always in mind that there was always an admin who would see my request and that at least two people (that admin and I) would agree with it before it is implemented. You cannot infer from this that I would as an admin allow myself to perform the same actions from my own jugement without consulting other people. Teofilo (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying that I disapproved of the renames, only that I didn't think it was the correct way to go about it. A CFD should have been opened in the first place since a naming scheme hasn't really been established yet and we obviously need one. It's something that needs discussion, and that is precisely why we have that process. I do like your input there. You also have a point about when making a rename request at least one other (the admin) has to agree with you before it's implemented. Look, my opposition on your RfA wasn't a strong one, and I can definitely see myself supporting you in a future RfA, but defensiveness doesn't help. Rocket000 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Svg file 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 template, 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.
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!
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA which just closed as successful. I really appreciate the trust that the Commons community has placed in me and look forward to expanding my contributions to Commons. Thanks again. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason I'm missing why you created a separate template instead of adding the function to the main one?
There is no reason except that creating a new template instead of editing an older template avoids the risk of adding bugs or mistakes in the older template. Also, the longer the code of a template, the more difficult it becomes for a beginner to understand how this code is working. But it is fine with me if the new template is merged with the older.
All languages should use the main one
Are you sure ? Wouldn't that create a "I don't speak English, so I'm not welcome here" kind of feeling to non-English speakers ?
I hope not, but I didn't mean we should add a message telling them not to use other pages, just that we shouldn't make it look like they need to use a different page. Rocket000 (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
usually those translation talk pages go unnoticed
If such a problem exists, isn't it supposed to be solved by {{Editprotected}} ? For example I have quite successfully used {{Editprotected}} recently on MediaWiki talk:Searchresulttext/fr. Meanwhile, the same request on the English talk page is still pending. So my feeling today is that the English page remains unnoticed, while the French one is quite well watched and followed.
Yes, it's fine when people use that, but most don't. And not all comments are edit requests. Maybe I'll add the top box of MWheader (which mentions {{editprotected}}) as a system message so it appears above the edit box on all MediaWiki talk pages. That way, even if no one has added a {{MWheader}} or when creating a new page, you'll still see it. Rocket000 (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. Why {{lang links/subjectpage}}? What's wrong with {{lang links|{{SUBJECTSPACE}}:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}?
Perhaps nothing is wrong. Feel free to change this (and to delete or redirect or mark as deprecated {{Lang links/subjectpage}}) . I guess I was simply not aware that {{Lang links}}, with which I became acquainted by checking which sub-templates are being called by {{Header}}, could be used with a parameter. Probably the page from which I borrowed {{Header}} was using the plain {{header}} instead of {{header|something}}.
I wouldn't do that since Category:Commons protected edit requests usually stays at a pretty low number. In fact, 5 requests is considered a backlog. Separating these is unnecessary, but maybe one category would be ok: Category:Protected edit requests older than a month. Dated categories don't necessarily mean admins will pay more attention to them (as seen with DRs). And yes, the template would need to be subst'd or have the date manually added, which makes it a little harder to use. Honestly, we just need to keep encouraging admins to handle them faster. That's the real problem (I, myself, am guilty of neglecting the category from time to time). Rocket000 (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I'll improve the subpages option before removing the {{header}}-like link boxes. Maybe that's what it'll end up look like anyway. After I'm done merging them, I'll turn it on by default so you won't need to add any "subpages" parameter (which I should have done to begin with). Rocket000 (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I got all day tomorrow to change my 1000+ licenses... Just kidding, I'm a PD guy. And I don't touch others' licenses. ;-) Rocket000 (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to ask you why MY talk page was announced for "speedy deletion", and just find out that your user page has same "note". Is there some cracker around, or just an idiot misusing a bot status (no perceivable edit in "history")??? -- Screenshot(s) on request.
That is exactly why I proposed to offer screenhots, on request. They're still available, in case you like to collect such ;)) -- [w.]03:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are solid, I have nothing to add. From now on I'll refrain to do the conversions I've been doing, and use {{subst:lang links subst}} instead. Sorry for the burden and thanks for taking the time to explain the technical issues. Regards, Waldirtalk09:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You gave me a very interesting challenge. I had to stop myself yesterday or else I wouldn't do any work. So, after some research at night, and this morning, here are my findings:
The :before and :after show up even if you hide the element they're being applied to. Thus, the selector would have to be a little more complex (here I'm assuming the span has the class "lang":
span.lang:not(.hidden):before{content:" | ";}
Then we'd have to hide the first pipe. We could try
but that would fail in the event that the first or child is a red link (which probably is likely to happen); A solution to this would be only showing the separator on elements which are right after a non-hidden link:
(We don't have to use :not(:first-child) here, because the first child wouldn't have a span sibling on its left anyway). But this brings us to a problem: if there's a red link between two blue links, the second blue link wouldn't have its separator. The ideal way would be something like the following:
but unfortunately, first-of-type doesn't accept parameters, it uses only the type of element.
So, in the end, it seems we have to resort to a hack to hide the separator for the first visible link. Which in a way is good, since the CSS3 selectors used in the examples above are ill-implemented (or not at all) in most browsers.
First of all, I chose to use border-left, since the :before rule is not well supported by older browsers (you know what I mean ;-)). Also, while I was in the #css channel someone rightfully suggested me to use an ul, since we're dealing with a list. The trick to hide it is to add margin-left:-1px in the ul (the width of the borders), and enclose it in a div with overflow:hidden. A convenient way I found to test this quickly was using the W3Schools' tryit editor. Go to http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_style and replace the html there by the following:
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
ul { padding:0; margin:0 0 0 -1px; }
div { overflow:hidden; }
li.hidden { display:none; }
/* Note: line-height only works for inline or inline-block elements.
If we don't set a line-height, the pseudo-pipe will be too tall */
li.lang { display:inline-block; line-height:1em; border-left: 1px solid black; padding-left:.3em; }
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div><ul>
<li class="lang"><a class="lang" href="http://http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:License_migration_announcement/ca">Català</a></li>
<li class="lang hidden"><a class="lang" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:License_migration_announcement/cs">Česky</a></li>
<li class="lang"><a class="lang" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:License_migration_announcement/cs">Česky</a></li>
<li class="lang hidden"><a class="lang" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:License_migration_announcement/cs">Česky</a></li>
</ul></div>
</body>
</html>
(the visible/hidden/visible/hidden set of links was a test case to test the problem I mentioned above with red links in the extremes of the list, or between two blue links)
If you can, try it with some different browsers. I only have access to FF3.5 and IE8 here. Let me know what you think. --Waldirtalk10:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome research. I figured there would be browser issues. I'll mess around and see if I can figure something out. Thanks for you work on this so far. Rocket000 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice that they use a list. But as you say, the first link is manually assigned a class for that to work, and we can't afford to do that while keeping the templates freely extensible. However, the boxy layout is something we could think of using, perhaps as a way to avoid the separator problem altogether, by using all 4 borders, or a background color, and thus treat the lang links as little boxes inside a larger one. What do you think? --Waldirtalk08:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm afraid you mentioned too many issues too compactly, I'm not sure I got it all. Could you explain in more detail what you meant with the last two sentences of your message? --Waldirtalk08:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hei! I turn to you with an issue with this template as you created it. It uses local class "cleanup", which on most of wikis don't have described in Common.css or whereever it should be. As being used in templates which appear on file pages, these templates using {{meta-cleanup}} are also transfered to other wikis. So on local image pages templates like {{badGIF}}, {{badSVG}} etc. have no border, no color and no alignment. I believe it either shouldn't be used as layout template for file page templates or have the class described in table header. Hope it can be fixed. Thanks! 195.50.197.6815:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Or that of others watching!). Remember a guy who used to fool with road signs & switch .png to .svg? It is a while back iirc - maybe take a look? May just be me hence to posting to an admin board. Cheers --Herbytalk thyme08:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, block if it gets worse, but there are some normal (?) edits in there. It's one of those cases that you just don't what to do with. There's another account name and some IPs.[3] That other case... sometimes I wonder what's exactly on the other end of these accounts. Rocket000 (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - thought appreciated. Still amazes me we have so many admins who "signed up to help" and yet the active community seems a bit small at present. I must look at the abuse filters sometime (when I get time :(). Doubtless others will have "noticed" this exchange so logically one or two will have their eyes open. Regards --Herbytalk thyme14:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you kept this image on the grounds that Handlirsch 1906 is not the author/year of the taxon. however the EDNA fossil insect database, which is maintained by the International Paleoentomological Society does list Handlirsch 1906-1908b as the author/year. Unless you have a citation stating differently this leaves us with the problem of the image having no publication data. I will also note that several other images uploaded by this user were also deleted as not being PD. File Apachelytron transersum.png was deleted as an obvious copyvio having been published in 1963.--Kevmin (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I simply did a google search and all the results showed a different author. I wasn't too sure about those two closures; it was more the fact that no one commented even though it was open for months. I'll take a look at the user's deleted uploads. Rocket000 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you're welcome to try. The main problem is that browsers don't handle it consistently. See my tests here. The empty div thing works the best it seems, however the other problem is that when two non-floating boxes are next to each other only half the margin is respected. See Category:Annona. The space between all the templates should be the same, but {{VN}} and {{Synonyms}} are closer together than the others. But they all have the same margin! It has something to do with the float; I can't figure it out. Rocket000 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your ANI post from 19 August, and out of curiousity tried to get around the CSS filter by swapping the order of the div attributes, but I'm unsure if it works the way you want: User:84user/Sandbox. -84user (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that's exactly what I ended up doing. :) I was just shocked that there was such a terrible filter at that level. Someone really didn't know what they were doing.. It's not really a big deal since there's so many ways around it, but that being true, what's the point? Rocket000 (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: I don't think the "common" parameter of {{Taxonavigation}} is a good idea.
Most usage I saw where english common names that should be in {{VN}} (It also is not very politicaly correct to have the english name as "common" ;-), reason why it was decided that the scientific name was commons).
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I use singular for species and plural (usually) for higher ranks. For example, for Macaca mulatta I would put "Rhesus Macaque", but for Macaca I would put "Macaques". The reasoning being that the genus refers to a group, thus plural. I agree completely with doing away with the common parameter. I added a tracking category to see if it was even used. There's was about 30 or so uses. Most of them were on primate galleries/categories. I can readd the category for you if you would like. Rocket000 (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like your rule. What about a consensus about this ?
