I should be done with you, and I think that you even asked me to be done with you, but I am not.
Category Links from your User page
That is good stuff, thank you very much for those. I think (after looking quickly at them) that I wasn't doing such a terrible job as I mostly tried to fit the new images and new Category into the existing eh, structure here.
I had a thought while I was reading them about how the strong feelings that happen here are not so much about right and wrong but about conventions that our teachers (and other elders in judgement of us during our youth) insisted upon as everyone was learning. I think about this kind of thing when I watch road traffic with dozens and sometimes hundreds of cars sharing the same roads at almost the same time and each vehicle on its way to a different destination. I am so surprised that the roads are so safe, when you consider it. It is the same such a miracle that so many of our teachers were at least insisting on similar things/ideas to everyone. That being said, all of those teachers who somehow managed to maintain an active image of themselves in my brain/memories scream "Don't do that" when I see things like Category:National Forests being changed to Category:National forests. No wrong or right there -- disapproval and marks on the list of your accomplishments make that feeling. It feels wrong deep in the parts that they made when they formed me. The local laws said that I should be there so that they could do that and I enjoyed it (school) immensely.
I am an organization categorizer wannabe
The Dewey Decimal System did me in. F=ma actually saved me. I am jealous of people who can do this. The closest I came to being able to do this was with astrology, but it only works when people don't lie about their age/birthdate and then you only learn stupid things like Virgo's have wide feet and Aries only think about what they are going to do when they get there -- not how they will get there and Taurus have a lot more money than even they know (because they conveniently forget it). Useless! Because the knowing does nothing to help.
So I am jealous. There was a cartoon that was on television in United States in the 1990's. Dr. Katz. He was a psychologist for standup comedians. He had a secretary Laura who in one episode declared that she could "Label anything". She had a little label making machine and throughout that episode, proceeded to label everything. The doctor's son (who had a huge crush on her) challenged her by saying "No you can't" to her "I can label anything". She then labeled him "No" and continued with her work.
I am jealous like that. 20 years ago, I would have thought that Commons:Image classification system was cool. Now I think it is inhuman. What do you think changed in me?
Do you ever think that there will be a day when people who can work with the Dewey Decimal System might be punished for this ability? Perhaps euthanized even?
Eek! I have more background in science fiction where you can make interesting scenarios and suggest difficulty in the safety of it not being real and being a way to examine what might happen. I am now very sorry that I used such strong black-comedy to illustrate a thought I had. In real life, I have spent a lot of my time verbalizing a desire that my country stay out of other countries. I was very young when we were in Cambodia and I might not ever understand it. Fiction should be an outlet for frustration. Shakespeare did this (I think) when he wrote about ways to solve lawyer problems.
Did you get blocked because of me? I ask because I have found myself in a strange online world and also a foreign to me real world. While you were blocked (I did not know you were blocked) I was thinking about conversations I had had with friends in my past. The only thing I know to do to figure out new people and new situations is to try to map something from my past into it. When I was a kid, my mom had a garden in our backyard. She did most of the work there and sometimes we would help and sometimes we wouldn't. It was no big deal. Later, I made a friend whose mom had used their garden as punishment when she was a child. As adults, I had a garden and I loved to be in it but my friend was unable to see what I enjoyed about it and never spent time with me in it. I was thinking about home-schooled kids and these wiki-projects and mapping my garden incident onto it: that there are people who volunteer here because they love it and others who are working because they are being punished. I am sorry if I caused you undue frustration or commotion or punishment. -- carol10:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got blocked following the bunch of edits which is listed here. These edits were part of a banale maintenance operation, so this block was a patent abuse and you are not responsible for that. --Juiced lemon16:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mention there an inherent difficulty about this project. Individual actions lead naturally to chaos. Ideally, people who works on classification in Commons should be aware of basic principles and undergo some training.
My concern is to bring some order and consistency, in order to maintain the attraction of this website. I revert changes when I think they are a mess factor. That doesn't mean that these changes are necessarily illogic, so my actions can still be discussed. --Juiced lemon11:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of getting access to more than 3500 images from the USForest Service. I am not interested in making gallery of them. Also, they have been organized already by the USForest Service by state. If I am able to get access to the images, they are probably named by the identification number that the Forest Service used. I found one commons user who seems to have experience with auto-cropping software and I think it should not be difficult to find someone to tailor an upload tool so that getting the images here and Categorized should be somewhat easy. Many of the photographs need and deserve repair -- which would also be a good time to rename them. Would you be interested in helping at any point in that project, in the case that I am able to get the images? So far, almost every image I have seen from this collection is older than 1970; my little upload of 100-110 images was very very interesting so far -- interesting enough that I can't wait to get the whole stack of them.
The pertinent informations about pictures from USForest Service are:
Forest Name
Subject (deciphered)
Date (year)
Serial Number
So, try to build a consistent naming system, based on part or all these informations.
I'll not help you in the recovery process of this set of pictures, but I can learn you how to categorize the files in the topics structure. --Juiced lemon16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi there Juiced lemon, do you think you could give in some of your opinion on this case, not sure what to think about it, I thought categories have to be in English. Gryffindor11:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Banale canal, wide enough for a single image demonstration?
Yesterday, I saw an image in the New Images Gallery, at least I think it was this image: Image:SiberianTiger Rome(1).jpg. When I surveyed my browser history to find it, I found the gallery page for Bioparco. When I went to that gallery page, the images themselves had no highlights associated with them to tell me the ones I had 'visited' already. When I search for Siberian tiger this image doesn't appear. I see no way in which this image has been categorized as anything except this Bioparc place, which is to me a shame and a loss because I might actually want or need an image like this of a Siberian tiger and this image never is presented as such.
Can you demonstrate how the image should be Categorized or how it has already been Categorized properly for me (so I can see an example or an explanation) and then how users of this collection can easily find it? -- carol23:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I'm here ;-) Let's have a short talk about this one. Category:Musical notation is quite correct (and I nearly lost track of this one, thanks), however, Category:Musical scores was correct, too. If Musical notation exclusively contains files showing notes and other score stuff, we can move it to Category:Musical scores and use Musical notation as supercat for all these cats holding specific notational icons like rests, notes, and so on. Comments? Code·is·poetry10:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got your point. I tried to establish „Musical scores“ as a rather general term for all notation-related stuff, but I'm not that firm in your language. „Musical scores“ were the proposal of one user on #wikipedia-en. Do you know a better term? Regards, Code·is·poetry11:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I misunderstood what you said me. The subject of Category:Musical notation is how to represent music through the use of written symbols, hence a part of Category:Music theory. This category is not planned to classify the music representations themselves.
