Category talk:Plaques

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Related discussions[edit]

See related discussion in Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/08/Category:Memorial plaques in the Czech language in Písek District. --Foroa (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kaganer (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Merging proposal[edit]

Category structure proposal[edit]

Proposal structure (Round 1)[edit]

Where is it located? What language is it written in? How is it made? What is it about? Who installed it?
Geography Language Technical types History Object Subject

by language

by shape


by material


by surface

  • ... (relief, flat, glazed, concave or convex etc.)

by way of drawing or inscription

  • ... (relief, engraved, exserted, metal-plated, burnt, type of colouring or print technology etc.)

by placing

  • ...(on the wall, on the pedestal or monument, on the frame, on a machine etc.)

by fixation

  • ...(screwed, welded, glued-on, hinged, incl. relief plaques as compact part of a monolith of stone, metal or concrete)

by type of content

  • ...(only inscription, only graphic, combined)

by referencing years


by by installation year


by historic periods (?)

by object / by theme

by installation body (initiators of the installation)

Unclear types

- who is a type?


Discussion[edit]

Unclear types[edit]

There are suggestions / explanations? --Kaganer (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified place[edit]

We should remember that Category:Plaques in unidentified place is not identical with Category:Plaques in unidentified country. There can exist also categories like Category:Plaques in unidentified place in Germany or Category:Plaques in unidentified place in Old Town, Prague. --ŠJů (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Standard commons naming is Category:Unidentified locations. This is scalable from the world over continent/country/region/state/province level to the city level.--Foroa (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You propose change this as Category:Plaques in unidentified location? --Kaganer (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
All true, but it is mostly a theoretical problem. I propose single Category:Plaques in unidentified place as default place for all plaques, not fully attributed to geography (known country, but unknown city; unknown country and city; non-existent or unintelligible city or country, ...). Normally, it should be empty, filled with bots and identified by fanatical users ;) Never will so many plaques in unidentified place in Old Town, Prague - so detailed categorization is not necessary. --Kaganer (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Language[edit]

The structure of the categories for monolingual plaques is needed, because, as example, in all from Ex-USSR countries (with different official languages) exist plaques in Russian. These categories will be included in the branch "Inscriptions by language". --Kaganer (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a questions how treat plaques in local default (official) language. One possible solution is that a typical country-category would be one of subcategories of the correspondent language-category even thought the country category contains also foreign-language and minority-language plaques (as regards ethnic-nation states with one specific and dominant language). The second possibility is that language categorization would be utterly independent and we will create subcategories like Hungarian-language plaques in Hungary, Dutch plaques in the Netherlands, Slovak-language plaques in Slovakia, German-language plaques in Germany, German-language plaques in Austria, English-language plaques in the United Kingdom etc. I think, the first possibility can be better for some languages and countries and the second possibility can be better for other ones. --ŠJů (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to just apply a category for the language a plaque is written in to every image and not mix that with location?  Docu  at 07:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess so as this avoids a large category matrix and maintains the current notation. Note that most language related categories are "English language" without dash. No need to introduce yet another way of spelling as in Category:English-language plaques in the United Kingdom. --Foroa (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the language category could be combined with the quotation template transcribing the text.  Docu  at 06:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Nice idea. Another idea - update {{Information}} (or {{Artwork}}?) template to adding "Inscription" field, it could be create independent translations of inscription. --Kaganer (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

By object[edit]

Categorization by object is very useful and needed but it can be very more complicated. Many plaques have a relation together to more objects: a person (persons), an event or activity, an organization, a building or place, a settlement... Typically, birth-place plaques are together to person and to building and to person's activity. The first step should be to group together similar plaques, metastructure of categories should crystallize later. --ŠJů (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If look "to birth-place plaques" as example, then "objects axis" for his is "to persons", no details. To building i means as "This building is architectural monument, builded in ... Protected by the government." or similar. To events - as "Here in ??.??.???? was proclaimed a Bill of Rights" ("to documents" also) or "First Congress of Soviets held here" ("to jrganizations" also). No details and intersections, as first step. --Kaganer (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

