Commons:Village pump/Archive/2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search
Village pump (Archives)

2004: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 2005: 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 2006: 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 2007: 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 2008: 52 | 53 | 54 |

This is an archive. Do NOT post here.
If you want to restart an old topic, copy the entire topic to the Village pump and add your post like you would normally.

Contents


Other langages

I have a very simple question : How do commons will handle other languages ? Will the categories have their counterpart in other languages ? I use to put a lot of images on my localized wikipedia version, using its categories and puting a localized description, how can I do for commons ? Must I traduct the categories and add them as new ones ? What about the software interface ? Nojhan 13:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Still very much undecided, I think. Pages like the Main Page have duplicates in different languages. Commons:Picture requests has the instructions duplicated in multiple languages, but the requests are on one page (see Commons talk:Picture requests). The categories itself are tough. For biological stuff, the w:Binomial nomenclature is the way to go, since this is universal in all languages. Currently, most other image pages and category names are in english, as this seems to be the lingua franca, and many editors here speak it as a first/second/third... language. The image pages should be crosslinked to the pages in the different wikis. (see e.g. Toilet, which is linked to en, de, nl, ja, sv). Personally I would prefer latin names for biological stuff, and english names for everything else, with possible redirects if needed. Also, names for places and people could be using the native name (i.e. München over Munich), this would defuse a lot of edit wars we have on the english wiki, I think. -- Chris 73 00:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But it might as well cause others - do we put Brussels at Brussel or at Bruxelles? And it's even worse for rivers that might have different names at different parts of their flow. Nevertheless, I think I would be in favor of such a step. - Andre Engels 14:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ok, answers my question. I'll go ahead and start working on Roma, probably should make a redirect at rome. eean 03:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Feature request

Is this the appropriate place to request a new feature? My wish: I'd love to see which images are actually used in which wikis. It wont be easy, I guess, but I suppose it would be safer if using pages on other wikis showed up here. Else we start deleting stuff which are actually in use somewhere. TeunSpaans 10:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I prefer delete the images uploaded in other wikis instead of delete the Commons images (advoid doublettes, specialization principle). In othere words, the users only could upload images in Commons, instead of Wikipedia or similar Wikimedia Projects. And the wikimedia upload file link would redirect to Wikimedia Commons upload file.
I think the place to put this kind of request would be Bugzilla, but I'm afraid it's rather complicated - it means the commons database should be updated each time a picture is added or removed on another wiki. I'm afraid this will not happen unless we get a great database redesign. - Andre Engels 14:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I know it requires a new db table or at least a change to the existing db table with links. TeunSpaans 09:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think adding interwiki links to pages for each image at all wikis would be good for now. Ausir 21:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could you pls explain this? Do u mean that whenever a page on a wiki uses an image on commons, an interwiki link should be added to the image? TeunSpaans 09:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A proposal: Census in Babel

I'm wondered about how we are working, speaking each one different native and secondary languages. I wish to know what languages speaks anybody, for a better collaboration. I thinked to add some Categories to our user pages, for collect this information. It may be like that:

(at end of [[User:Pybalo]])

 [[Category:User es-3]]
 [[Category:User en-1]]

meaning this that User:Pybalo speaks an advanced(3) Spanish(es) and basic(1) English(en). Then, this categories may be grouped in a top Category:Users by language. What do you think? --Pybalo 12:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea and easy to do. It helps users to know in which language they can talk with another user. Great you're here, Pybalo. ;)--Javier Carro 16:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that idea as well, I'm new but working on the Spanish wikipedia so I might have some questions about topics here from now and again and it'll be useful to know who speaks my mother tongue :)--Anna 03:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too. So good in fact that i pushed ahead and created Category:User with some english and german subcategories. One difference: I made only two levels, (1) for users that understand and can respond to questions in this language, and (2) for users that can contribute and check spelling and grammar in the language. Please have a look. -- Chris 73 09:51, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think that 2 levels is not enough, but I am not sure ... I tried a "wikiexam" for levels in spanish. And added 3 templates for include this categories.