Hi guys :). "Sheet music" is a funny term rooted in late 19th century U.S. history (the connotation was something like "pop music" has now). I haven't looked at what's in the category, but it would actually be somewhat vulgar if it was used to describe, say Bach. It's not really a subcat of notation either: it might actually be best made a subcat of Music. As a subcat of notation would be similar to making Novels a subcat of the Alphabet, if you see what I'm saying :). --SB_Johnny | PA!16:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's see. There is this pretty category Category:Music by media type. I just want one subcategory which holds all these files where notes are present, may they be single notes, keys, bars, or complete works. Since I am not a fluent speaker of the english language, I have no idea of any word describing this. Additionaly, we need some category for the rather abstract images like single notes, and one for noted representations of existing pieces of art. I think, Category:Musical notation is a sort of "topic category", so it should not be used, but rather be a supercategory for, among others, the category holding the abstract files. Likewise, Category:Compositions would be the superior category for the category of the concrete pieces of works. What do you think? Regards, Code·is·poetry21:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find the name in German, we'll translate it. If you cannot, maybe other users will not understand your concept, that is it would not be a good idea to create a category about it. --Juiced lemon22:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of Category:Music by media type, my concept should be self-explaining. I think, in german we would just say „Noten“ or „Musiknoten“, because „Noten“ not only means "notes", but also refers to more complex examples and scores. I doubt that any "end user" would ever search for this category, just like no one searches for "Music by country" – it's a helper category. I think, we should not put so much effort on this detail. There is no "true" or "best" term. We just have to take one and put in clear definitions. Regards, Code·is·poetry06:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION, you would have a consistent set of media types in the context of Category:Music by media type. So, you can associate a possible subcategory with each element from this set. If no such subcategory satisfies you, that probably means you think according to an unusual and unexpected logic (in Commons classification context).
If you want to reorganize music-related or sound-related categories, I suggest you to build a scheme at first, like the ones in Category:Commons category schemes.
As regards particularly media types, I think that the media type is generally an useless feature for the topics structure, so I plan to develop a new system using keywords. --Juiced lemon10:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to take a look at Category_talk:Music ;-) Actually, I think that in musicology, there is a big lack of precisely defined terms, but well, we can only work with what we got. I think the category I want to create is convenient, even if I am not able to provide the perfect lemma. Otherwise, we have to divide between scores of work and abstract notes and we have no place for Category:GNU LilyPond images. Regards, Code·is·poetry11:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GNU LilyPond is music software, and I assume that MusiXTeX files are data for music software. So, I don't understand your comment. --Juiced lemon21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't needlessly move categories up in page
Re: Image:Politcal Map of 19th Century China（時局全圖）.jpg , please don't needlessly move categories up in a page. Though of course it doesn't make any difference to page functionality or display, the stylistically preferred location for categories on a Wikipedia/Wikimedia page is in fact directly above any interwikis, and below everything else. If the categories are already in this stylistically-preferred position, please don't move them elsewhere in the page, as this creates a stylistically non-preferred positioning, and also needlessly complicates the reading of edit diffs when there are many categories involved (as is the case with Image:Politcal Map of 19th Century China（時局全圖）.jpg). AnonMoos22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I move categorization in order to display categories of the topics structure on the left of the page, before the category of other structures. --Juiced lemon23:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that means -- it probably refers to something in the particular "skin" which you're choosing to use, but it has absolutely nothing to do with anything in other "skins". AnonMoos20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no way in agreeing on the order and placement of the elements in the images and categories ? As far as I noticed here and on the wiki's worldwide, the ordering "habit" seems to be:
Main text, including description fields
External links
Licensing information
Categories
Interwiki's
I notice a lot of changing back and forward of the category placements which is a real waste of energy for all of us. I don't understand the above rationale or explanation of Juiced lemon. Personally, I would prefer the categories as the very last item as this is the place where most changes happen and I tend to jump always to the end of the screen. But as the IW's are usually placed there (robot habit or constraint ?), I can live with that. --Foroa06:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think things ought to be left in this order for consistency, moving categories away from the bottom makes them harder to find. (is a category present because it is named off, or because it's brought in via template? If you have to look all over the whole page, that increases the possibility of wasting time traipsing through templates..) ++Lar: t/c11:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coats Category check
Hello, Juiced Lemon, I completed the 12 subcategories of Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of the Netherlands. I had made first as experiment an (hand-made) content and a one-category-up catscan link, which helped me greatly to eliminate wrong files, find doubles and all missing files. This is a semi-closed finite collection now. Could you have a look at it and give your judgment? Greetings. Havang18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Strain gauges, thermocouples, accelerometers, ultra sonic sensors ... are (measurement) sensors or convertors. They convert a physical value into an electronic value (current, resistance, voltage) and need an electronics counterpart (conversion, scaling, linearisation, ...) to form a real measuring instrument. --Foroa13:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you prefer. I think that the most accurate and generic technical term is transducers. Note that transducers are not only part of measuring instruments but as well in controllers (for example train, crane, car controllers), medical instruments (pacemaker, ...), protheses (hearing aid, ...), consumer equipment (weight scales, fridges) and manufacturing equipment. So I would certainly suggest a separate topic/class for this type of devices.
Hello, juiced lemon, all dutch users use DOM for the Utrecht cathedral, so if you want to get items lost, you should stick at a name nobody uses. Do you also relocate all items under Utrecht DOM church, DOM tower? Don't bother too much about the lesser problems, that is not good for your nerves. Good luck Havang09:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, “dom” means “cathedral”, or “stupid”. So I read “Dom church” as “stupid chuch”, because it has no nave. More, the current category name “Utrecht Dom church” is misspelled, so I have added a move request.
JL, it is in fact both "DOM" and "Domkerk", but not "domme kerk". See the site of the church: [1]. DOM is a church with the predicate "Deo Optimo Maximo", often cathedral, but not always. In utrecht, it is Domkerk because its not the Utrecht cathedral. The cathedral is the Sint Catharijnekerk, which is not a DOM. I don't mind what the final name is; but dutch people search for DOM. I have slight preference for "Category:DOM of Utrecht". Havang12:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I don't speak English. Spanish only. (In Spanish:) Lo siento, no quería revertir todo. Por cierto: el nombre de la provincia de Alicante en inglés es "Alicante", pero en algunas categorías pone "Alacant". ¿Qué puedo hacer? Gracias y saludos. Jose Garzón19:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oui, je comprends le français très bien. Je traduis ce que je dis : "je le sens, je ne voulais pas revertir tout. Certes: le nom de la province d'Alicante est en anglais "Alicante", mais à quelques catégories il met "Alacant". Qu'est-ce que je peux faire? Merci et saluts". Jose Garzón20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you maybe discuss things beforehand a little sometimes
Could you maybe discuss things beforehand a little sometimes, instead of unilaterally proliferating categories needlessly, and then populating the new categories with just one or two images each??