SJu created Category:Plaques by theme. This could replace the "Object" header in the above scheme.  Docu  at 08:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen. No, "by object" - more distinct category (all its sub-categories answer the question "plaque installed in honor of what / whom?"). "By theme" is less distinct, categorization criterion is not clear and blurred. Possible, "by object" will be part of "By theme". --Kaganer (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think "theme" is better than "object", but maybe "subject" would be even better. Currently "subject" is being used for something else though.  Docu  at 06:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I meant the "object / subject" dichotomy, no more reasons ;) Using "subject" to mean "topic" or "theme" seems to me a few confusing (in this case). If my view is understandable, I agree in advance with any pair of terms that there will be a consensus among English-speaking users. Be bold ;) --Kaganer (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it helps if we state which questions are answered by the categories. I tried to add some of them above. As the main categories are generally only applied to a couple of subcategories, not thousands of files, it can help to make them a bit more explicit.  Docu  at 10:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

By technical type[edit]

A technical typification includes more than only a shape and a material. We can make distinctions by the surface (relief, flat, glazed, concave or convex etc.), by way of drawing or inscription (relief, engraved, exserted, metal-plated, burnt, type of colouring or print technology etc.). Also placing and fixation can be relevant (on the wall, on the pedestal or monument, on the frame, on a machine etc., screwed, welded, glued-on, hinged, incl. relief plaques as compact part of a monolith of stone, metal or concrete.) Also there is a basic distinction between sheet metal plaques and cast metal plaques. --ŠJů (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ohh... :( All this is just clarifying... Added in the table. --Kaganer (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We also can categorize by type of content (only inscription, only graphic, combined). Plaque inscriptions can be categorized by typeface, graphics and images by style and technology (paintings, drawings, engravings, reliefs...). --ŠJů (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but i broke down on "inscriptions by typeface" and "graphics by style and technology" :-( This unreal. Maybe postpone for the future? --Kaganer (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a reason that categorization axis (types, directions) should be coincident with those for other objects categorization - for maximally unified category organization. --Kaganer (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Other suggestions[edit]

I like the structure proposed above, with a couple of comments: (1) It should be possible to categorise by when the plaque was unveiled and make this separate from the dates or years it is commemorating; (2) It is not always possible to find out what material a plaque is made of; (3) It should be possible to group plaques by who erected them as well (e.g. by some national heritage organisation, or a privately done plaque, and so on). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) There is a category scheme for "Monuments built in [year]" - whenever someone wants, one could always do a "Category:Plaques erected in [year]" as a subcategory of the monuments/year category (as long as they create a "Plaques by year" parent cat); (2) That's due to poor image descriptions, although we should make use of Category:Plaques by material (which I just created); (3) That would be a tremendous challenge to try and accomplish that by way of a category scheme, given how many different organizations there would be, especially in various countries.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I support all proposals above ;) Detailed:
  • (1) Maybe not "erected", but "installing"? Erected is ambiguous term... ("installing" added in proposed scheme above)
  • (2) Added "Plaques made from a unknownunidentified material" ;) Also i added similar categories in other esctions as "by default" purpose (for more useful bot's managing and chacking)
    thanks to Foroa for implement standard commons term
  • (3) Support, but only if exists user(s) who make "basic separation" on this attribute ;) Otherwise - let it be a root category like "Plaques by installation initiators" (please suggest more ability phrase) - but without intersections with geography and objects axis.
--Kaganer (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
(1) It should be "installed" as in Category:Plaques installed in (year), and Category:Plaques by installation year (or Category:Plaque installation by year) as the parent category; (3) Category:Plaques by installation body? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, updated. --Kaganer (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

General solution[edit]