Yes, that would be cool if you could re-add the category. I am currently visiting all the Primates Taxonavigation. So I should suppress these common= anyway ;-)
Category:Taxonavigation templates using common parameter (don't need to create if we're just going to empty it soon anyway). Will take a little while to fill up. I think that singular/plural rule has consensus for the most part~. It's usually what I seen done, but there hasn't been any discussion I'm aware of. Rocket000 (talk)
All AMBOX images on WIkipedia and other projects stopped working because you deleted this image. Please note that image redirects do not work cross-project; the file has to exist on this image pagename on Commons. Thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 13:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects do work for other projects. It's just that I had to delete it first and heavily used images take too long to update (or some cache issue). Sorry. Rocket000 (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking further, I don't think a redirect is desirable, in the event that Ambox and Imbox might differ in the future. The upload of seperate image sets was intentional at the time. — Edokter • Talk • 13:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it was intentional (otherwise I would have sent out CommonsDelinker to replace one with other instead of redirecting. You're right though. No harm in having a duplicate once in awhile. Rocket000 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added an info box with an image of john robert colombo, but for some reason there is a left over code still visible on the final page. Can u rectify this please? the page is John Robert Colombo on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studmuffin78 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a good idea to clean the thing up, just one point:
I don't know if you are aware, that you cancelled the possibility to add the template to entire categories. Or more precise: you can still add it, but the categories don't show up in the main cat anymore. This is actually not such a bad thing.
Do you know, why no picutures show up in the "chemistry" (not "chemical")? I added the parameter "chemistry" to some picutres which should work via the "text=" in the template if the category exists.
Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The "text" param. is for text images. It just like any of the others. It's not an option to name your own category. I plan on improving this some more. Right now is just a transitional phase to get rid of some of the redundancy. Rocket000 (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of how-to? Do you mean for technical stuff or procedural stuff? Both? Maybe the best way to do this would be for you to make an outline (e.g. a page with some sections/headings) and I'll fill it in. Works for you? Rocket000 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was first thinking just technical stuff. Both sounds better, but maybe too much? Sure. I could give that a try, but I'd like to get your opinion on the technical/procedural, or both bit clarified first. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail //13:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd like to thank you for your answering my request to unblock my old IP. I believe that because the IP does not belong to me anymore IP's talk and user pages have to be deleted 69.181.3.156. Sometime ago I copied the record about blocks from IP talk page to my own talk page here. If you believe I should archive all IP record (not only blocks) to my talk page archive, please let me know, and I will. I am not sure, if it possible to do, but ideally it would have been great, if IP blocklog is added to user:Mbz1 blocklog and in the same time cleared up from IP blocklog. I know I am creating too much of the troubles, but I would not like a now absolutely innocent IP to have some block history because of me. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not technically possible to merge block logs (or delete them, for the matter). I wouldn't worry about it. There's a ton of IPs that have records like that. It's pretty normal actually. I did delete the userpage (User:69.181.3.156) when I unblocked the address, but I left the talk page because it helps people to know why the IP has that block record. Maybe we can delete that too after a little while, especially if new edits start coming from the IP. Either way, I don't think anyone will automatically assume the IP has anything to do with what the past user did. Rocket000 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! As I said earlier I did copy the messages concerning the blocks to my block archive, which is linked to on my talk page. So it is and it will be availabale for everybody, who is interested in it to see. I am sorry I bothered you with this. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just blanked it instead deleting it for the benefit of the future IP user (so non-admins have equal access to it). Don't worry about bothering me (not that you are!), I'm always happy to help. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, People do a lot of work to make Commons a better place for people not fluent in English, so it is better if this work is not removed by others. Yann (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, what does it have to do with English? I just think headers are completely unnecessary and clutter the page. It doesn't matter what language they are in. And I can say the opposite about the work it takes to remove them. Rocket000 (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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.
I made a proposal to change the 4 votes into 10 votes and made a other proposal to try and get more people to vote in a rfa, could you please take a look on it so we could change it before proposing it in the village pump
Hello my friend,
I just had a good idea that will earn both of us the wikinobel price of templates:
Why should {{VN}} and {{Translation table}} display all the languages when we know the user prefered language.
I am not sure everyone would agree to hide non prefered languages, but at least we could display the user prefered language bigger ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple ways we can do this. I'm thinking the best way would be with CSS. That way users can make their language look anyway they want. They could also hide the others (or some of the others) if they want too. I believe this is already possible with {{translation table}} since it adds a <span> to each language (by using templates like {{En}}). We could also do something like autotranslation, but instead of showing different text, we show different formatting of that text. Let me think about this. CSS is not my specialty but sometimes it provides a much better solution than mere template-based designs. Maybe Slomox would have a good idea. He's the one behind the CSS in signatures that change the "talk" part based on the user's interface language. Rocket000 (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate when people don't link the replacement file in the deletion summary.. it's so long to check. Most of the ones I checked were ok, but I am definitely familiar with how Shizhao works... Rocket000 (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just uploaded pics of Morpho adonis and Morpho anaxibia bot failed to categorise them properly. Can you help? I'd be most grateful Robert aka Notafly (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats very kind of you.A lot more to come mostly Papilionidae but only one more tonight Morpho zephyris.So labeled.These Morphos are a bit confusing.Nice though. Thans again Robert akaNotafly (talk)
I had a look at the code, and then read all the talk page, and now agree with you and recent comments by Multichill. The whole thing tries to do to much and I am now thinking what it tries to do is totally unnecessary anyway :-). This is Commons, we have a few assessment processes and tag images to show those assessed as somehow outstanding on this project. And like any other info on the image page, that should be translated.
But in a similar way that en:wp isn't going to highlight articles that have been assessed as featured articles on mi:wp, I don't think we really need to "feature" every image that is featured on another project. Yes that information is useful and might be used to shortlist images when you are trying to find a good illustration for something, but that information isn't exactly Commons core business. To start with, as has been noted elsewhere, the standards an purposes of the different FP processes are different. And it seems very strange that if we delist an image here on Commons (eg because we now have a better version), that it should still be displayed as a featured image just because some other project is a bit behind and still features it.
I think -Slaunger was right with the suggestion "Should we make some kind of requirements specification for it before we get started?", I think if we had done that we would have seen that the whole thing, the number of different combinations it was trying to cover, was huge, even without including QI, VI and POTD/POTY stuff. Also the philosophy that we should make the code complicated rather than the complicating usability is admirable, but also wrong. If anyone has done a computer programing course they should understand that the most important aspect of any code is its maintainability (not even whether it works! but how easily it can be understood and therefore fixed when things change). The commons community seems to have a very high turnover and very little institutional memory (mainly because newcomers don't bother to look at archives but make assumptions instead), and a brilliant bit of code is sooner or later going to have to be fixed by someone else. The main affect of complicated code is to embed whatever it embodies into the project because it is simply too difficult to change.
So the upshot of all that is that the assessments template is completely wrong headed. Our prime motivation is not to make image pages look simple and clean and all look the same. Our motivation should be to make images as easy to find as possible and the info contained there-on be as useful as possible (complete, multilingual). We should have a Category:Featured pictures structure that includes all featured pictures on all projects. At the moment we have a number of sub categories for different languages (which aren't properly populated), and I see the assessments template assumes that there could be FP processes for each language subproject eg Wikisource, Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikiversity, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, and Wikibooks. To my knowledge this isn't true, and is unlikely to ever happen - I would expect that one category would be adequate per language (I maybe wrong, so maybe the structure can allow for it in the future).
Anyway, having dabbled with creating the new, all singing, all dancing, assessments template, are you interested in developing an assessments (or Awards etc) template which does a simpler but multilingual job? I envisage that it would:
) accept parameters to indicate FP status on different language wikis and on Commons.
) Display an FP or broken FP icon as appropriate for its status on Commons.
) Display some additional icon when it has FP (or former FP) status on other projects, and link to the image page on that project (not to assessments or anything else, but simply to the image's page on their project which in turn may link to assessment pages or however they do things on their wiki, we have no place in prescribing how they do their stuff).
) The other wiki icon would be significantly different from an FP icon so that a quick glance would not confuse the two - ie it is immediately clear which images are FPs here, and which have an award somewhere else (eg if it is not featured here, the template would not look like our FP template).
) There can be multiple other wiki FP links on one line.
Not too radical at all. In fact, some of those points I brought up in this comment. I assume that QI and VI aren't even considered for this new template since you didn't mention them. I think that's definitely the best way to go. But what about POTY? POTD/MOTD? Non-FP assessments on other projects (there are some like POTY on en.wikinews)? I think we need to make it very clear what is and is not supported by this template. Of course, any decent template would be written in a way that allows for easy expansion, but we need solid and discrete goals to start with. This is not just for the templates makers but for the users of the template.