Your new category category:Vulva symbols doesn't seem to me to have either big advantages or disadvantages over former category:Vulgar symbols, so making the change was pretty much just meaningless busywork.
However, your new category:Vulva is completely redundant and duplicative to the previous category:Female genitalia -- even if you can percieve some difference between the two, I very strongly doubt whether other people can consistently classify images according to such a differentiation, which means that it's pretty much useless for the purposes of Wikimedia Commons... AnonMoos20:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. In the English Wikipedia, some users have written the article Template:W article. Since this article is correctly illustrated, we can assume that some people are able to select vulva images and classify them in Category:Vulva.
3. “Vulgar” is a cultural assessment about some situations in a society, and cannot be a classification criterion in Commons. There is no place in Commons for indeterminate categories like Category:Vulgar symbols.
4. It was not my intention to move the contents of Category:Vulgar symbols, but all these images were miscategorized, and I had to edit them to clean other categories.
Whatever, dude -- "Always on the move", as Obi-wan Kenobi says in Revenge of the Sith. The word "vulgar" certainly could have been better chosen, but overall it's not clear to me that the categorizations in this area are in a better state after your efforts than they were before. In fact, I'm rather doubtful that your constant whirlwind of categorizing actitivities does much to improve anything in general. As for Image:Dina-gor.svg, please do tell me what special qualifications do you have to determine the exact connotations of this symbol? The implications are explained in point 3 of the explanation on the image description page Image:Vulva symbols.svg, and User:Dm.insubre.82 was quick to see the symbolism even before this explanation was added... AnonMoos00:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have very little idea exactly what you intend to mean by that, but you need to add a clear explanation of it at the top of the category page... AnonMoos00:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STOP UNILATERAL CATEGORY NONSENSE!
Dude, currently Category:Female genitalia is for external views, while Category:Female reproductive system goes under the skin -- and the result of all your abstract metaphysics is that you intend to collapse the useful distinction between these two categories, and lump them together in one big undifferentiated category. I really wish you had the basic courtesy to discuss things a little prior to unilaterally implementing radical changes of this nature -- it would save wasted effort both for yourself and for other people. AnonMoos00:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Genitalia is a synonym for genitals, that is “sex organs” (wiktionary:genitalia)
2. there are external and internal sex organs, therefore genitalia regards both external and internal sex organs
3. vulva is a short term for “external female genitalia”, and since “external female genitalia” are not the same thing that “female genitalia”, “vulva” cannot be identified with “female genitalia”.
A category move from Category:Female genitalia to Category:Vulva would be neither good nor bad (it would be relatively insignificant busywork of the kind you seem to be so fond of). But a category move from Category:Female genitalia to Category:Female reproductive system would MERGE TWO CATEGORIES WHICH CURRENTLY HAVE SOMEWHAT SEPARATE PURPOSES AND SOMEWHAT DISTINCT IMAGE CONTENT. It's not the names that matter, it's preserving a useful distinction. I don't understand how you can't see that eliminating a useful distinction would be a bad thing... AnonMoos11:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, establishing category:John Norman was a pretty good idea, and you set it up with the proper category memberships (though it would have been even better if you had included all the Norman-relevant images in the category, not just one), so thanks. AnonMoos16:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, speaking of nominating things for deletion, if within 3 or 4 days you don't add something to the top of category page category:Symbols of human sexuality which explains in a clear manner its exact intended scope and purpose, then I will consider nominating it for removal... AnonMoos16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category talk:Religionism
Hi Juiced lemon; May I call your attention to Category talk:Religionism, please? Jeff G. and others are proposing a number of new categories and a hierarchy. You may wish to comment. Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning to AnonMoos above. Your effort in doing so is appreciated. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund(talk)02:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I usually categorize a map in “Category:Locator maps of X of/in Y”, when it shows a like-X location on a map of Y. So, you will find maps of Serbia in Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia.
Maybe you have noticed that most municipalities of Serbia are also categorized in Category:Cities in Serbia. This is temporary, because I need a naming convention in order to differentiate municipalities and cities (there is near always a single article for the municipality and the matching city in the English Wikipedia). Can you suggest such naming convention? --Juiced lemon21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Serbia has two (well, 1 and a sort of) provinces, and the remainder is called "Central Serbia" (city of Belgrade might be considered a part of Central Serbia or as a separate entity). In the past, the main category (now Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia) contained Vojvodina one as its subcat, while the remaining maps were in the root category. At this moment, 17 maps of Central Serbian municipalities are in the root category, and remainder in Category:Maps of municipalities of Serbia.
I suggest the following:
Change "Maps of municipalities of Serbia" to "Locator maps of Central Serbia(n) municipalities" (proper title?)
Migrate the remaining 17 currently at the root to "Locator maps of Central Serbia(n) municipalities"
As for Category:Cities in Serbia, the situation is as follows: there are only 4 cities in legal sense, each consisting of several municipalities. The remaining 150 or so are towns, and each town is a municipality seat. On en:wp, we don't maintain separate articles for town and its municipality for practical and navigational reasons. However, since "city" and "town" are largely interchangeable, the Category:Cities in Serbia should probably remain as-is, to match the naming convention in Category:Cities by country.
I've lost you a bit with the first part (with those redlinked categories), but I do have in mind a sensible categorization scheme... which is easier done than told. I'll do it in a couple of days, just to find some spare time. Duja11:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, if you don't want put all these maps together in the same category, you can add an extra information to indicate a restricted area in Serbia. The same principle is already used in numberous categories, like Category:Danube: for example, Category:Danube in Novi Sad is a category for images of the Danube, but only in a restricted area matching Novi Sad.
So, Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia becomes Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia in Vojvodina for maps of Serbia. If you had maps of Vojvodina, the name of the category would be Locator maps of municipalities of Vojvodina, categorized in Category:Maps of Vojvodina.