This is an acceptable structure? Main purpose - more detailed classification of plaques. Ideally, each file should have a category from each of the "axes" (Geography / Language / Shape, Material etc. / History / Object). --Kaganer (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What to choose for the firts phase? For second phase? I plan to apply this experience for reforming another categories with city infrastructure and culture content.--Kaganer (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


Multilingual category description[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Foroa write: "We have to support up to 288 languages, but it should remain compact ...". Is there a common way for a multilingual descriptions of categories? I see a distressing lack of uniformity in this issue... Maybe use {{Translation table}} for short term translations and collapsible box as {{Multilingual description}} for more detailed explanations? This common internationalization problem, not?--Kaganer (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No time right now, but see already User_talk:AVRS#Rolling_stock for all sorts of techniques. There is also {{On Wikipedia}}. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/08/Category:Memorial plaques in the Czech language in Písek District. --Foroa (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
ohoho :( Category:Rolling_stock currently looks horrible in russian interface! I known {{On Wikipedia}}, but this is applicable for a very simple and clear cases, or for formal international system of terms (as latin species). And only if exists many interwiked Wikipedia articles for main category term (and if there is no article in your preferred language - how to add such in a description?).
If {{Multilingual description}} is general way for explained category descriptions - strongly need develop his as adding parameter marking the default language. That if there is no description in your interface language, show only English description (or that specified by default). Or bilingual (eng.+user interface). Do you agree?--Kaganer (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Not completely. As I stated {{Multilingual description}} needs minutes of additional work and tend to take ages before being filled up (most mld have only 3 to 6 languages filled up). Secondly, each documentation of a category should have:
  • Always have the English part, as this is the reference and should be comparable against the text in the user language.
  • By preference the part in the local language of the category (if applicable): If it is a Russian painter, the Russian text should be there. Not only as courtesy for the majority of its visitors, but equally for more natural verification of coherence between English and "native" texts.
  • Plus the text in the user language if different from the two previous ones.
All this would require substantial changes to mld, so I learned not to count too much on that. --Foroa (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Since {{mld}} is a universal pattern, any of its add-on to do so as not to destroy the current use. I intend to make a proposal to add a special option:
  1. show the English description, regardless of your interface language (if no - the notice requesting to add it);
  2. show the description in the language specified in the parameter like "topic related language" (and "preferred") - if it description is (if no - the notice requesting to add it);
  3. show the description of the language interface pollzovatelya (if there is, if no - the notice requesting to add it)
Total - maximum of three language to describe categories.
I myself will make a working code, and if there is no consensus for its implementation, will create a {{mldcat}} fork (for category using only).
✓ Done - created template {{mldcat}} (based on {{mld}}) - see test use in Category:Andrés Segovia, Category:Plaques (test for unexist description for preferred language), Category:Greece. --Kaganer (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
If I do this, can we consider this method as general way to categories documentation (in combination with {{On Wikipedia}} as a replacement for the list of interwiki) and with a full waiver of {{translation table}} ? --Kaganer (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the same could be achieved merely by changing the display of existing {{en}}, {{ru}} etc templates.
Interwikis should generally stay (there might not be that many if you are trying to do this merely for plaques. If you have a description (in any language), you can wikify it so some of its text links to the corresponding Wikipedia. I'm not really convinced about the usefulness of {{On Wikipedia}}. The same could be achieved by changing the layout of interwikis.  Docu  at 10:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
My last idea - not for plaques only, but for all topics. I am looking for a common way to unify the descriptions.
About interwiki on Commons:
  1. interwiki pane is rudiment; interwiki here are not supported by bots, as they have no place in Wikipedia; if you happen soon move to a centralized interwiki - then I suspect that there is also no place for the Commons
  2. interwiki fully duplicate of {{On Wikipedia}} panel functionality
  3. interwiki - below, and subtly; {{On Wikipedia}} pane - at the top and contains a recognizable Wikipedia logo
I am for the union of these mechanisms the most user friendly way ;)
I think it will be useful for this discussion, if I make an example of how I want to see multilingual category description - then its pros and cons can be discussed objectively. The current situation with multi-style methods (weakly-specified) I see as unacceptable. I think you have to make a mechanism that works for all issues (someone he did not like it, but it will provide all the necessary functions, and it can be recommended for mass use "by default").--Kaganer (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The main problem of {{on Wikipedia}} is that it displays language codes rather than language names. Even if Commons/Wikipedia contributors might be used to the codes, they are not intended to be displayed.
There are bots that do interwikis in Commons. They don't have to be done by hand, contrary to {{on Wikipedia}}. Obviously, tools for either solution could use improvement.
Maybe, but I have not seen their works. And certainly no bots that put in Wikipedias interwiki to Commons. That is the interwiki links system between Wikipedias and Commons is a one-sided and not supported it as a system. --Kaganer (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
In a standard category about a person (e.g. Category:Andrés Segovia), {{On Wikipedia}} seems quite pointless: why bother people with repeating the name of the person over and over?
I update description of Category:Andrés Segovia to three languages. Based on interwiki, I can add another 23 languages. It will be beautiful or useful, do you think? ;) --Kaganer (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
In any case, I doubt you will need many {{On Wikipedia}} for plaques.  Docu  at 04:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This off-topic, I agree ;) Not for plaques, for other cases. See more bellow... --Kaganer (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