I'm willing to give this another try, but I'm not doing it on my own this time. I got overwhelmed last time and simply stopped and generally avoided the whole thing since then. If you're interested, please do start work on the new version, and I'll join in. A couple things: Start from scratch. Don't let getting it to look perfect slow you down (my problem usually). Don't let "esoteric" template syntax slow you down (pseudo-code your ideas if you get stuck). Don't implement auto-translation until the end but design it so that all text elements can easily be switched in and out when we get there. There's some other templates that implement a couple of the ideas I had for this template, such as {{MWheader}}. I really like the idea of having parameters that can be either named parameters or values for unnamed ones (e.g. |x or |x=). This makes it more intuitive and less to remember. It's slightly more complicated code wise, but once you understand the simple expression evaluated by the #ifexpr, it's not that bad. It just looks that way because MediaWiki lacks more elegant syntax. I also prefer the more direct autotranslation method as used there. IMO, changing the whole template based on the interface language (like with {{Autotranslate}}) was a huge design flaw from the beginning. Anyway, these are just ideas, or maybe ideas to inspire other ideas. Whatever works. Too much input/instruction from others takes the fun out of it if you're no longer creating and designing your own methods. Rocket000 (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having written programs in everything from machine language and assembly language through Cobol, and Ada, I am a bit tired of learning new languages (not that I actually ever did much programming :-). So I haven't put much time into learning mediawiki syntax and just tend to cut and paste other peoples code or tweak existing code. I certainly do not want to include QI or VI, and hadn't really thought about POTD/POTY or awards to sound or other media. As I understand the autotranslate feature relies on a bug, I agree we should take care to add translation in a way that doesn't rely on the current implimentation of this feature. I think that the comxyz parameters were a mistake and like the named/unnamed parameter method you suggest. I will have a play and see how I get on :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, every template-based autotranslation method relies on the same bug: the incorrect behavior of {{int:}}. The simple fact of the matter is that doing autotranslation like we do and maintaining database integrity is impossible. How can you have a accurate WhatLinksHere page if every page is different depending on some variable you set in your preferences? How can you link to a section if the name of that section is different for everyone? How can you categorize a page for English users only? How can you check usage of an image if it only appears when using a specific interface—the one you happen not to be using? Etc. The laws of nature don't allow it. Simple text is one thing (e.g. the interface labels), whole pages (templates) that may or may not be transcluded is another. In other words, the bug (I put no quotes around bug because the behavior is not the way it's supposed to work, even if desirable to some people) is something to be conscious of when exploiting it. If used in a responsible way, the problems it causes are negligible. Rocket000 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the technique of translating just individual pieces of text makes for very unreadable templates, but I won't worry about that just yet. I get the impression that the assumption (and perhaps the whole point) is that this template is copied to other wikis too (or somehow interwikified) so that it displays on their image pages too, which wasn't quite what I was thinking, and is another twist (do cross project templates work?). Adding our categories wouldn't be of any use to them, but should it then have a mechamism for adding their categories? And it would want to emphasise local awards on each (ie highlight only Commons FPs with an FP star on Commons). Perhaps a shared code base, with a custom front end for each wiki ... hmmm, more thought needed :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's always good practice to avoid hard-coding when you can. Not just for portability but for numerous other (local) reasons. I don't think any other project would ever have a need for a template like this. Another thing to keep in mind is that some projects, like en.wp, don't care what we do, they tag and categorize their own files, even when the image doesn't exist locally. I don't see this stopping any time soon. In fact, it's getting worse. Now WikiProjects are adding their project templates to image talk pages. :/ Rocket000 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Helle there Rocket! I noticed you are quite busy with creating a great taxonomic tree for Leps. I was wondering, would you be interested in helping me extract pictures from the plates I uploaded to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Catalogue_Of_The_Noctuidae_In_The_Collection_Of_The_British_Museum
If not, no problem, but there are so much (173 plates and supposedly some 5000 species) that it's a bit much to do for me alone. If you're not interested, maybe you would know some other users who might be? I was looking for something like a project page on commons, but couldn't find it. Cheers and thanks for all the great work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, and thanks for the tip regarding the Lab, I placed a request. I will check out the tools, but the extraction itself is rather fast just using oldschool Windows Paint. If you're in the right mood and extract one, would you be so kind to let me know which plate you did? That way I can put the files on my "make an article" list..! Thanks again
We get "autoconfirmed" without anyone asking, being consulted or (afaik) needing it. But autopatrolled which would help the few who actually do anything here seems to threaten the very existence of Commons. --Herbytalk thyme13:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but why is he a vandal. It looks like was just categorizing them. The ones where he removed the unknown category had other categories. Based on the name I would think this was just a temporary category like a "unidentified" or "uncategorized" category. Rocket000 (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it was a contemporary Cat - until the moment somebody would identify the person. But what he has done with this file? [5] He replaced "GDR-unknown" with "Men of Germany". That's ridiculous. Who is Dr. Nathan? What is his surname?
Or here: In [6], "GDR-unknown" and the guy's red cat was deleted!. I had put Jähne in GDR-unknown because I had no idea, how native English speakers would translate and categorize "Der stellvertretende Leiter der SV Dynamo, Rudi Jähne" (means in my words: "Vice president of the main sport club"). So, how you would categorize him?
Hello Rocket000, unfortunately I had a little problem to understand your notices on my page. (My bad english!) Now I saw differences as follows:
I use the Browser "Opera 10". Yesterday I used the "Firefox" and saw, that there is a very different skin according to the "template:SN" in "Internet Explorer" and "Opera" and then in "Firefox". In "Opera" and "Internet Explorer" all synonyms are written among one another and in "Firefox" three times side by side. ( I hope I have found the right words to explain the problem.) Do you know that? Greetings. Orchi (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything of interest in this ? I wonder if there wouldn't be a better place to put it (File renaming?) or if it's mostly software driven anyways. -- User:Docu at 01:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forget my question. I just noticed that various versions of the first are translated in 10 different languages. -- User:Docu at 02:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in an effort to move the Commons:Language policy closer to completion, I have been editing it and cleaning it up for the last few days. I have tried to make the page as neutral and consistent as possible with the relevant policy and guidleine pages that it cross references.
I would appreciate it, as someone who has discussed some of these policies in the past, if you could look at Commons talk:Language policy and contribute your thoughts. This is the version that exists as I am writing it and I am encouraging everyone to consider the "static" page until everything gets sorted out.
Hello, I was just wondering about your opinion. The template {{Published}}, which is an acceptable template IMO, is used on several file talk pages. However, I think that the template is kinda useless on the file talk page. This seems to be a practise from en.wikipedia. Whereas I can understand that it's done like this for their articles (not wanting the readers to be confronted with their WikiProjects and this stuff), I think that here on file pages it's much more useful to put it on the file description page. I mean, it's only producing a redundant talk page that most people don't even look at. I think that's it's more useful on the file description page. Also, the category would then show thumbnails, which is better for browsing the cat. Furthermore, assessments like FP, VP or QI are also on the file description page and not on the talk page like on en.wikipedia. What do you think of this? Should we move it to the file description page? --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it makes more sense to put it on the file page itself. Unlike encyclopedia articles, the info we put on the image's page is about the image itself, not the subject that's portrayed in the image. Also, by doing it this way, the template will be shown on other wikis. Rocket000 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rocket000, I have a few Soviet stamps with the reproductions of paintings by w:Ivan Aivazovsky. Could you please tell me, if it is OK to upload images of those stamps to Commons? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they should be fine. Since the paintings themselves are {{PD-Art}}, I would assume stamps of them are too (as long as they are faithful reproductions and not derivatives). Rocket000 (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rocket000, Some time ago I uploaded this image File:Chinese stamp in 1950.jpg with self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0|author=I, Mbz1. I've noticed that the license has been changed to public domain. I understand that the stamp is in public domain, but does it mean that my image of that stamp have to be in public domain too? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. Why do you want to claim copyright on something that's already in the public domain? That's a faithful recreation of a 2D work so no new copyright was created. Rocket000 (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the stamp is in public domain, but my work is not. I took that image. Do I have any copyrights for it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you added any originality? That's what you get copyright for. Not labor or skill. This is the same as if a museum posted a faithful reproduction of the Mona Lisa. Do they now own the copyright of the Mona Lisa? Rocket000 (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's say I took an image of Golden Gate Bridge. Do I own copyright for Golden Gate Bridge? Of course I do not, but I do own copyright for the image of Golden Gate Bridge that I took, don't I?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a 3D object. The angle, the lighting, etc. is all original. Thus, copyrightable. See {{PD-Art}} as that's basically what this is. Although it looks like a scan to me. Rocket000 (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Thats like saying an apple is an orange. (In brief) It's seen that no creativity was done (Even though you photographed it and may have had to get the lighting right ect) though it is always debated when say taking a photo of a stamp like the one in question however taking a photo of a pile of stamps (PD stamps of course) the photographer may license the image how they want as it's seen as creative (Same applies to the Golden Gate Bridge [though buildings, bridges, public art ect must be in the FOP of course]). Bidgee (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you've no doubt figured out, that license referred to the fact that Crown works are monetarily free, but they do not allow for unrestricted commercial use or the right to make derivatives. (Limited commercial use, such as printing and selling copies is allowed, but they would frown upon using a Crown work in an advertisement, for example). -Nard the Bard19:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it's not clear what he was referring to. An extension? If that's the case, I guess we need to open another bug, asking "someone" to activate it on Wikimedia projects. It sounds more like he was referring to a newer version of MediaWiki (which we would just have to wait for to go live), but we're currently past those revisions they called fixes so we should already have them... this is one reason why every time I post on bugzilla, it feels like I'm wasting my time. "FIXED" over there means there's a solution, it doesn't mean we have that solution, even though that's usually the reason for the bug report. Rocket000 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I made a mistake. It wasn't a redirect, broken or not. At the time, I was deleting hundreds of these orphaned redirects (Commons:Featured pictures candidates/... → Commons:Featured picture candidates/...). My method for finding them was first checking the incoming links. The ones with 0 links (like this one), were most likely redirects. I still went to each page before deleting them to verify it was a redirect, but I guess I hit a wrong button or something on this one. I wonder why it's not linked from the FPC archives though. Rocket000 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I went through the remaining Broken FPC links, and found another one in a similar situation. The things they had in common were: they were from 2005 (things weren't as organized back then), their FPC pages were missing the "Image:" part (making the template unable to automatically link to them), and they had 0 incoming links/transclusions (meaning they aren't recorded in the FPC logs at all). I'll have to investigate the reason for this last part. Back when I was working on these, I ran across some that were not logged. I put them in this category. One of the main causes was that when nominators withdrew, they sometimes removed the FPC page from the log and no one caught it, but that can't be the reason for the two above since they obviously weren't withdrawn. Rocket000 (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have solved the two problems pointed out in Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_8#Broken FPC links :-). I think the 2005 FPC log pages were a manual reconstruction a long time after the actual nominations, and probably those entries were missed because of their non standard page names. I have been meaning to go through all the FPC page histories and check all the promotions etc, to see whether everything matches up, but I haven't quite got there yet :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:PD-US-flag 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 template, 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.
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!