Template:(es-1) Template:(es-2) Template:(es-3)

In my user page, for testing I added Template:(es-3), Please, have a look, too --Pybalo 18:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Templates are good, better than just categories. I think 2 levels are enough, but i can also live with three levels if needed. Check Template:De-2 and Template:En-2. -- Chris 73 01:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nice boxes! These are really auto-explaining! I like it. It release my Categories' ugly names. I will update the Spanish templates... I think in 3 basic levels:
  1. Basic-Elemental. Can read and understood, but writing...
  2. Medium-Normal. Can read and write decently
  3. Advanced. Can resolve complicated or obfuscated expressions, like a native speaker or a lingüist
What level are you? And me? I think that I am en-1 or en-2, and es-3. --Pybalo 02:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, three levels, e.g.: Template:De-3Template:De-2Template:De-1Template:En-3Template:En-2Template:En-1. Also, if you put a bracket around your levels, e.g. "(es) Usuarios hispanohablantes ", it will be listed under "(" in the category. -- Chris 73

Ok! About breacket... Yes. The idea was split categories in "(", and the rest of user from A-Z. I don't know if it is important. Look at spanish categories... Javier is in J and Pybalo is in P: Add a PAGENAME variable to your template and "re-edit" your page for a nice indexing! I will update the spanish templates now... or in short time --Pybalo 04:22, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, I had touched too many templates to finish mi last proposal. I will explain why I changed or renamed some templates.
1. The 3 levels offers a good point for select candidates to a task, but was difficult see all the people that shares a language. For this reason, I added 2 level categorization in templates. For example Category:User en include all people that knows English, independently of level. As you see, we are in this "group" then we "can speak". This category includes, as sub-categories Category:user en-1, Category:user en-2, Category:user en-3, for selecting people for specific tasks
2. I was renamed Template:en-1 to Template:user en-1, because I was need a parent category, and I don't want to create a Template:en, this name can be conflictive in a future then i was choose "Template:user ...."
Please, sayme if it's all right or if I'm forgotting any important point. Bye! --Pybalo 06:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Looks all right and makes sense. Nice. -- Chris 73 13:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Important: :) In Commons:Babel you can get more information about creation and use of these templates. Thanks! --Pybalo 22:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Interwiki links from the commons can easily be made for example as [[en:Wikipedia:Village pump]]. However, how do you make interwiki links TO the commons, i.e. how do you interwiki en:Roald Amundsen to Roald Amundsen? [[commons:Roald Amundsen]] does not work. But I think it would be useful to link to a source of images related to a topic. Is this currently disabled (as for example with the klingon wiki), or did I just type it wrong? -- Chris 73 09:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can also consider making more prominent links. On the PL.wikipedia we use a template saying Have a look at the gallery "{{[[Commons:Name|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}" in Commons. I think it's a better solution than interwiki (interwiki link to Commons would probably be missed by most visitors). The template produces such box in articles:
http://www.hum.aau.dk/~tgsi02/files/galeriacommons1.png
The example is from pl:Korona duńska.
--tsca 11:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we could start a list here for people who wish to add such links to Wikipedias:
Actually, wouldn't this be a perfect use for a bot? Maybe as part of the interwiki link update bot? -- Chris 73 00:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
At this point not all galleries are worth linking to. Let's wait with that.
--tsca 01:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I think if we link the gallery, we would get more attention, and hence more uploads. But maybe we should wait until the guidelines on the commons and the integration in the wikis (i.e. image page copyright tags for wikis using common images) has been sorted out. The {{Commons|name_on_Commons}} tags also should include a note and a link to the commons stating that these images are free to use. -- Chris 73 01:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I like the idea of being able to make an interwiki link to Commons. Templates may be more useful on most articles, but for example with user pages such a link might be better. (On my user page at en:Wikipedia I could link to "[[com:User:Infrogmation]]", or however we decide to designate it. -- Infrogmation 06:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Extra page for each Image - Why?

Hi - I do not understand why an extra page should be created with a thumbnail of the image. What is this good for? Putting the Image-Page itself into Categories works find, and there is room for a description there, too. IMHO this is just another obstacle for using the commons, also it may well lead to confusion regarding the correlation of image name to page name.

BTW: I can't find that page that sais that you have to do this at the moment. Where was that? -- Duesentrieb 23:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The discussion is on this page, see section "No unused images". At the moment, this is still somewhat under discussion and a sort-of-policy. The reason is that images are best explained in a thumbnail. if you put only the image in a category, you will get only the image name, which may be rather cryptic, or in a foreign language (e.g. Image:冷枚-避暑山庄图.jpg). for the users it would probably be best to see the thumbnail. For the contributors, however, it is a bit more work -- Chris 73 13:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To me it would make sens to use a page to list different images of the same thing. Is that intended? If so, most categories should be applied to the page, but "type"-categories (like category:Photo, etc) shuold be attributed to the image-page, because there may e.g. be photographs and diagrams of the same thing, listed on the same page. -- Duesentrieb 21:02, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, pages are intended to be not for every single image, but for image galleries of the same thing/person/city/species etc. Ausir 21:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Naming of animal gallery pages

Is there a policy or guideline for the naming of gallery pages for pictures of animals? I started out creating english named pages, but User:Ausir pointed out, that latin (species) names should be used. User:Andre Engels created pages with the latin genus name. I think genus named gallery pages should suffice, species could be handled by subsections.