But I dislike the contrieved naming of "Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia in Vojvodina". Why not the natural "Locator maps of municipalities of Vojvodina"? Since our categories are not tree-like, it will be a subcat of both "Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia" and "Maps of Vojvodina", and the both are in turn in "Maps of Serbia". Someone may arrive there following the "Vojvodina->Maps of Vojvodina" path, and someone else following the "Maps of Serbia->Locator maps of Serbia" path, and they would both be fine. Duja14:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Locator maps of municipalities of Vojvodina" is natural for maps of Vojvodina, like Category:Locator maps of districts of Vojvodina. However, we have maps of Serbia, not maps of Vojvodina. If you dislike "Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia in Vojvodina", we can let all the locator maps of municipalities in "Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia", classified by alphabetical order, with every map categorized in the appropriate municipality. --Juiced lemon15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh, just now I see what you're aiming at: we don't have any maps of Vojvodina with highlighted single municipality, which would justify the title "Locator maps of municipalities of Vojvodina". Instead, we have maps of Serbia with highlighted municipalities, which happen to be (or not) located in Vojvodina. While I understand the rationale, wouldn't it be a too much of nitpicking? I'd simply like to avoid 150+ images in a category, and 10-word category names. Duja09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to avoid 10-word category names, too. However, if an user uploads maps of Vojvodina with highlighted single municipality, I don't want to put them together with maps of Serbia with highlighted single municipality of Vojvodina. I try to set up a classification and naming conventions which can be easily understood and implemented, and I have not a better proposal at the moment. --Juiced lemon10:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just discovered the __NOGALLERY__ tag, which could alleviate the problem of large categories consisting of near-identical images. I'll start the job now, along the lines we discussed. Duja08:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sating Tux himself is an icon, but many of the images with him in it are. Category:Tux is for anything with the character in it, not necessarily icons. Category:Penguin icons are for icons only but not necessarily Tux-like penguins. If you think we need a category that overlaps these two, maybe a gallery would be better. See Tux. I apologize for making it speedy, I didn't think it would be contested. Rocket00020:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I didn't mean to do that. However, if backgrounds don't matter, why did you revert me? (I would of reverted myself, anyway) Rocket00001:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Buoyancy has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
I realised a while ago Commons does not have this vital and useful page. Instead it is crammed on to the main page. I would prefer to move most of the "browse" type stuff to a separate page and have it in the sidebar links.
So I have had it in my head for a few weeks to start work on this page, but I haven't found the time yet. If you are interested, maybe you would like to start?
You can create categories about any subject which can be easily individualized, assuming they are consistent with existing structures and schemes. --Juiced lemon13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, If you're creating football categories, it's best to stick to the names of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and treat them as four seperate countries — phrases like "British" and "United Kingdom" aren't recognised by FIFA or football fans, since they all have their own leagues/national teams etc. Thanks, Responsible?01:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. In Commons, categories 'by country' are for an immutable list of countries. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are not countries, therefore categories for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will be subcategories of the suitable “United Kingdom” category. --Juiced lemon01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category tree for churches
Hi Juiced lemon. I while ago you participated in a discussion on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands about category naming for churches and the like. From what I could see, no consensus was reached, so the rename requests have not been processed automatically. I have copied the dicussion to Category talk:Churches and I kindly invite you to have further discussion there. Once a consensus has been reached, please re-request category renaming on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Thank you for your participation and understanding. Cheers! Siebrand08:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware this article is worthless, and that you cannot get any reliable information from it. So, choose a definition in a dictionary, and we'll discuss about it. --Juiced lemon01:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence in the article is cited and provides an appropriate definition. Or see ANY textbook on drama. Denial isn't just a place in Egypt, huh? DionysosProteus01:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Category:Directory icons first, as I don't wish to argue semantics. Category:Folder icons and Category:Directory icons contain the same thing. In the Windows world, they're called "folders", in the rest of the world we call them "directories". That is why there's two categories in the first place. I'm trying to fix that. I would appreciate if you would discuss the issue at hand instead of simply continuing to revert good faith edits. Edit-warring is not fun :) Rocket00002:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single “directory icon” in Category:Directory icons. Anyway, regarding to the subject of a given category, any content is pointless. If I fill Category:Vulpes with chicken images “because” foxes eat chicken, foxes will not mutate in chicken.
So, the instructions are: categorize properly each media file according to its features, so we'll get categories with consistent contents.
Sorry to be insistent about semantics, but that is the kernel of a correct classification. In Category:Directory icons, I see icons which show:
I've contributed far more images than you have to the Commons and I can guarantee you I'm more well-known around here than you, so if you are going to go around making accusations that I'm trying to gain publicity (huh?) than you should think before you shoot your mouth off. I'll revert you, if not simply for your heavy-handed tactics that don't seek to discuss, but impose your will. Then I'll open it up for wider discussion. --DavidShankbone14:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lodging accusations against long-standing contributors who are held in high-esteem, especially one with my body of work, is neither good faith nor cool. It makes you sound like a jackass to say, "Oh, you want to include photos taken at Tara Subkoff's fashion show in the fashion category? Self-promotion!" Self-promoting what? The only thing I photograph for is Wikipedia and the Commons. I'm not a professional, and those photos are some of the poorest quality ones I've contributed. So don't be such a jerk about it. The photos are topless and have breasts. What's you reason for removing those categories? --DavidShankbone18:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have renamed some photographs in Cuisine of Catalonia to move them to Food in Catalonia. It seemed that both headings referred to the same matter, and there were far more images in the second class than in the prior one. Maybe a redirection would be necessary, but I don't know how to do it for a category. What do you think? Jordi Roqué18:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cuisine is an art, food is tangible. We need both “cuisine” categories in order to find illustrations for “cuisine” articles (like Template:W article), and “food” categories in order to find illustrations for economy-related subjects.
Generally, when you have photographs of food (including beverages) in a market, a shop, or at a production venue, these photographs are for “food” categories (example: packaged pasta). When you have photographs of cocktails, cooked food on dishes, food that somebody prepares for cooking, cooks, or arranges on a dish, these photographs are for “cuisine” categories. --Juiced lemon18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleavage vs Décolleté !