I would if I knew what to do with it. No one commented after my last comment there. I would be bold and simply go with what I think it should be but I'm not sure what that is.. I guess if I had to choose it would be "SVG <topic>" because that would involve the least amount of renaming (e.g. SVG coats of arms), but it's still a lot. I would really like more input before issuing tons of category moves to the bot. Rocket000 (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of interesting things were said in that thread and as such it's nice having it around. Anyways, as the SVG categories aren't ideal, I think more harmonization is still welcome. As SieBot is stable, the number of renames isn't really an issue. I doubt mediawiki gets new features soon. (If it helps, I could assist setting up a solution that categorizes all .svg into a single svg category. This would simplify category intersections.) A pragmatic approach could be to close the old discussion and formulate a new proposal in a new thread (still cross-referencing the old one). -- User:Docu at 15:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my friend,
I would like to add a new classification to {{Taxonavigation/classification}} and move its documentation in a subpage.
As I already created the documentation subpage, could you replace the template with:
{{#switch:{{{1}}}
<!-- vegetals -->
| Cronquist = [[Cronquist System|Cronquist System]]
| Ehrendorfer
| Strasburger = [[Strasburger]]
| APGII
| APG II = [[APG II|APG II Classification]]
| APWebsite = [[APWebsite]]
| Smith = [[Smith System]]
<!-- birds -->
| Sibley = [[Template:Taxonavigation/Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy|Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy]]
| IOC = [[Template:Taxonavigation/IOC Classification|IOC Classification]]
<!-- if classification not recognized -->
| [[{{{1}}}|{{{1}}} Classification]]
}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>
Your Comment on Village Pump to: The -SupersededSVG- Topic[edit]
Hi Rocket000!
thanxs for your comment. I am definitely a "content-oriented" editor ;-)
Anyhow,… it wasn't for my personal joy of seeing a nice category without crap inside (those comment were really great: I should "just create galleries" if I want to see only svg images *smile*)
I thought that this would be a improvement for the commons. So, it's fine now. It was good to read your comment though. I felt understood in contrast to some other people who don't seem to bother reading what I had stated before
Thanks for letting me know about the E. brevipennis. I knew T. felderi was a junior synonym (and in a different family) but seeing how that was the widespread name still being used I kept it as that. Sometimes it's better to wait until the wikipedias update their classification before updating here. The primary goal is to make finding images easier, even at the cost of being a little taxonomically out-of-date. :) Rocket000 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smart thinking! FYI: I made a page for both on wikipedia. Keep up the great work. I was wondering by the way: is there a way to see which species which have images on commons, don't have an article on wikipedia? Maybe you, as a commons expert, would now.. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is one of the things I plan to work on pretty soon. Once I finish tagging all existing Lepidoptera categories with {{Lepidoptera}} (tracking the progress on COM:TOL/Lepidoptera/Progress; about 50 or so left last time I did a scan), I'm going to generate a list of all the species and put it on en.wp to see what articles are missing. It will take a bit longer, but after that I'm going to finish creating categories for all identified Lepidoptera species (I would estimate we have another 1000-1500 spp. lacking a species-level category, but this could be way off if we take into account the illustrations that still need extraction). Then the en.wp list will be updated. They'll be lots of useful things we can do once this little project is complete here. Like syncing up the classifications between projects and finding synonyms/conflicts. Or the generation of a "species images needed" list. Rocket000 (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's awesome! Yeah.. if you count the images that still need, extraction, you can add about 3000 species.. I will do a few plates from time to time. Cheers and good luck with your work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have deleted http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elephantsdream_vectorstill06.png which was in use in the German Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Optischer_Fluss&diff=next&oldid=66889699). The "File page without media" message seems to be your reason for that. I don't know how this image disappeared before your deletion and I cannot find out because Mediawiki is broken enough not to provide this information in any way. I didn't get an email about any changes or even the deletion before so I really don't know what happened. Restoring the page and reverting it to an old version will most probably help though because the file was once there. Other Elephantsdream_vectorstill*.png files seem affected too. --Mudd1 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no file uploaded under that name. Either you created a description page for a non-existent file or the servers screwed up some how. Judging by the edit history, it seems to have been the former. The deleted description contained the following:
== Summary ==
{{Information
|Description={{en|1=Visualized forward predicted motion vectors of a P-frame (mplayer option "-lavdopts vismv=1") in "Elephants Dream", 1080p. The camera moves quickly towards a target in this shot, producing the pronounced "zoom" effect in this still.}}
{{de|1=Visualisierung der Bewegungsvorhersagevektoren eines P-Frames in "Elephants Dream" (MPlayer-Option "-lavdopts vismv=1"), 1080p. Das Standbild entstammt einer schnellen Kamerafahrt auf ein festes Ziel zu, was den ausgeprägten "Zoom"-Effekt verursacht.}}
|Source=(c) copyright 2006, Blender Foundation / Netherlands Media Art Institute / www.elephantsdream.org
|Author=Christian Mertes
|Date=2009-11-16
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}
[[Category:Short films]]
[[Category:Visualization]]
== Licensing ==
{{cc-by-3.0}}
I will, it's still strange because I saw the image in the article, then it vanished because it supposedly never existed. --Mudd1 (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess something went wrong on Wikimedia servers' end (it has happened before). Either way, there's nothing I can do since there no image there to restore nor is there any record of it in the upload log (where entries can't even be modified/removed by normal admins). Sorry for the inconvenience. Rocket000 (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umbenennung von Schweizerischen Ortskategorien[edit]
Lieber Roket - ich habe festgestellt, dass Du willkürlich Kategorien schweizer Ortskategorien auf Englisch umbenennst zuletzt geschen bei Category:Arch BE in Category:Arch, Switzerland, dies in einer Diskriminierung der deutschen Sprache, die ja in diesen Gemeinden Amtssprache ist und unter Abänderung des offiziellen deutschen Namens der Gemeinden und notabene ohne dabei die entsprechenden Links auf den Wikipedia-Seiten, welche diesen verwenden auch anzupassen. Du bist hier zwar offensichtlich Administrator, trotzdem sollstes Du diese Regeln bitte beachten. Es ist absolut sinnvoll Bezeichnungen wie "Arch BE" zu übernehmen, weil auch "Switzerland" nicht eine eindeutige Zuordnung ist! Ich schreibe das in Deutsch, weil es mir schwer fällt, mich in Deiner Muttersprache gut genug auszudrücken und Du ja offensichtlich auch kein Esperanto kannst. Ich hoffe, dass Du jemanden hilfst, der Dir meine Nachricht überstzt. Kern meiner Botschaft: Wenn Du Kategorien änderst, dann sorge bitte vorher oder gleichzeitig dafür, dass auf allen Seiten, wo auf die entsprechende Kategorie verwiesen wird, der Linka angepasst wird. Noch besser wäre es aber, wenn Du solche Änderungen nicht machst, wenn eine offizielle deutsche Bezeichung einer deutschsprachigen Gemeinde als Kategoriename verwendet wird. Gruss DidiWeidmann (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't rename that category. User:Category-bot did, which is operated by Docu. Don't worry about the language you use, I know how to use online translators. And I hope you can do the same. Good luck fixing your little issue but you're talking to the wrong person. Rocket000 (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my friend,
I discovered that a lot of our templates are badly called.
On fr.wikipedia.org, I solved that by creating a hidden, normally-empty category for maintenance.
This category is added automatically by our templates when bad parameters are provided.
If you like my idea, we could begin with template {{IUCN}}.
Could you modify:
{{IUCN/Category}} to detect wrong iucnRiskLevel parameter. Add a default value at the end:
| [[Category:Pages with bad template usage]]
{{IUCN}} to detect empty iucnId parameter. Add at the end:
{{#if:{{{2}}}||[[Category:Pages with bad template usage]]}}
Do you know about this tool? You can use it to generate a list of all the parameter values for a given template. For example. Here's the documentation. Adding a maintenance category is fine too. I can't really think of a better name right now.. we can always change it later. I don't have much time right now, but I'm going to turn down the protection on those two so you can work on them. Rocket000 (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rocket000, I discover quite often categories that have as only category their own. So basically, they are not really detectable and live their own life disconnected from the category system. I know it is not simple to auto-detect loops, but such detection of looping on their own should be possible. What do you think ? --Foroa (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a piece of cake to make lists of loops. I have the queries at the toolserver. The hard part is fixing them. Want to have some lists? Multichill (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A piece of cake for Christmas ... So the cherry would be to simply remove the (single level) loops by bot; at least that part of the problem is adressed as I noticed that some people create systematically such loop-back categories. A lot of the cleaned ones should appear in the uncategorised category list, that I try to keep below 50 categories. And yes, it could be interesting to publish such a list somewhere too. --Foroa (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on? I noticed you have been deleting some of my P4b_whatever (HIDDEN) categories and/or moving some of my images out of those and into "main" categories.
I've given up on "main" categories for biological taxa long ago - there's no point in putting effort into organzing things nicely in categories and pages when this work gets undone at the next heartbeat. I have no problem with you, or other people, adding those categories-soon-to-be-deleted-again to my images, but please respect that I wish to maintain my own (HIDDEN) category system so I can find (my own) images back easily. So please leave the P4b_whatever categories in place when adding others and please do not delete those categories, even if empty (by actions like yours) I will be adding more to those categories at some point. Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may have your own categories, but not a whole alternative category system. Ok, first, please read COM:USER. I'll help you recategorize your images (not others, which is against policy). I kinda left it half-assed so I'll work on fixing it for you. The biggest problem is that you have these personal templates which autocategorize. It makes changing the categorizes really hard. Rocket000 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know what. You really should help us work on the main category system. The only thing you'd have to do differently is leave out the P4b part of the names. I really don't understand what you're doing.. How does what you're doing help Commons? Rocket000 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
>You may have your own categories, but not a whole alternative category system.
Says who?
>You really should help us work on the main category system. The only thing you'd have to do differently is leave out the P4b part of the names.
I once started working on Commons with the best of intentions in this respect, but the efforts where not appreciated and most of what I had created in terms of species pages and categories was promptly deleted. Endless discussions over categories versus galleries and what have you followed, with admins pushing their POV in this respect, that I don't have the time or the nerve for - total waste of time that. So thank you for the kind offer but no thanks. So, I started working on my own category & gallery system, partially intended to be an example/testcase of how it could be done differently but I have barely contributed images to Commons since - somehow the joy was gone.
>How does what you're doing help Commons?
I still occasionally upload images, provide ample descriptive information (series maintainable thanks to the templates) that can be found through search and I do categorize all images, just ceased doing this for the "main" namespace as I see no point in adding stuff that others will want to delete again immediately, that just makes for extra work everyone can do without.