It depends - one of the other can be used depending on how many pictures of species of a particular genus we have. The main rule is that the latin name should be used. If a gallery is for an entire genus then redirects from species name should be created to. Ausir 15:42, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's true, sometimes the genus page is more effective, sometime is the species page. And some wikipedias has articles for a genus and hasn't its species pages or viceversa. And sometimes there is subspecies too. I am testing two new templates that, inserted at top of the latin named page, enables:
  1. Raw listing of genera, species and subspecies in one page. I expect that software supports this long list.
  2. Navigation to http://species.wikipedia.org and all the Wikipedias founded in Main Page
I think that it can help for collect the spreaded images in all Wikipedias.
The templates are Template:·Animalia genus and Template:·Animalia species. About the dot ("·") in the template name: It's a little trick to separate the templates from the species in the main list. Whay do you think about this? --Pybalo 21:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't see the advantage of this - what it does is linking the page to the same name on several Wikipedias. We have interwiki-links for that, which can also much easier be removed if the page does not exist or changed if it has another name. And why do this for genera and species, but not for people, cities or colors of the rainbow? Regarding the original question - it has to be decide on a case-by-case basis, although I think genera is usually the best. But sometimes it's the species level, or the family level, or even a level that is not a separate level in the binomial nomenclature (I have for example created zebra, feeling no need to have separate pages for the three species, but still wanting to separate them from the donkey and the horse) - Andre Engels 14:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my question. Concerning Pybalo's proposal I do not think, we should overdo the navigational and informational overhead of the gallery pages. Commons is not intended as a research tool but as a repository. If someone need an image (or whatever) for an artice, he already knows what to search for (let's say an image of Lemmus lemmus). It helps if there is some basic information about the picture in terms of categorization, common name, type of image. To provide interwikilinks or is nice but in no way necessary to fullfill the purpose of commons. We shouldn't clutter the gallery pages with information that is readily available elsewhere and would be redundant. Petwoe 15:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am agree in most of these points. Then, I can summarize some key points following your observations:
  • This templates are tagging templates. They only tag the pages as animal genus page, or animal species page.
  • Currently, these templetes add a common category(Category:Animalia, genera and species). I founded this category useful to create a fast index of "zoological resources in Commons". Depending on variable community needs and preferences, these templates are open to modification.
  • Additionaly, we can add (or remove, too) dinamically some extras utilities: Fast links to Wikispecies, scientific name entries on Wikipedias, or external public domanin resources. This is not a replace for wikilinks, it's a complement.
  • About Andre question, latin names for genera and species are shared entries between many wikipedias. Most of these entries are redirects to natural names. It's true that many of them are incomplete, but I think that Commons can be a good starting point to coordinate these resources. It depends of universality of names. On rainbow colors, somebody says red and other says rojo; on cities may exists more matches: en:New York, de:New York, es:New York. Person names may be the most shared of your examples... we can create a Template:·person name tagging template if you wish... ;)
I think that we are in the begining of Commons, and we need to collect resources spreaded in many wikipedias. Then, we can remove this navigational feature from templates. --Pybalo 20:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MIDI Files

I want to upload a MIDI file (a ragtime by Scott Joplin), but the system does not accept *.mid files. I read in the FAQ "What materials can I upload? Anything that can be used in the Wikimedia projects". Anything! --Plenz 20:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This was chenged due to problems with viruses embedded in media files (MSIE-problem). I hope that MIDI and SVG will be allowed again soon, as they are definitely important and copact formats, especially with the GFDL asking for "transparent source". So... please, anybody?! -- Duesentrieb 21:22, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC).
For sure, before Christmas ;) We need Christmas midi ( we could include links to midis in Wikipedia and the rest of Wimedia sister Projects.