{{On Wikipedia}} is not intended to replace or duplicate sidebar interwikis! I created it so people can link to articles on categories where all the interwikis go to Wikipedia categories. Rocket000 (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, the more discrete the better. They are useful for bots too to find corresponding wikipedia articles. But they are not captured by the search engines, so it might even be handy to have an invisible {{On Wikipedia}} ... As I stated, we have to find/define the documentation needs for three or four classes of categories. --Foroa (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, that "we have to find/define the documentation needs for three or four classes of categories". Who and where will start this work? --Kaganer (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Rocket000, I strongly welcome you to this little discussion ;) Who a differences between {{Translation table}} and {{On Wikipedia}} in relation to the categories, in your opinion? --Kaganer (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(I understand that the template {{On Wikipedia}} assigned to create links to "main" pages of related categories in Wikipedia, if interwiki linked to categories. But what prevented the use {{Translation table}}?) --Kaganer (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
{{Translation table}} can include synonyms?  Docu  at 11:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Not completely understood :( You mean a few links to one Wikipedia? Or something else? --Kaganer (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As in Category:Mbira, an item can have several names with some overlapping and/or differences in other languages. --Foroa (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
But this not case of use {{On Wikipedia}} (means as "Commons category linked to Wikipedia categories only")? As example, Category:Crystallography - why used {{On Wikipedia}} instead of {{Translation table}}? --Kaganer (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Personal preference I guess. {{On Wikipedia}} or {{lan}} is more user friendly (but unfortunately, all wikipedia references are repeated twice), more work to set up (and check) and contains only one link per language, especially useful when the IW's are pointing to categories. --Foroa (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's how I view the templates:

  • {{on Wikipedia}} - used only to provide links to Wikipedia articles when the side-bar interwikis go to Wikipedia categories.
  • {{translation table}}/{{lan}} - used for translations of the category name or for short descriptions (which may or may not include links).