About your correction here. I understand that these words have different meanings. But I think cleavages are due to low-cut clothing, i.e. décolletés. So if we keep both categories, pictures may alwaysbe categorized in both. Am I wrong? By the way, for your knowledge, décolleté is a French-origin word and actually in French décolleté means both décolleté and cleavage!... Also, if you consider the interwiki links in Wikipedia projects, you can easily see that en:Cleavage (breasts) is linked to any décolleté article on other languages WP (of course you could say that's a mistake but again, I tend to think it would be strange to have different articles for cleavages and for décolleté/low neckline). Regards --TwoWings (jraf) * Wanna talk? ;-)07:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not a dictionary. Regarding to categories, subjects are relevant, language issues are not.
Category:Décolleté needs some “dry-cleaning”. This is clothing-related category, not a voyeurism-related category.
I spoke about the tool you have used, which don't help when you have to repair the damage. I have not informations concerning to updates or other similar tools. --Juiced lemon16:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am just about to unite these two categories, do you really want to separate them? (I decided for logics as the name, because there were already more content). Best regards.
Just FYI: there are some fields in logic where "logics" applies, but it's probably better to call them "logical systems". Modal logic, in particular, has a number of mutually exclusive systems (intuitively, any field of logic which allows undeterminable (as opposed to just undetermined) variables would have such mutually exclusive systems). --SB_Johnny | PA!19:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nazy Germany is only a part of the subject of Third Reich. We have Third Reich-related media files which don't regard to Nazi Germany. Using inappropriate names is incompatible with correct classification in Wikimedia Commons. --Juiced lemon14:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit in Category:Population statistics Germany is justified by “forbidden in categories”. Where can I find this restriction? The template is designed for this case (watch source code: “This {{{1|}}} image | All images in this {{ #ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | Category | category | article }} }} should be recreated...”). --тнояsтеn⇔15:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. There is no Commons policy to replace non-SVG images with SVG ones.
2. Categories are software features to gather media files regarding to a given subject. In the topics structure, this subject havn't media type properties. The properties of the content are pointless.
3. Categories are used for browsing, not for maintenance. Therefore, don't disturb the normal usage of categories with stupid templates which will be never removed since we'll keep non-SVG images.
4. If you want to pin any category for own reasons, mark it on your private notepad, and don't be a pain for the community.
3. I am just wondering why the Template:Convert to SVG explicitly was programmed for the use in categories (see above).
4. That was not my intention.
In a nutshell: if this template has not to be used in categories, the feature of the template showing All images in this category should be recreated... should be deleted. I just wanted to help Commons become better. --тнояsтеn⇔19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find instructions which allow the use of the template in categories. When you drive a car, you have generally to comply with a speed limit, even if the car was built to go much faster. That is the same thing with the template.
When I read Template talk:Convert to SVG, I realize that this format is questionned by numberous other users. In my opinion, this template have a major flaw, because it encourages the creation of SVG images by non-specialists of the concerned subject, so the results are often pathetic.
So, requests for conversion of images to SVG cannot be evasive like requests for a whole category, and I am removing the template:Convert to SVG (and aliases) from all categories of the topics structure. --Juiced lemon01:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mills
Hello,juiced lemon, good news: yes, for the mills category more and more new files are placed directly in the right categories. However, new uploades sometimes don't find their way through. Also I did still nothing about the subcategories windgenerators, windturbines, windparks, which can use improvemements. Greetings. Havang22:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of armoured cars from AFV cat
According to most references Armoured cars "...are a type of armoured fighting vehicle having wheels (from four to ten large off-road wheels) instead of tracks, and usually light armor... It would seem perfectly logical therefore to place armoured cars under the main category of AFV. I look forward to your reasoning as to why armoured cars should not be placed in the AFV category. KTo28823:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read carefully the article Template:W article. You'll learn that armoured cars have armour. An Template:W article is an armoured vehicle with weapons.
You cannot classify Category:Armoured cars according to fictional features of this subject, for example “Category:Armoured cars with weapons”, or “Category:Armoured cars with flowers”: that would be hightly moronic in both cases. --Juiced lemon23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand it, your reasoning is that only vehicles with both armour and armament should be considered as AFVs, and since armoured cars are not normally armed, even if images of armed armoured cars appear in the armoured car category, the category as a whole should not be placed as a sub category of AFVs. However the armoured car article states that there are three types of armoured car, the armoured limousine type, the armoured security type and the military armoured cars which are AFVs. The majority of the vehicles in the category at present most of the vehicles are the military type. Have a look at these images from different eras taken from the category. Mentally replace the wheels of these vehicles with tracks, and what do you see?
AMX 10 RC (Not in the armoured car category but described as an armoured car in its wikipedia page.)
You do not have to imagine the presence of turrets and weapons in these pictures, these are not fictional features but intrinsic elements of the design. Your demarcation between armoured cars and AFVs is for example armoured cars like the AMX 10 RC have weapons as a capable as many main battle tanks, whilst APCs such as the M113 and FV432 for the most part were armed with one or two machine guns most often in open mounts, an armament arrangement inferior to many armoured cars even historical ones. If it troubles you, perhaps one compromise would be to divide the category, into military and civilian armoured cars, and place only the military armoured cars into the AFV cat. KTo28801:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you can create categories in order to classify the media files in Category:Armoured cars and categorize them according to their more specific features. However, if your interest lies only in military armoured cars, you could as well leave the other images in their current category. --Juiced lemon11:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SVG structure
The topics structure is a browsing structure which is intended to find media files according to their subject. SVG files, as every file in the Commons database, must be individually categorized in the topics structure according to their “subject” features. The SVG structure is a media type structure, and have nothing to do with the topics structure.
The mix-up of these structures is harmful to the searching of the media files and to the classification process in Wikimedia Commons.
Subdivisions of the topics structure which don't match topics are undesirable. If you don't respect the accepted organization in Commons, and want to make a mess with the topics structure, I'll request to limit your activities in this project. --Juiced lemon14:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal categorization schemes do not set the rules. Please stop removing longstanding, relevant, applicable categories. Please stop your threats. You are going back to your old habits, and many people have pointed out these problems with your edits before. And you were doing so well for awhile... --Timeshifter15:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linked circles
Would you mind to have a look at the discussion `linked circles', what is your opinion? Darapti
Wikimedia Commons is not a Wikipedia project and we have our own rules. Most users follow these rules and link Commons categories to Wikipedia articles. If you don't want to follow our Commons rules, find an occupation in another project. --Juiced lemon17:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you are going back to old habits in the tone of your comments. Just because French is your native language does not allow you to be uncivil. I know that your understanding of English is good enough to avoid being uncivil. Admins have pointed out this incivility problem on your part in the past. By the way, it is uncivil to put back discussions on a user's talk page after the user deletes them. I moved the discussion here. Please keep it here. I am watchlisting this page here.