>The biggest problem is that you have these personal templates which autocategorize. It makes changing the categorizes really hard.
There is no need to change/delete/move the categories in these as the templates only link to the category system under my user category. These don't interfere with normal browsing as per COM:USER. The only way that I do not adhere to COM:USER (which didn't even exist when all this started) is that I politely refuse to add categories for the main namespace as this is a total waste of time. I also feel strongly that contributors should not be required to spend any effort in creating and maintaining galleries just for the sake of making their images available/browsable. Uploading an image and adding a description and category is quite enough work thank you. If adding categories is made futile than don't be surprised this guideline is ignored.
If you insist that I add a category in the main name space to each of my uploads I may reconsider that and I can keep those out of the templates for brainless maintenance by whomever wishes to delete them minutes after the upload (or addition of the category on existing ones), but I hardly see the point - probably a waste of time still, but it will hardly be my time that I'm wasting as I will not create new categories but just "dump" the images in whatever is available (probably category:Animalia?). But that still doesn't constitute a reason for removing my "user" categories from the images and subsequently deciding that the categories are now empty and deleting those. Even if some sunny day in the far, far future it would be worthwhile to contribute to categories and galleries in the main namespace again, I would still want to keep my own category & gallery system to access my own images in a way that better suits my needs.
Says me, the one with the delete button. :) Just kidding. That's what it says on COM:USER. The main reason is that's not what this site is for. Start your own wiki if you want to your own category system. Anyway, this is not what I want to argue.
I understand how you feel but things have changed. The TOL side of Commons is not anywhere close to how it used to be. It's not a waste of time. A couple years ago, I would think it a waste of time too. You talk of creating your own system as test/example. I did the same exact thing. But within the real tree. Checkout Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life/Lepidoptera. The project has been a success. Just browse Lepidoptera and see how nice and organized it is. The auto-generated stats (thanks to categories) are nice too. For example, right now I know we have 4,854 Lepidoptera species categories. The whole thing is template based with auto-categorizing. I'm doing Coleoptera next. It would be awesome if you'd be interested in helping out. By the way, I never insisted you add real categories. I think the people who want things categorized should do it themselves. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Lepidoptera project looks solid to me - cheers for that good work! Happy to see it has been granted some right of existence ;) This would most definitely not have been possible a few years back. The new software with expandable sub-categories also improves the "browsing experience" greatly. If (things like) this can be granted a non-experimental status and are allowed to be implemented for other taxa too, I'll be happy to follow suit, but I would still like to maintain my own categories too, for further experiments and as a way of accessing my own work and/or easily pointing other people to my images as these are all Public Domain and hence are more "free" than most stuff on Commons. Commons could really do with more filter options such as "show me all images of Sesiidae from Europe with a PD/CC0 license" or "all Larvae of Coccinellidae by User:X" etcetera. When those are in place my need for my own categories will probably diminish.
I have far less time now than in those days and I do not really "do" Beetles. However, my struggles at the time started over doing some Ladybird categories and galleries and I still have many images of those to be uploaded so I suppose I could offer to start, or rather finally continue, work on the Coccinellidae. As for the galleries, my idea at the time was to use the galleries at genus-level and higher taxa for a selected set of "representative" images per species (or in more general terms: representative of the next lower taxons) to thus create an image-browseable navigation that may help people with identifications, or with finding a best guesstimate for naming and categorizing their uploads. A rudiment of this still lingers in some pages such as Coccinella and Harmonia.
Other than that, I'd probably best try to spend time on doing similar things for the taxa I know better (Oniscidea, Opiliones, Dermaptera, Mecoptera, ...), as well as finding/selecting, preparing and uploading images of missing species for those, but I can't readily give a time frame for that.
But I really do not want that sort of effort to be wasted (again) and I'm not about to struggle with years of backlogs of useless/inconclusive discussions on the subject, so please make sure it's "safe" now.
Don't worry, it's safe now. The Lep project took 8 months to complete (by complete I mean all existing categories were templated, but of course there's never ending work on a wiki) and haven't ran into a single problem. I'm not alone in doing this work either. I had tons of help from Olei. Everyone who stopped by to do a little work in this area seemed to have no problem adjusting to the new system (well, there really wasn't one before).
I spent a lot of time designing new templates to make them easy to use and intuitive (and prettier). Besides my taxon-specific {{Lepidoptera}}, these templates are now use everywhere in the TOL: {{Species}}, {{Genera}}, {{VN}}, {{Synonyms}}, etc. If you're interested in an even bigger template experiment wander over to the plant categories. It's crazy. CarolSpears was actually the one behind that (and who got me into taxonomy when I was help her with making templates).
Regarding the beetles: I have no special interest in them, it's just an area that needs a little love right now. Insecta in general it's one of the most neglected areas (and the most speciose). I'm up for any area though. The arachnids can definitely use some work too.
Another cool thing you can do with a project like the Lepidoptera one is iou can generate useful lists like this one. Generating a list of missing species is easy.
Anyway, I don't want to pressure you into anything. Hopefully, you'll discover something you enjoying doing. That's the whole point of a hobby, right? Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rocket000,
first: all the best for you in the new year 2010 and further successful work here.
A little ask for help now. Could you create the possibility in the "Template:Taxonavigation" to write the following taxa in italic please: Subgenus, Varietas, Nothogenus and Nothospecies?
(like for this: Dactylorhiza × aschersoniana.
Thanks and greetings. Orchi (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done I wish I could have not italicize the "var." part but I can't think of any way to do that. I guess it's better than leaving the whole thing unitalicized. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick dispatch. Unfortunately a little problem in my Taxonavigation. If I use the new terms, the following text (autor etc.) is italized also. Could it be, that these terms in the template text down must be completed also? (Excuse please, but I'm a layman in these things). Cheers. Orchi (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that must be a rendering issue with Chrome. Try highlighting the text inside. It wraps around to the top! Chrome has trouble with the scroll attribute it seems. Rocket000 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very many thanks for these.I have given a few Pieridae categories and here is a start with the valid? names for the fascinating Dismorphiinae [13]which are not often seen in collections at least in Europe See Description of this file. Happy New Year Robert aka Notafly (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That will really come in handy when I start extracting them (not something I particularly enjoy but I'll try to do at least a couple plates here and there). Happy New Year to you too. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I missed those. There's actually nothing wrong with the template, it's the classification that needs updating since the template wasn't designed to work with those names. Rocket000 (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gday Rocket. I in no way meant to sound disparaging in my commentary at my candidature. I am all for communities and for a community at Commons, that was not the import of my message. I had thought that some viewed my request only from the perspective of Commons, rather than a wholistic perspective. Commons has multipart role to play, one as the general home of PD images, however, also as the host for images for all wikimedia projects. If granted adminship, I will follow Commons processes and will work on Commons queues, starting with rename; that said there is also a genuine need for WS to have some things achieved and that needs to be and can only be undertaken at Commons.
Can you create a mass deletion request on my behalf of all images uploaded by this user here specifically from October 21, 2008 to January 20, 2009? I don't know how to do a Mass DR. I notice that all this person's uploaded photos from October 21, 2008 feature supertiny resolution like this which leads me to believe that they are copy vios. Only his first 8 images have decent resolution and metadata...and are probably his own work. What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I would ask my good contact MBisanz, but he is very busy with wiki matters where most of the action is. Sometimes I wonder just how much copy vio stuff is on Commons sadly. Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Images should have been uploaded months ago but Commons ran out of space. Once images are uploaded you are welcome to nuke categories that are still empty. --MGA73 (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They do not advertice with that ;-) As long as Multichill does not start batch uploads ordenary users can upload all they want. --MGA73 (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question for an admin:
If you edit Tinamidae to update its content and try to modify its content, then save, you receive an error message "Thank you for your interest in creating new galleries for the Commons. It appears, however, that this gallery now contains no image..."
I never notice this since admins aren't stop by that. :) This is a problem with the abuse filter. It should check to make sure there was even an image to start with. I'll look into it. Rocket000 (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rocket000, yesterday I saw and used your new "Use |d<number>= - parameter" in the «template:Genera». Could you complete this parameter in the «template:Taxonavigation» as automtic function only for the area "Genus" also? Thanks for your interest. Greetings Orchi (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the disambig parameter isn't new. It's been there for awhile. What I added yesterday was a way to add "†" before a name for extinct taxa. I wish I could add the disambig feature to {{taxonavigation}} but the template would have to be rewritten (and the usage would change), which really isn't an option since the template is heavily used. I tried a couple times and couldn't figure out a way to do it while keeping the usage the same. :( Rocket000 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your trouble. (I have ideas sometimes, but in software I'm an complete layman and I'm glad to can ask you.). Greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the † feature.
But the disambig parameter is not good:
It is not needed as you can put "Name (disamb)" directly in the list
It is difficult to set as it uses the position, which is difficult to calculate on big lists
It is difficult to maintain as it uses the position, which may change if you insert an entry just before
Yeah, I know you don't like this parameter. You don't have to use it! It's simply for those of us that dislike seeing the (....) part and have no issue updating it. If it's a problem for you when you edit someone else's list, just remove the d#='s and do it your way. I made the syntax of the † differently with you in mind, so I'm glad you like it. If you could have the syntax of the disambig system any way you want it, how would it look? I'm open to redesigning it. Rocket000 (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep... I realize later... Sorry about that... hope it wouldn't have meant any inconvenience for you. Many thanks for the desambiguation... cheers mate! Valdavia (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I didn't realize until it was done... It was later that I understand the meaning of the name for that insect. I see as a mutual enrichment for both isn't it?... cheers!!! Valdavia (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my friend,
As you probabily have seen, Jean-Frédéric has introduced multilanguage on {{Species}}.
It is a good idea as currently we are mixing english and latin names ("Included familiae" for exemple).
If you like his idea, could you push the modification to {{Species2}}, {{Genera}}, {{Genera2}}, {{Subspecies}} & {{Taxa}} ?
If you have no time, but like the idea, I can do it of course (those are your babies, so I let you the priority ;-)).