Tags for insignia

I would like to have tag-templats that explain restrictions on images which are independet of the copyright status. Specifically, the use of official insignia is restricted, and users should be informed about this. In the german wp, we hava a template for this: de:Vorlage:Wappenrecht, which is widely used. Here is a draft for such a tag:

Note: This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such images is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here.


feel free do modify it. -- Duesentrieb 21:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

um, anybody? -- Duesentrieb 01:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe your suggestion is so good everyone just noods silently... I'd say be bold and do it. andy 08:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How about {{Insignia}} at Template:Insignia? Just made it. -- Chris 73 10:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

Български | Česky | Deutsch | English | Esperanto | Español | Français | Hrvatski | 日本語 | Português | Русский | ไทย | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | ‪中文(简体)‬ | 粵語 | Українська | +/-
Great, thanks! Mind if I change the colors? -- Duesentrieb 17:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
go ahead. Looks better now in yellow -- Chris 73 22:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikisource and Commons

It seems to me that Wikisource is made obsolete by Commons - it serves with the same function as the commons, but in only one medium - text. Surely it would be productive for both projects, and Wikimedia, for Commons to annex Wikisource. This would allow the userbase of both projects to expand - though I am not typically a contributor of Wikisource now, if I could upload documents to Commons, I no doubt would. Similarly, 'source users may not bother uploading images now, but if they could do so within the same project - they may well. It is also beneficial to the non-contributing user - far easier to find all kinds of media in one project than over several. In my opinion, the broader the Wikimedia projects the better. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 01:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great idea - one more reason for a single login solution... -- Duesentrieb 02:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd be happy with that. I have no experience as to what Wikisource is doing now, but it seems rather different from WikiCommons. For one thing, images are supposed to be included on Wikipedia pages, source documents are to be excluded (although I think we are too strict about that). I don't see much gained from combining the two, they simply work very differently. - Andre Engels 14:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also prefer it separately. we can always link to the wikisource, the same way wikipedia currently links to Wikisource or the Commons (ie. the {{commons|PAGENAME}} tag -- Chris 73 23:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Commons

The Category:Commons contains different language pages. How about using subpages Category:Commons-de, Category:Commons-en, Category:Commons-es etc for the individual language pages, and Category:Commons only for pages related to all languages? I gave it a start, please feel free to revert if you don't like it.-- Chris 73 02:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Linking of unused files

As per (ongoing) discussion above, there should be no unused images on the commons. I use Special:Unusedimages to find and place unused images. Now, the problem is with sound files: If they are linked on a page as [[:Image:la-cls-acervus.ogg|la-cls-acervus.ogg]], they show up as unused, and will soon fill up Special:Unusedimages. If they are linked on a page as [[Image:la-cls-acervus.ogg|la-cls-acervus.ogg]] (notice the missing colon), they are now used, but this displays on some browsers a "broken image" box. Are there any solutions to this problem? -- Chris 73 02:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes: You can link them as (or add a link as) [[Media:la-cls-acervus.ogg|la-cls-acervus.ogg]]. This creates a link which, when clicked, plays the soundfile. Perhaps the best would be to have both a Media and an :Image-link. - Andre Engels 23:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Country images

Do you intend to copy the Flag/Coat of arms/Location map images for the countries from en.wikipedia?

Currently on bg.wikipedia we are planning to update our country articles using templates and we can use the opportunity to change the image names (our local files have names in Bulgarian). May be there is a better way to upload these files than using our bots? --bg:Потребител:Nk

Please have a look at National insignia and category:insignia. Also, please mark images showing insignia with Template:Insignia to clearify their legal status: many of those images are not limited by copyright, but their use is still restricted by law.