Interwiki links on category pages on both the commons and Wikipedia are supposed to link to category pages on other-language wikipedias. Please stop removing those category interwiki links. --Timeshifter18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should start studiing the interwikilinks including dijambisme and leveldifferences: 1 item in one wiki wikilinked to 2 or even more other items in oneother wiki . If that has been resolves, commons category can be interwikilinked to both article and category (leveldifference). At several wikipedias people are discussing similar problems, notably the english wikipedia. May-be we should do the like and think over the problem more thoroughly. greetings . Havang19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia projects have problems because they allow stupid bots to destroy correct interwiki links. The issue is quite different in Wikimedia Commons: when there are an article/gallery and a category about the same subject in any project, they must be linked together. Therefore, in such case, we havn't to bother with categories. Users come in Commons from articles, so they'll return to articles. --Juiced lemon20:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users come to the commons in many ways. From images they click in various-language wikipedias, and then follow back to the source image on the commons and its categories. From image categories on the various-language wikipedias, and the sister links to the commons categories. From articles in various-language wikipedias, and then the article categories and the sister links to the commons categories.
The commons is about images mostly. When people go to commons categories they like being able to use the interwikilinks to go to the same categories on other-language wikipedias in order to view other images in the same category.
If they like those images, and want to do more, they can copy them to web pages outside wikipedia, or they can upload them to their-language wikipedia, or better yet, they can upload them to the commons if they are public-domain images, and not fair-use images.
The introductions to commons categories are a good place to link to the commons galleries of the same name. I do that often. I also add "See also" links to related categories on the commons. Those are in addition to normal categorization and subcategorization.
There needs to separate locations on commons category pages for interwikilinks to articles and categories. The labeling of those locations needs to be clear. Right now it just says "in wikipedia". Many casual viewers, and many editors, do not know what that sidebar section is for. Since the links are in other languages it is not obvious what is being linked to.
The section needs to be clearly labeled with something like this: "Links to CATEGORY of the same name in other-language wikipedias". On commons article/gallery pages we need to decide whether to link to articles or categories on other-language wikipedias. I believe it makes more sense to link to categories since that is where similar images will be found. Similar to the commons gallery images.
If we also want interwikilinks to articles, then we need a separate location on the sidebar, and it needs to be labeled with something like this: "Links to ARTICLE of the same name in other-language wikipedias". --Timeshifter04:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshifter, I'd say the majority of categories on commons won't have a corresponding category on the wikipedias, because while we might have hundreds of images on a narrow topic, it's rather unlikely that the 'pedias will have hundreds of articles on a narrow topic. The wikipedia links generally serve as a way of directing our audience towards an article that explains what they're looking at. If there are categories of images on the wikipedias that are not on commons, the best route would be to just upload these to commons (commonshelper was developed for just this purpose).
By the way, Juiced lemon is being at least as civil as you are, Timeshifter (if not considerably more so), but frankly this discussion belongs on the Village Pump, as opposed to J.l.'s talk page. Would one of you mind perhaps starting a thread? --SB_Johnny | PA!20:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have promoted this new way to link Commons categories for months, but now it is a custom practice, because most users realize the advantages to get more links about matching subjects in the Wikipedia projects.
Just because you, Juiced lemon, have been using a personal system for months does not mean it is a new standard for the commons. I only recently noticed your changes in this area on the many categories and images I watchlist. --Timeshifter11:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SB_Johnny. If you read some of the other talk sections here you will see that Juiced lemon has been very uncivil recently with me. Many admins on the commons have pointed out this incivility to him. This is rude: "If you don't want to follow our Commons rules, find an occupation in another project." One, it is not Juiced lemon who makes up the rules, and two, it is not Juiced lemon who tells people to leave the project. Juiced lemon is not an admin, and even admins have to go through procedures.
I have no problem if this thread is copied anywhere, if it is not a problem with Juiced lemon. But Juiced lemon does not seem to want to do this. Probably because he can't just impose his will on notice boards, etc.. He has had a lot of problems at notice boards, etc..
To the topic at hand... Juiced lemon is changing a longstanding interwikilinking system on his own, and messing up the interwikilinks on many categories. If the Village Pump or other notice board reaches consensus to change this longstanding methodology, then fine. But Juiced lemon can't just change something so major by himself.
People can't upload images to the commons if they can't find them. To me that is the best purpose of the category interwikilinks. Plus one can't find the equivalent categories easily any other way. Linking only to the articles in other languages means one has to go to the bottom of the article and decipher the meaning of the categories listed at the bottom of the article. Categories in other languages.
I actually agree with you and Juiced lemon that we also need a second sidebar section to articles with the same name as the category. But that would be a major change. It would be an ADDITIONAL sidebar section. --Timeshifter11:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are using spurious argumentation. Many other users link Commons categories to articles. The links to only categories was consistent with an old and obsolete conception of Commons organization, when media files were supposed to be in galleries, while the categories were only a way to access to galleries.
This conception was clearly incompatible with classification operations, considering the growth of the size of Commons database. Therefore, there is no more reason to restrict interwiki links to categories, above all a lot of classification errors are the result of ignorance about the concerned subject: informations are in articles, not in categories. --Juiced lemon11:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Till now, I have not seen any convincing argumentation for one systematic approach above the other. So I'd suggest not to waste our energy and destroy the work from the others: if there is an interwiki link, just leave it as is till we can agree on a sensible and systematic approach. --Foroa16:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the purpose of the commons was to find images, not articles. Therefore all interwikilinking should serve that purpose first and foremost, I would think. Categories are the best way to find images. Related images can be found in subcategories. For example; I see native English speakers drilling down in interwikilinked French categories in order to find more images to upload to the commons. In order to use those images on English wikipedia in articles in the same category.
It is also useful to look for the few images found in the article of the same name in other languages.
I would like to see 2 sidebar sections labeled:
Article interwiki links.
Category interwiki links.
Then people can leave both types of interwikilinks. The MediaWiki software could be adjusted to automatically separate the 2 types of interwikilinks into the 2 sidebar sections.--Timeshifter18:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When an image is uploaded in any Wikipedia project, we can assume that it has not been uploaded in Commons. We don't need any human operation to notice that. We only need human operations to check eligibility of these files for the Commons database. Therefore, interwiki links have no utility to find new images.
The MediaWiki software don't sort or filter the interwiki links. Hence, you can create as many lists as you want with articles, categories, duplicates, if you like the mess.