I will, of course, provide the french version.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually something I've been meaning to do! However, I think it would be easier for translators if we create some new templates (with LangSwitch) that we can use in all of them since the text is the same. That way they all stay updated. Rocket000 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made one for the Note:... part: {{Note:}} but I'm unsure how to do the others. I was going to make two templates. One for the "Included" part and one to autotranslate Latin rank names. This way all the possible variants of {{Taxa}} can be easily autotranslated too. Oh, and regarding the "for", I think I can simply translate the word, but I'm not sure if every language's "for" comes before the {{taxasource}}. We may need to pass that parameter through. Rocket000 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All PD categories should be hidden. If you unhide that, it will be the only one out of 100s (1000s?) of license categories. Furthermore, most source categories are hidden. Only content-oriented ones should be unhidden. To see hidden categories, there's a user preference to switch it on. This way, everyone's happy. Rocket000 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ulf, good idea. I'm not expert for WP software, but I'll try it. Greetings. Orchi (talk)"
.... and now I must say to Ulf, that I can not create it. Can you help? I put an sample in the "template:Tysp2".
See if {{Tysp}} is what you want. I combined tysp1 and tysp2, so now you only have to use one for both namespaces. Rocket000 (talk)
Perfect!! I think, now we can delete tysp2. Tysp1 for specials. Thank you very much for great help (first of all, that you understand my problem in bad English) Now I inform Ulf about your perfect work. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my mistake. I was cleaning up meta categories (e.g. xxx by xxx) which should only contain subcategories. Categorization bots like to put files in them. I added "by book" categories to my list without thinking too much about it. A single file can be a whole book. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with simply "Books". Anyway, I'm sorry for removing those categories. Rocket000 (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my request for checkuser rights. I hope one more CU will make a difference, at least for the other CUs' workload! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a little late but, thank you very much for your support on my RfA, I should said that many times ago, but I thought it is kind of spamming, writing to everybody who voted for me, so I decided to just write a thank you note on my own talk page, but when I saw what Eusebius did, I realized that it is ok, anyway, I apologize for being late, thanks and best regards ■ MMXX talk23:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:People by alphabet to Category:People by name (941,448 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. People by alphabet;People by name;r;
There's so many I couldn't even generate a complete list of the files the other day to remove them. AWB maxes out at 25,000. I only got a couple files each time. Rocket000 (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus and the cfd was prematurily closed without conclusion by Docu. She played it solo, moved several categories and finally pushed Rocket000 to move them. Anyway, the situation is as it is and it makes no sense to change it back. A nice example of abuse of bot privileges. --Foroa (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's obviously different from what I and others are reading, but I will not further waste my time on falsified pseudo conclusions. --Foroa (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, we agree we want standardization. That's the important part. So that means it must be one or the other. If you look at the cfd, "by name" was definitely favored. In fact, it was the only thing favored, except by you. You can't argue with that much. It's there. I know you don't feel like there was a consensus; the person on the other side never does. At the very least, you'll agree the was a consensus to standardize them, right? So leaving it in the current situation is opposite of what we all want. Are you seriously saying "by alphabet" would have been a better choice based on that cfd? It's just a name, let the people have what they want. Rocket000 (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, we are reading different things. There was no consensus and the cfd was prematurily closed without conclusion by Docu. She played it solo, falsified conclusions and moved several categories and finally pushed you to move them. Anyway, the situation is as it is and it makes no sense to change it back. A nice example of abuse of bot privileges. I stop this pointless discussion. --Foroa (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rocket000. Is it intentional that this new cat contains some pictures which are not related to photosynthesis? Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
PS: In addtion, all pictures therein are also listed in Category:Photosynthesis, which creates some redundancy...[reply]
No, I'll have to check them. I made it from existing categories so something miscategorized elsewhere. Thanks for letting me know. I'll make it hidden. It's more a metadata type of category than a content one, so the redundancy is intentional. Rocket000 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did create this category recently, but I can't figure out why it does not appear in search suggestions. Do you? I guessed it belongs to __HIDDENCAT__, but it doesn't matter. --A. Plank (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My god! Looks like a good find. I didn't realize the amount of images that were freely available..! I'm trying to keep up with you, but having a hard time.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will do, didn't know if you would be able to find them if I didn't add an existing cat. Ah, yes, highest resolution.. I always forget that on that site..! Cheers. Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it is now considered a subfamily, Apioninae. Some of our taxonomy is a little outdated but I didn't want to make the template that way too since we'll hopefully be updating while we apply it. This is why I haven't applied it to some (sub)families yet. The classification inside the template can be viewed/edited here and here. So far, it's working out good, but if you need to make any changes/corrections feel free to do so (or just let me know). I mainly followed Wikispecies since this is one area that they're good in (I know it's hard to believe... :). A particular user over there has spent a lot of time recently updating everything and I find he generally does good work (uses good recent sources, cites everything, pays attention to details, etc.). Rocket000 (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I just did some statistics. By now there are about 120 families. Do we really need subordo and superfamilia? In my opinion a tree like Lepidoptera is easier to handle. --Olei (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that too... I guess I went with the ranks because that part of the tree was already developed unlike with Lepidoptera. Maybe we should drop the suborders to start with. Rocket000 (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a lot of incorrect category removals today by the bot. From map files.
Category:Maps by region was removed. Sometimes it was OK to do so. Sometimes not. It looks like the bot removed all files from Category:Maps by region, a meta category. This is not a good idea. Many people drop maps in an upper-level category. It is better than no categorization which is what the bot is doing in some cases. The relevant files that I have on my watchlist today are copied below. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm doing is undoing shitty categorization done by other bots. Metacats should not contain files, so I remove them. How is wrong categorization better than no categorization. That doesn't make sense. Rocket000 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maps placed in map categories is not shitty categorization. I have placed many maps in many map categories. I placed some of those maps in that map category that the bot worked on. Having a bot undo hundreds of hours of work is a good idea?
Please do not use the bot this way without further discussion. There are hundreds or thousands of metacats, and the metacat template is being added to more and more categories. The bot could undo the work of thousands of editors and uploaders in a few minutes. Really, really bad idea.
I see why you might want the bot to do this work, and I appreciate what you are trying to do. But you are making incorrect assumptions in saying that all the images are added by other bots.
It is incorrect to believe that a metacat template will get all, or even most, people to categorize a file in a subcategory of the metacat. Many times people are in a hurry, or there is no subcategory that will work. Many people don't know how to create subcategories.
I oftentimes am concentrating on one task, and do not have time to deeply subcategorize a misplaced file. I clean up one category at a time usually. I move misplaced stuff out of the category I am concentrating on. I move the misplaced files to the correct general category elsewhere, including metacats. If I tried to correctly subcategorize every file I came across I wouldn't finish the categories I am actually concentrating on.
We are lucky new uploaders categorize their files at all. So removing a map file from a metacat map category is a mistake.
What "should be" is not how things always work. A map file in a map metacat is not "wrong categorization." Anyway, I see you adding a lot of metacat templates to more and more categories. How does removing the files from those metacat categories help categorize those files in the correct subcategories? It actually makes it a lot harder. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would except a normal person (not a bot) to place media in a category like Category:Maps instead something like Maps by country. I don't know why anyone would think the latter is an appropriate category at all (maps, perhaps, is a special case here). I have been running my bot on meta categories for a while now, otherwise many would contain tons of files. This is the first complaint. I will not touch anything to do with map categories anymore, but for most categories it's not an issue. Rocket000 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't understand why you have not received other complaints though. It might be because you are an admin, and that most uploaders and editors may believe that admins usually know what they are doing. Or they have tried arguing with admins before, and don't want the hassle and block threats that seem common enough lately on Wikipedia and the Commons.
I don't think you are right though in this case about using a bot to remove files from metacats. My logic still holds outside map categories.
For example; I see you adding the metacat template to categories. Why does the addition of a metacat template, then make the images in that category suddenly incorrectly categorized? The images may need to be subcategorized, but they don't usually need to be removed altogether. I don't understand what you are doing.
If someone has placed a country map in Category:Maps by country or a regional map in Category:Maps by region, then the map is somewhat correctly categorized. How does removing the image from map categories altogether help? The images just need to be subcategorized. As I said before there are many reasons why a map may not have been placed in subcategories at that time. Most of the subcategories may not have existed then. Or the correct country or region subcategory may need to be created.
The same logic holds true for many other categories outside map categories. There are many "by country" categories that don't have all the subcategories for all the countries. So people frequently place relevant images at the top level. Many people don't know how to create subcategories. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the addition of the template that makes it what it is, but the very purpose of the categories themselves (The template is there so people know not to use it, apparently the name isn't enough... some people don't think logically or understand English. The real purpose is bot-related.) When you have "something by something" it doesn't make sense to put individual files in there because then they are not "by something". E.g. How can a single file by organized "by country" if it's not in a country category? Rocket000 (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a different problem. You solve it by creating the category. Think about it. If the correct category doesn't exist, don't put it in the wrong one. "Maps" (or whatever the topic is) would be the real parent category. Not "<topic> by country" which is simply an alternate way to browse. Rocket000 (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) How does removing a map from all map categories help? I could give hundreds of related examples.
Category:Maps by country - a map for a country that does not yet have a map subcategory for that country.
Reread what you wrote. All churches are in a country, all composers are from a country. Why not put the file in Category:Churches or Category:Composers instead. That still a really bad idea, but at least you're not putting it in a category that's specifically made for other categories. It's the equivalent of putting files in Category:Meta categories itself because the file must go in one of it's subcategories but doesn't exist yet... the logic isn't there. Either correctly categorize files or don't do it (generally speaking, not directed at you). Rocket000 (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the logic of an uploader or editor putting a country map at the top of the "maps by country" category. Because the correct country subcategory may not have been created yet. I think I have a lot more experience than you in categorizing maps. I created many, many map categories and subcategories.
I really appreciate that an uploader or editor has taken the extra step to subcategorize a map beyond dumping it at the very top level of Category:Maps. So I appreciate it when country maps are in Maps by country, and regional maps are in Maps by region. Even if they aren't yet correctly subcategorized. It greatly helps me and others in further categorization of those maps.
Removing a map altogether from all map categories as your bot does in many cases serves no purpose whatsoever in helping categorize a map. In fact, the map may never get categorized at all in that case.