-Rocket000 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Subtotal[edit]

First subtotal of partly off-topic' discussion above:

  • (1) Multilanguage description method for some category types is ambiguous.
  • (2) There are several tools for solving this problem, everyone has their uses (are used separately or in combination):
  • (3) There is no consensus on the universal method / tools / way of "right" multilanguage category description (maybe this is not necessary?)
  • (4) There is (I think ;)) of a universal consensus that we have to find/define the documentation needs for three or four classes of categories
  • (5) There is a view (as formulated by User:Foroa above), that documentation of a category should have:
    • (5.1) Always have the English part, as this is the reference and should be comparable against the text in the user language.
    • (5.2) By preference the part in the local language of the category (if applicable): If it is a Russian painter, the Russian text should be there. Not only as courtesy for the majority of its visitors, but equally for more natural verification of coherence between English and "native" texts.
    • (5.3) Plus the text in the user language if different from the two previous ones.
    To implement this view created template {{mldcat}} (based on {{mld}}) - see test use in Category:Andrés Segovia, Category:Plaques (test for unexist description for preferred "topic related" language), Category:Greece. See more detailed discission bellow.

--Kaganer (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Multilingual description update[edit]

Template update[edit]

To implement view above (5.1-5.3) created template {{mldcat}} (based on {{mld}}) - see test use in Category:Andrés Segovia, Category:Plaques (test for unexist description for preferred "topic related" language), Category:Greece. If this method is approved, I believe that need to modify MediaWiki:Multilingual description.js to place language selector not tough at the top of the page (in this case - was below the line, after preferred language). --Kaganer (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1. OK
2. OK only if it exists
3. Only OK if user language is not english nor local language and corresponding item does exist. --Foroa (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. This reply to (5.1)-(5.3)? But it's your conditions... I just created a template {{mldcat}} for their realization... I pointed out the use of test cases - they are good? We will use {{mldcat}} instead of {{mld}} for the categories? Or to offer to replace the code of {{mld}} to {{mldcat}} (the code is backward compatible, i.e. no needed changes anything, where the template is used). --Kaganer (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As a professional, you should know that nominal cases (top level requirements 5.1 --> 5.3) are quickly implemented. The exception handling creates the nightmares.
(5.2) Seems corrected mostly now. By preference the part in the local language of the category (if applicable): if specified as argument and if such a description exists. Is not foolproof when local language = English.
(5.3) Plus the text in the user language if different from the two previous ones. Works only correctly if the item exists in the user language AND the user language is different from English and the local language. Currently, everything is displayed whenever a language is specified that is one of the preceding ones or when the item does not exists in the specified language. --Foroa (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I are saw problems :( Well, let this be a test prototype, not fully working solution.
  • (5.2.) is little improved (if "local" language = English, shown only one English string).
  • (5.3.) All other problems - because not everything can be done through text template. Main show/hide functionality functionality is contained in the .js script (MediaWiki:Multilingual description.js). Without script rewriting, I can make it so that below the line will always be a one string corresponding to the user interface language (or selected in the box), but if the description in this language has not been defined, it will contain the notice text from {{Mldcat/notice}} (also multilingual). But in this case if user press "Show all" button, below the line to see the full list of languages available in the template (with defined text or notice message). You want to see this version?
Script update (or fork create) - is more difficult issue. To know that this work is not wasted vain, it would be a principle decision that this way is right, and we are really going to replace the {{mld}} for using in categories. You agree / oppose? --Kaganer (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Script update[edit]

As the script should behave if the description in the language of the user interface does not exist?

  • а) Do not show anything below the line
  • b) below the line show one string with the message from {{mldcat/notice}} (with remark for user interface language)
  • c) ?

?--Kaganer (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer b. But certainly not everything. --Foroa (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, i means one string. Updated... --Kaganer (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
At least for me, currently it doesn't collapse anymore even if the interface language is "en".  Docu  at 03:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Just for the English interface language - this is a problem that requires .js script update ;) I have temporarily returned to the template text to a "standard" form (as in {{mld}}), so now (before the .js change) for the English interface will be duplicated description below the line. --Kaganer (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
At some point, it worked. BTW, I'm not sure if the (current) category description for Category:Andrés Segovia as it mainly repeats WP. A tab to WP could do the same. Category:Plaques is a better as it explains what goes in the category.  Docu  at 16:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Historical information signs et al.[edit]

Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/07/Category:Historical information signs --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)