Because I prefer order, I promote the most complete ordered list without duplicates (article+category). Links to categories could be tagged with a special symbol. --Juiced lemon20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is no reason why both article and category interwiki links can't be used. They should be alphabetized though. Then people will more easily see when there are both types of links. For example; the English article link will be next to the English category link in the interwikilink list. It would be nice if articles or categories could be tagged with a special symbol. The MediaWiki software would have to be changed.
Images on other-language wikipedias can't be found by many editors without the interwiki links. People natively speaking that language may know about those images. But editors who are not native speakers of that language will not likely know of those images without the interwikilinks in the commons allowing them to view the images in the same category on an other-language wikipedia. So if they don't know about them, they can't upload them to the commons. --Timeshifter22:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was not intended to be vandalism. Don't you think, the categorization would be correct the other way round? I think, all the history of e.g. Montenegro belongs to the history of the Balkans. But the whole history of the Balkans is not part of the history of each countries. This means, Category:History of Albania, Category:History of Bulgaria, Category:History of Greece, Category:History of the Republic of Macedonia and Category:History of Serbia should all be placed in the Category:History of the Balkans - but not vice versa. This would IMHO be logically correct. FelixReimann08:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've tagged several categories to be renamed from Railway stations in... to Train stations in.... The term "train station" is generally considered incorrect in British terminology, therefore I think Category:Train stations in the United Kingdom and all sub-categories below should be renamed accordingly. I don't know whrther Commons has a British/American use policy, but the (equivalent in English Wikipedia) (where I suspect most of the photos in these categories are used) would certainly justify this. I've been meaning to bring this up at Categories for discussion for some time, but have been too busy in recent weeks. – Tivedshambo(talk)22:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Universality principle in Commons:Naming categories: we should not use different names to point out an unique subject. Hence, either we keep Category:Train stations with all the subcategories named accordingly, either we rename it Category:Railway stations (and we'll rename the subcategories).
The title of the English Wikipedia article is Template:W article, and they were discussions about it in the talk page. Otherwise, in dictionaries, I find station, railway station, railroad station, but not train station. So, I don't want to favour this last term, but we have to standardize the category names in Wikimedia Commons.
Don't know. You? Juiced, I am disappointed by your behaviour.
In your above comment and on your user talk page you all but accuse me of making a nuisance out of myself for no reason, and behave like I had kicked you in the shins out of spite! I agree in retrospect that I should have discussed the move beforehand ('Be bold' DOES apply, though - sometimes comments on talk pages here get no answers even after months - it's not Wikipedia). In my defense I did not re-move anything after it was reverted, I started discussing with you and the other admin who reverted me. And all it gets me is a 'bugger off, pest' from you.
"By the time of the 2001 Australian census, this number [Maori in Australia] had grown to 72,956.
"between 1986 and 2001, Maori emigrated to Australia at a considerably faster rate than white New Zealanders."
"...this concern notwithstanding, Maori emigration has greatly outpaced return migration, to the point where "if current demographic trends stay the same, within a few decades perhaps one third of all Maori could be living in Australia."
So obviously there is a pretty sizable and growing group of Maori who are not IN New Zealand, and increasingly, as young kids are born overseas, not even FROM New Zealand, except historically. There are also discussions about building marae's in Australia, as they eventually will be. Then, categories like Category:Maori buildings will become incorrect as subcats of Category:Buildings in New Zealand etc and will have to be renamed Category:Maori buildings in New Zealand....
I will also point out again that I was not seeking to create empty categories. I was trying to get the name of the existing cats changed to reflect that they all point to NZ Maori, which would help ensure that future sorting will be into the correct categories. You can disagree with me as to whether that name change is necessary NOW - but I would appreciate a bit less defensive reactions from you - whether or not you have to deal with that kind of thing all the time or not. Thanks. 222.153.9.9720:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PyramidenSteine
Hello Juiced lemon.
The Image:PyramidenSteine.jpg is of the western face of the pyramid of Khafra, in Gizeh, recognizable by the granite stone fragments, and because the first steps are of natural rock carved.
I am an architect; I have been in Egypt three times; I have seen it personally; and I participate actively on wiki.es
"Warning: Stop vandalizing categories about constellations and Western astrology signs. If you remove again usefull categories, I'll request administrators intervention. --Juiced lemon19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
Quisiera creer que existe mayor raciocinio que argumentar con base en ataques personales, pero tal parece que se estila usar una y otra vez el calificativo de "vandalismo" y la amenaza de los administradores. Por lo demás, haz lo que quieras; dudo que algún administrador considere que las constelaciones del zodíaco son una categoría taxonómica. --200.40.88.18221:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have already been warned by other users that your changes were inappropriate. The classification in Commons Wikimedia is not similar than in other Wiki projects. So, don't disrupt the organization and make sure that you are doing is correct. --Juiced lemon21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ese es el problema, justamente, la costumbre de acusar de vandalismo en vez de actuar en base a algún argumento racional. No me parece ético que hagas tu acusación porque otros la hacen (y supongo que otros la hacen porque la haces tú?) pero, como te digo, no creo que se pueda razonar nada cuando lo que se estila es hacer ataques personales. Dejo el tema en manos de un administrador [10]. --200.40.88.18221:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tone it down!
Juiced lemon, you're definitely moving towards trouble again right now (and I'm sorry I haven't given you warning until now, but I've been busy in real life and on other wikis). Calling people "vandals" when they're actually just having a content dispute with you is a serious breach of civility, so you need to try to just discuss the issue with them rather than dismissing them from the start. We talked about this earlier in passing, but please be clear that I consider this to be a very serious breach of civility, poisonous to the spirit of collective work and respect we need on commons, and will absolutely block you if you cross this line again.
Accusing people of "ruining commons" is also inappropriately shrill, and I will consider that to be the same thing of accusing someone of vandalism.
You've really made an impressive effort of reaching out to people and helping them understand the category trees over the last couple months, but when you approach others in this manner you're really putting your reputation (not to mention your value to the community) in jeopardy. Please try to be more thoughtful and considerate, because if you can't do that I will need to step in as a moderator again. --SB_Johnny | PA!22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't call people “vandals”. I am looking for means to protect the structure of the Commons database. This structure becomes more and more sophisticated, but also frailer. In Commons, we have not a sufficient team to control most edits. If a link is removed or corrupted, it will take months (sometimes years) to repair the damage, unless the edit is immediatly reverted.