This statement of yours is really, really counterproductive, and even insulting, to most uploaders and editors: "Either correctly categorize files or don't do it." It reminds me of Juiced Lemon. ;) --Timeshifter (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, maps are a special case. That's why I'll leave them alone. You should probably rename those from "Maps by country" to "Maps of countries" and "Maps by regions" to "Maps of regions" based on how you're thinking about them. I wish we had more contributors like Juiced Lemon was. That really sucks that telling people to do something right is insulting... what's next, actually encourage the deterioration of the project? Rocket000 (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you assume that your way is almost always the correct way. That is an assumption. Especially in a collaborative project. Juiced Lemon was very productive. But he also assumed that he was almost always right. In a collaborative project the definition of what is "right" is a matter of group opinion, also called consensus, or whatever the current guidelines are. "telling people to do something right" is not a good idea in my opinion. Pointing to a guideline might be more productive. It may not be "right" but it is the current guideline. Being "right" sounds too authoritarian and condescending in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Guidelines are a pain. I just try to be flexible since most guidelines can not possibly cover all the subtleties. I suggest you be more flexible. Why not try being more accommodating to those uploaders and editors that are doing the best they can, and not getting paid. I am very happy when they make any effort at all to further categorize a map beyond dumping it in Category:Maps. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am flexible. You took issue with what I did to the map categories, so I said I'll not do those anymore. And it's not just because you complained, but because you made me realize that maps are an exception to the meta cat rule. Are there other exceptions? Possibly, that's why I haven't done every meta cat blindly (see my section on Category talk:Non-empty meta categories). I do them one by one and sometimes skip ones that are pseudo-meta cats and have a file or two that makes sense in it. What do you think about my renaming suggestion? Rocket000 (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was referring to my comment a few places up: "Maps by country" to "Maps of countries" and "Maps by regions" to "Maps of regions" because of the way you think of them. You said country maps are in Maps by country, and regional maps are in Maps by region. Rocket000 (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, prepositions are a pain. I usually do not worry about which preposition is used in an existing category since it is too difficult to change it later after many subcategories have been created. It doesn't matter to me either way as to which preposition is used. It won't change how people look at those categories in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it was "of countries", I wouldn't think if it as a meta category and as such it could contain files. A file can be a map of a country but not by a country. "By country" refers to the organization, where as "of countries" refers to the subject matter. Rocket000 (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read this thread very thoroughly, but wonder if instead of just removing categories, the bot can't add something like category:uncategorized maps and so still leave the images in the tree somewhere (of course it would help if the bot could check that the image wasn't actually also categorized in the maps tree somewhere else already). --Tony Wills (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, usually there's other categories since 90% of them were categorized by CommonSense bots. I now don't remove the category if it's the last one. I hesitate to apply any new category automatically because a lot of times the categories are just wrong (i.e. people or logos in a map category). Maps are one area though that the bots aren't that terrible with, so I'm leaving it alone. Rocket000 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I noticed you found the motivation to extract some of your images. Good work! :)
One question though, are you sure this is a valid species: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Euxoa_decorata
Can't seem to find anything about this one. I think it is a synonym, but can't figure out of what species. If you have a source, could you share it with me so I can make an article? Thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, yes, I have a similar list of the images I extracted. These are probably African or central Asian species. It is nearly impossible to find any info on them. I will have a look and see if I can find anything, but seeing the author is unknown, I think it will be impossible to find the current name. Maybe we should have a category for ancient binomial names which we cannot find info about? Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a good idea. I know there's a couple other illustrations uploaded by others that I couldn't figure out either (I lost my list awhile ago). It's amazing how some names are just forgotten. Thank god for google books and BHL, though. :) Now what should the category be called? Rocket000 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Euxoa enixa seems to be a valid species, the author is Püngeler, 1906. Found in it in some lists for Turkey. Euxoa intolerabilis (Püngeler, 1902) is found in the mountains of NE Siberia http://szmn.sbras.ru/old/Lepidop/Noctuid/Noctuin.htm.
Naming this Category.. hmmm.. don't know, doesn't really matter though, it's more a helpfull tool to redirect to in case we find someone with access to scientific articles and such. I guess it must be possible to track down these old names somewhere.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll have to update that. I figured out Euxoa bogdanowi is Euxoa bogdanovi (a spelling error in the book, not mine, but I should have guess since google gave me nothing), originally Leucania bogdanovi Erschov, 1873. I found that thanks to this cool site I just discovered: [14]. I haven't look to deep into it but I noticed it has a couple of our others listed. Rocket000 (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I forgot to answer your question about E. decorata. There are two E. decoratas. I'm pretty sure it's Staudinger, 1905 (sensu Hampson) not Neuburger, 1904. However, even the LepIndex isn't sure what to do with it: [15]. Rocket000 (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug (no pun intended) you, but Euxoa proleuca seems to be a synonym, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euxoa_hastifera (source funet and some random document found with google). Hmmm.. I'll leave the decora species, I can't really make an article without any info. I like to at least state the location it can be found. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My god! What a mess.. I guess indeed the picture depicts an agrotis species, but it is not clear what species, because on the card it reads "retained in agrotis near species coqiumbensis", it seems that at the time of writing that card, the illustrated pic was not scientificly described. It might be now, but it would be nearly impossible to figure out what the current name is.. It might be "agrotis americana", but I doubt it.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can create those templates for you, however, are they used enough to warrant separate templates? I had the same question with subgenera and we decided it wasn't necessary since you can use {{genera|title=subgenera|...}}. The species template works the same way. Thus, you can use {{genera|title=nothogenera|...}} and {{species|title=nothospecies|...}}. I don't work much in botany so I don't know how much these are used. If a lot, then I guess we should create "shortcut" templates, e.g. a template that uses {{genera}} with the title parameter already set so you only have to use {{nothogenera|...}}. Rocket000 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rocket000, thanks for your comment. You are, of course right. Sorry about that, hadn't though properly about it. And yes, thanks you for re-uploading the maps erroneously deleted - even if I believe they are factually incorrect, they are used (basically in the Spanish wikipedias) and there are those who defend them. The deletion proposal was for the other maps, mere variations (sometimes done with attack purposes) on those two. By the way, let me ask you something: is it better to make a group deletion proposal in this cases, as it was done in Commons:Deletion requests/Nonsense Spanish Empire maps? Thank you again. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm afraid we need more people to do the cropping. And I would appreciate if I can pass the images to a volunteer and let him/her upload them all. Do you know any venues that I can request for such help? OhanaUnitedTalk page07:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, I already uploaded issue 1, issue 12-14. So that leaves me issue 2-11,16-17. I have the images cropped already. We're looking at about 100 MB of images sitting on my hard drive waiting to be uploaded. The *ideal* streamlined process is some volunteer checks Zookeys website regularly like once a week and if a new issue is out, then they proceed to crop the images out of the PDF and upload to Commons. However, we might be asking too much since this is quite a commitment that will last forever (until Zookeys stopped publishing). I'll try contact those 3 users listed on the first comment on this Wednesday and see if they can split up this task as well as tackling the backlog which you pointed out (issue 18 and onwards minus any odd images that someone else uploaded) OhanaUnitedTalk page07:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, reacted on my own userpage by mistake.. Copy-paste:
Damn! But I am guessing you are right. I am not a native speaker (dont know if you are?) so this whole mess was terribly confusing to me. Would you mind altering the wikipedia articles too? After reading all this I still have a head thats spinning! :) Great work on all the recent uploads by the way! I am really happy that there are that many "micromoths" among these. Pictures off those are hard to find. I also made this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_moths_of_Great_Britain_%28Micromoths%29 on wikipedia. It was the only thing missing from the UK moths articles and I thought it would be nice to have seeing the recent flood of micro moth articles. Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. yes, that is still a problem I guess.. We might as well leave it like this (the pictures anyway) and hope someone with the proper knowledge will notice sometime in the future and correctly identify the species. I am wondering though.. Couldn't we find out which species the images depict by looking at the location they are taken? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gillmeria_tetradactyla.jpg is by a Finnish person, so I'm guessing it was taken in Finland. The http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Platyptilia_tetradactyla_pupa.jpg was taken in Denmark. I looked in Fauna Europaea and the name "tetradactyla" only pops up as a synonym of ochrodactyla, which might imply that the other "tetradactyla"-s which were used in the past, are not European, meaning the pics would be "ochrodactyla", unless the photographer was confused with "tridactyla" off course.. Would you be so kind to make articles on these species with an explanation of the taxonomy situation? I will do the rest if you want (i.e. find the food plants, the range, wingspan, etc.). Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently closed this DR that was opened by you. The result was, that I followed your argumentation and deleted the category with the parent category: Category:Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted including its content that was similiar to the category I had deleted according the DR.
Now, the creator of this "category-tree" seems to be not happy about this regular action. He recreated some categories and accuses me - in a quite aggressive way - of "Vandalism". Well, can you have a look here, please.
A duplicate is file that is the same as another. When deleting similar files[16], please don't call them duplicates. These maps had different areas shaded. I'm not contesting the deletion or anything (I don't care), but try not to use misleading deletion summaries or, in the case that you did think they were duplicates, pay more attention. Thank you. Rocket000 (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The file was tagged by the template:duplicate tag, I just clicked on the "delete" link, which automatically fills the summary. I noticed the difference all right, but the difference was not essential (certainly not to the point of justifying two "different" pictures). When the files are markedly different, I usually consider the "duplicate" to be a speedy deletion request, and replace the summary by a "author's request + unused" comment. In this instance, though, the problem was clearly that the correct map should have been uploaded as a new version, so that the "duplicate" makes sense - not that misleading, IMHO. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know if you are going to do anything further. Would you please fullfill my request. The reason why I'm insisting is that I don't like to leave a mess. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, and I'm really sorry about my harsh tone. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
While researching the VP-archives for a topic in the Village pump I noticed you are pro-patrolling. However, as you probebly know the patrol-function for edits (as supposed to page creations) is disabled on Wikimedia Commons. Could you take a look at Commons:Village_pump#Marking_edits_as_patrolled and add a reply maybe ? -- Thanks in advance, -- Krinkletalk16:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did add the templates as suggested on my talk page but it feels like he railed against me (even after I went off to work, which is the reason why I did not reply to him after 1:20 PM CST, USA). I see it has exploded in my absence; well, he pretty much wants the whole thing gone because it did not use the GFDL/CC-BY-SA that he demands. 2.1 does not even have a template, 3.0 was added. Ideally, even if he is right to call for deletion, we just shop out the offending images and keep the whole thing. This is crazy and I will not be able to deal with this tomorrow for most of the day (class and eye exam). User:Zscout370(Return fire)05:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my friend,
Thanks for the new † feature. Don't forget to document it ;-)
That way I will know in which templates it is available.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again,
IUCN has again changed its "ids". So some {{IUCN}} calls won't work and other {{IUCN}} calls will provide bad riskLevel/categories. Sniff ;-(
A french friend of mine is working on a robot to solve that on the french site.