Categories and Images - Important changes

Eloquence (who does a lot of coding of the wiki) just dropped me a line saying that "the current CVS version of MediaWiki shows thumbnails of images on category pages - that's why I don't bother to put them on separate article pages. 1.4 is likely to go final within the next two months or so". I.e. in two months all categorized images will be shown as thumbnails in the categories. In view of that, should we continue to put images on separate pages? This is more effort than simply slapping a category on an image, but makes recategorizing images easier, and allows comments to be added to the pages. With this new info, i am personally leaning towards categorizing images and not separate pages that contain the images. Comments? -- Chris 73 13:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Asked about next 1.4 on IRC #wikimedia ; answer :
nov. 09 15:00:18 <Angela>	no one knows for sure, but Brion has said he intends it to be out this year
Now we know that, it seems meaningless to create articles. Maybe we should focus on a consistant categories and sub-categories scheme. villy 14:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm a bit ambivalent on this one. For one, I don't want to lose what we have before the new is there, for another, I'm not sure whether automatic thumbnails will look as good as what we are making now - what will the descriptions look like, for example? On the other hand I do agree that the automatic hierarchy of categories would be a great improvement. - Andre Engels 14:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd say the articles have their use as well as good categories set for each picture. Especially the article allows to put a short discription on the picture - in the category even when the thumbnail is visible the description of what is shown (if it's not self-evident) needs to be looked up at the image description page, which can take some time for loading for higher resolution photos. andy 17:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if it is implemented that way, but I would suggest using the "pipe part" of a category-link as the title of the thumbnail: an Image-Page with the category-link [[category:Foobar|Quux]] would create a thumbnail with the title "Quux", either below the image or as tooltip. -- Duesentrieb 00:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The MediaWiki 1.4 is tested here. A category with images AND articles is here. The images are shown as thumbnails very nicely, but listed only with the image name. I tried piping a description to the image (e.g. the freddy image shoud say A picture of Freddy Mercury), but this does not work (yet). Overall it looks good, except for the image caption. -- Chris 73 01:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If this system is put in place, and if it replaces the need for separate articles, then I suppose the interwikis would have to go on the image description pages (image->article) and/or category pages (category->article; category->category). I've also been putting down "in other languages..." for languages that have not yet created articles to link to. But to emulate the very useful "multiple views of same object", article pages still seem ideal. Well, I suppose you could have a "dead-end category" called Category:Freddy Mercury with just Freddy. A-giâu 03:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, thanks to Chris, now that I've seen 1.4 test, I'm not convinced. This is the kind of thing that could lead to category pages full of unidentified pictures. Let's says we have a "gas engine" sub-category with pictures of various engines and closeups of different parts of engines. 1°) If the pictures aren't carefully named, we'll have no idea at all - even if properly categorized - of what each exactly shows; and remember we can't change a media file name 2°)The fact the caption doesn't seem editable is a pity too; again it will prevents to give important information about the picture. Not to mention the fact that separate articles are not doubt easing a topic search. So that actuallly, I support we keep on doing separate article pages, even with mediawiki 1.4. villy 07:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Important information that cannot be added to the image caption, will (should) be present in the image decription. But it's clear that an article per serie of images provide more flexibility. Greatpatton 11:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have added an request to the Bug Reports to allow for piped links/piped categories. Hope they will add that, in which case I would be all for categorizing images directly -- Chris 73 11:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete Image with wrong Name

Hello, i have uploaded an Image with the name "MartinskircheBeiNacht_Budapest.jpg", but it was the wrong name. The right name is "MatthiaskircheBeiNacht_Budapest.jpg". I have also uploaded the same Image with the right name. But how can i delete the old one? Thanks for your help --Firestarbl 14:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have deleted this image. In the future, please mark the wrong image for speedy deletion by putting {{delete}} in its description. Nadavspi 14:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, thank you. --Firestarbl 14:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Flags and Coats of Arms

I started uploading some flags and coats of arms and listed them on National insignia. Theres not much there yet, please contribute more national symbols!

Please mark images showing insignia with Template:Insignia to clearify their legal status. This will also ass the image to the category:insignia: many of those images are not limited by copyright, but their use is still restricted by law.

I have a question to the categorization, though: the primary purpose of category:insignia is to collect images that share the legal status of a legally protected symbol or emblem. In that, the category is similar to the copyright-categories and applies to images. On the other hand, we will probably have several pages besides National insignia dealing with insignia, like for instance on that collects the coats of arms of german cities, etc. Those pages should also be collected in a category - the question is: shall those pages be put into category:insignia? Is it ok to mix images and pages in one category? Or would it be better to have a category:ProtectedInsignia or some such for the images and use category:insignia for pages only?

Furthermore, it would make sens to have separate categories for flags, seals, coats of arms, etc, that would be sub-categories of cat:insignia. Should the images or only pages be placed in such a category? If only pages, we would have to create pages like Flags of Germany, Seals of the United States, etc to be able to categorize the images correctly... waht do you think?

Thanks, -- Duesentrieb 19:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pages by number of images

With the help of some folx of the en-wp, I created the page User:Duesentrieb/Pages by number of images listing the top-500 pages with the most images here. I think this could be helpful to find good galleries to link them to wp-articles. Maybe we could move this page to a more prominent location? Update it regularly? As i'm not an admin, i can't do this myself... what do you think? -- Duesentrieb 22:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neither can admin. You need to be able to do SQL-queries, and Admin SQL-queries have been disabled since February or so. - Andre Engels 23:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2"
Personal tools