Wikimedia Commons cannot continue to work like an Wikipedia project. This project is rather similar to a software project, because most people don't realize the effects of the changes.
If I had not reverted this edit (by user:200.40.88.182), the Aries constellation couldn't be found in Category:Constellations anymore. Such situation generally leads to the creation of a duplicate category.
I understand your concern, but the people you are accusing of "vandalism" might not. Please just slow down and explain things rather than accusing people of ill intent.
Hi Juiced lemon,
I've seen your recent edit on Commons:Bistro and discovered that you have very good French skills :)
May I suggest you to add a {{Babel}} template on your personnal page and/or on your talk page, so that other contributors know your language skills? I guess that you are here before the template was created :)
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo(discuter/talk/hablar/falar)09:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization
I notice that you are adding incorrect categories to uncategorized files, like in
this edit. If you are unable to find better categories, I strongly advise you to stop any classification activity in this project.
Competent users have other occupations than the correction of your glaring errors, and the cleaning of categories you have cluttered: classification is not for dilletantes. --Juiced lemon19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The heading above is the reason: treating other contributors in that way is absolutely unacceptable, and you have been warned repeatedly about this sort of thing before.
You are blocked indefinitely until you can agree to be civil in the future, including specific points about how you will approach conflict in the future. I appreciate the work you do categorizing, but (again) your price is too high. I will open a discussion on the admin noticeboards and try to get more people involved in drawing up a plan for you. --SB_Johnny | PA!16:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Treating other contributors as you are treating me is UNACCEPTABLE. Therefore, there will be no agreement with you as long as you retain an harassment behaviour.
I have no conflict with the user above, and my message was perfectly justified. I could have used a more diplomatic wording, but my message was not impolite. Your action is improper and disrupts the dialogue with this user. I have not yet answered to him, because I wanted to complete the organization of the Messier objects beforehands. That was done on 01:03, 6 December 2007 (my previous edit). --Juiced lemon17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salut, tu m'écrivais : je viens d'être bloqué indéfiniment (...) et tu me demandais mon aide.
En fait, j'ai vu le message de SB_Johnny sur le bulletin des administrateurs, ainsi que d'autres messages à propos de ton comportement que certains trouvent problématique, et je suis cette affaire avec intérêt. Ce n'est apparemment pas la première fois que tu communiques de manière qui peut être perçue comme plus ou moins abrupte avec des nouveaux.
Je ne me prononce pas sur la validité du blocage, et par conséquent je ne tiens pas à m'aventurer à te débloquer sans en avoir au préalable discuté avec les autres administrateurs.
Ton implication dans le projet est énorme, et j'espère que ce qui t'arrive ne te découragera pas de continuer. Bien catégoriser les images est effectivement une tâche cruciale ! Cependant, je crois qu'il est essentiel que chacun d'entre nous contribue pour partie à "éduquer" les nouveaux, en les guidant et en discutant avec eux. Ceci permet autant d'aplanir les différents points de vue sur la manière de procéder, mais aussi d'en comprendre les critères sous-jacents. Je ne peux donc que t'inviter à plus de modération dans tes prises de contact avec des personnes qui ne catégorisent pas de la même manière que toi, et t'encourager à les aider de ton mieux à comprendre le "category scheme" de Commons. :)
That wasn't my doing. Regarding my categorization: I think it was justified. A sundial is an instrument using astronomy/geometry to timekeep. Now, please come back and edit, make a deal with SB_Johnny et. al., and regain your right to edit! For my part you're forgiven. Rursus17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your friendly message. I started a discussion in your talk page precisely because you think your categorization is correct.
Unfortunately, the documents which explain how to categorize files are not very clear. Regarding the sundial, the file would be put where other people are supposed to search it.
People who search sundials write “sundial” in the search field, then they find easily the Sundial gallery and the Category:Sundials category.
There was no suitable subcategory for Image:Sundial (PSF).png, so I have categorized directly in Category:Sundials. In the same category, you'll find also a .svg version of the same drawing.
The shared features of sundials are used to categorize properly the category Category:Sundials. So, the files in Category:Sundials or “sundial” subcategories would not be categorized according to these shared features. Extra categories may regard only specific features.
If we don't proceed in this way, the main categories would be cluttered up with unsorted files, and the browsing in the database would be very slow and difficult. --Juiced lemon18:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Post office in Villa Las Estrellas, a settlement on King George Island
Hi Juiced lemon, may I trouble you with a question related to categories? While sorting some so far uncategorized images of King George Island, I came across this post office at Villa Las Estrellas, a Chilean settlement on an Antarctic island. I've already put this image into a newly created category for this village (which in turn has been put into a newly created category for this island). But I wonder how to put this image best into the category tree of post offices.
The above referenced category for post offices consists so far just of country-wise subcategories plus a sub-category fulfilling the same purpose with some additional countries. There are so far no post office subcategories for Antartica. I have the following questions:
Should this image be put into a subcategory Post offices in Chile as it is an Chilean post office? But it is not really in Chile, even if it belongs to Chile.
Should this image be put into a subcategory dedicated to post offices in Antartica? But where to put such a category? This category should surely not grouped with by-country-categories, should it?
Or, giving up on this strange case, should I simply dump it in the top-level post office category?
And finally, how is the current inconsistency best resolved? Shouldn't all post-office-in-country-categories be moved into the by-country-subcategory even if it will be the only subcategory of the general one to be open for other criteria?
Anyway, as strange as this case might be, I hope to learn more about the category system through this case. Thanks for your help, --AFBorchert21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this image wouldn't be put in a subcategory Post offices in Chile. However, Category:Post of Chile suits, since this category don't depend on the location: a postal system includes also the mail from embassies, ships, military units abroad, etc.
There are notable inconsistencies in our classification system, because we have categories for a specific location which are categorized in categories related to national origin. As long as people can find what they search, I think we have to adapt ourselves to this approximative logic. --Juiced lemon22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Give it a quick check in case I made a typo somewhere... Cheers! Siebrand 22:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
, more you had categorized this image in Category:Penguin icons ([5]). --Juiced lemon 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
September 1918: A Light Armoured Car patrol
M8 Greyhound armored car
Alvis FV 601 Saladin armored car
AMX 10 RC (Not in the armoured car category but described as an armoured car in its wikipedia page.)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Nicolas_Sarkozy_-_09FEB07_-presidencia-govar.jpg&diff=8051753&oldid=7606586){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Slackware-mascot.jpeg&diff=prev&oldid=8132127){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