Do you have a bot ? Are you interested by his code ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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!
Instead of the removal of the image, could you consider replacing the red cross in it with a proper symbol for medicine (with a version of Rod of Asclepius for example)? The red cross is not a general symbol for medicine and its use is causing legal problems. --SaMi (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sorry for spaming your talk page, but this is very important. On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. Also they believe that common's policy is not so clear regarding the issue. And since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A.Talk14:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I somehow have a problem using the template 'Clist' in combination with the template VN as suggested on the template page. When I try using this combination, I only get the VN-headline without the translations...
Can you suggest an example how to manage that combination?
best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I'll have to work on it. I had it working when I was building the template, but I guess I never tried it since then. :S I may have removed it after I made {{VN}} not use columns (it used to be 3-columned like {{SN}}). I mainly use it for subspecies lists and synonyms. In the meantime, {{VN|small|...}} can give you a slight improvement when dealing with a lot of names. Rocket000 (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rocket000, back when Commons:Language policy was re-worded, I added a notice to all versions on Template:Lang-LangPolicy. One or two versions seemed up-to-date, but various versions seemed old or very old. Maybe you want to update the notice on these too. I'm not quite sure what we should note there. -- User:Docu at 07:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it for the ones that were updated. The old version is completely different so I'll leave those alone. They still have the nice big serious clock icon. Rocket000 (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. It was a bit odd to do another re-write of that specific page without any trace on the others ;) -- User:Docu at 09:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On this page, is there a way to create links to make the new category pages preload with the number inserted into the category page? -- User:Docu at 10:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a (complicated) way to do it with the preload template, but I think I may have a better solution. I started working on a new numbercategory template that doesn't require the parameter. I originally didn't did it this way because I didn't think it would be worth it. It's not done yet, but you can see how it works using {{User:Rocket000/Sandbox}}. Haven't tested it much. Feel free to work on it; I'm a little mentally lazy right now to finish it :P. Rocket000 (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just for integers, I suppose it would be quicker to do them by bot. For categories with non-sequential names, it would have been interesting to find out how it's done. I suppose if you are saying "(complicated)", it's not just a parameter as the admin-link on {{Move}} (I didn't get that to work). -- User:Docu at 17:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the thing I did with {{Move}} uses javascript (it won't work if you're not an admin - not sure why that extra check is necessary since the page is protected but it was already in the javascript). Maybe we should generalize MediaWiki:CommonsDelinker.js to add arbitrary text to any page (without the admin check of course). I can think of other uses where this might be useful. For categories with non-sequential names, it would have been interesting to find out how it's done. You mean how to strip the "(number)" part from {{PAGENAME}}? It would be done the same way I did it in my sandbox. Rocket000 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, one could use it to create new categories (with non-number titles) and pass through a predefined text. I adapted the js you mention to work for the number categories. To make it work on any page seems risky. Ideally one could turn it on and off in preferences. -- User:Docu at 18:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we would indeed need javascript. Why do you think it would be risky? Maybe we can add some safety checks. It automatically goes right to the diff page and user stills has to click save. Rocket000 (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm too lazy to do the de-tour through preview. Anyways, I think I finished creating a few number cats. Hope you don't mind that I added too many highway signs ;) -- User:Docu at 19:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind at all. When I first started categorizing numbers I would add those, but a category full of them is kinda boring and there's so many of them so I stopped. Are you planning to make something cool like your clock with these? :) BTW, I have a little gallery (and more) I'm working on. Rocket000 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First I would have to find a way get new ones you haven't categorized yet ;) Nice gallery. Ideally the categories would include just these. At Category:258 (number), I made the non-generic ones sort first. -- User:Docu at 19:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. We could also create new subcats just for highway signs (preferably just the non-photographic ones). Someone did this for automobiles with numbers. Rocket000 (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategories for these are a bit tricky. For quite a few of them, I'm not convinced if they are well placed there or not. The vehicles ones look good, but primarily from a CatScan:Numbers on vehicles perspective. Even if there weren't that many subcategories, File:BRS nummerplade cropped.jpg could easily remain in the parent category with the road sign diagrams. Given the number of files, I suppose we could still do without too many subcategories. Still, the content doesn't offer as much variation naturally as it did for clocks. Maybe I will come up with something later. For the moment, I saw a few road signs too many ;) -- User:Docu at 10:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rocket000
Would you be able to look into the copyright status of this image? My first impression is that it was taken from a blog without permission and uploaded here and thus should prob. be deleted. Thoughts?--Kevmin (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another image which looks to be a copyvio is File:Brygmophyseter.jpg. which was added to commons on 11/08/09 and seems to be the same image as in this article from 8/01/08.--Kevmin (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged both of them as missing permission. The uploaders, in the unlikely event they are the copyright holders, can send confirmation to OTRS. This is normally what we do when we find "own work" images on other sites. Rocket000 (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I know you once wanted to create a template for the Potds that's easily substable. I've recently created a draft, but it didn't work when substituted. Would you be able to fix it or restart it from scratch if it totally sucks? --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you used the padleft trick. I really wish they would just give us StringFunctions.. I think I gave up on the template after Multichill did a bot run. I figured that even if it would be easy to use, some people still wouldn't use it so there would still be a need to have a bot run once in a while anyway. Rocket000 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Actually such roundel didn't exist. You wrote "no valid reason to delete since it's in use". No, it is not in use and never was. In the chapter about Bulgarian aviation signs in the monograph Иван Бориславов, Румен Кирилов, "Самолетите на България", част втора, София, 1996, стр. 246-253 (in Bulgarian; in English: Ivan Borislavov and Rumen Kirilov, "The Airplanes of Bulgaria", part two, Sofia, 1996, pages 246-253) such sign is not mentioned. May be you are confusing it with the contemporary roundel of the Bulgarian Air Force. I think that this misleading non-historical sign should be deleted. Greetings, Bulgarian Herald (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what image your talking about. It's impossible to know if a file has ever been used or not in the history of it's existence, so I'm not sure how you can make that claim. Whatever the case, if it's not currently used, feel free to nominate it for deletion. Rocket000 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rocket, seems you are on a wikibreak, but just to let you know, I've been uploading some images. I linked them to the (at this moment non-existant) species categories like you requested some time ago. This means however, that they dont have a "valid" category at all at the moment. Anyway, just for your information and in hopes you will incorporate them in your tree of life. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rocket!
You have made a category redirect from Anemone hepatica to Hepatica nobilis. I would like to reverse this so Hepatica nobilis point to Anemone hepatica. Recent studies gives that the genus Hepatica has no standing, unless the genus Anemone is split into a number of genera, which does not seems to be followed by recent botanists. Can I make the switch?
Ref:
Sara B. Hoot, Anton A. Reznicek, Jeffrey D. Palmer (Jan. - Mar., 1994). Phylogenetic Relationships in Anemone (Ranunculaceae) Based on Morphology and Chloroplast DNA. Systematic Botany 19 (1): 169–200 [18].
USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. Germplasm Resources Information Network - (GRIN) [Online Database]. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland. [19] (16 April 2010)
Hi Rocket000, can you move a little bit the star, is lightly descentered if you look the base it touchs the body of the axe, thanks for now. --Kineto007 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look carefully to the border of the 1st and 2nd flag of the left side you will notice that they have a straight edge, in comparison with the borders of the 1st and 2nd flags from the right that have a slightly "curved" edge instead of a straight one like it should be, can you fix it please? --Kineto007 (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tips of the spears are not sharp enough, like in the original. And there are many more imperfections that should be corrected, like the lines in the axe body for example. Please do not change the color it's correct, and the suns too, thanks in advance. --Kineto007 (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rocket000. I've read your comment on MW bug #14404 and I'm a bit puzzled: on one hand, {{int:lang}} seems to be heavily used here, and appears to work correctly; on the other hand, this 2008 bug report sees it as a bug (still open) that severely disrupts the Mediawiki caches. On others wikis, {{int:lang}} doesn't yield anything but here it works: do you know how they managed to make it work without being affected by the side effects of this bug on the cache?
I'm asking because on base.ekopedia.org, which is Commons counterpart for Ekopedia, they have the same needs of internationalization but {{int:lang}} is not implemented and I don't know whether I should recommend it to them or not, and how they can make it work. Sorry if you are not the right person but I didn't know whom to ask this. — Xavier, 23:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rocket000. As the only admin I have worked with before on Commons I am coming to you for some advice. I had my attention drawn to a misguided new version of a diagram (now reverted). This lead me to have a quick look though the work of uploader KVDP. There is much that is unexceptionable, but a fair proportion of it seems to me to fall into the category of using commons as a personal web space for expressing his own green agenda and for uploading his own less than half-baked engineering ideas. There are numerous current deletion requests. Is there a way to instigate a wider review of this oeuvre? (Apparently, you are away, so I have taken this to Admin noticeboard. Globbet (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)) [reply]
File:Winged Victory in Antigone.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise,everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
. I'm kinda surprised people would think that would magically bring help their way. I'm guessing the template {{Help}} on Wikipedia functions like that or these people really need help. ;-) Rocket000 (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Done I didn't know that would be an issue. Thanks for letting me know! Rocket000 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-B0711-0005-020,_Oberstes_Gericht,_Globke-Prozess,_Pitt,_Nathan.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=25358855){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-B0125-0013-001,_Berlin,_Er%C3%B6ffnung_einer_Eisschnelllaufbahn,_Rudi_J%C3%A4hne.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=25358729){kind=link}
--Mbz1 (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macrolepidoptera15seit_0067.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_British_Empire1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg)
.svg)
