User talk:Ayacop/temp

But...

If the picture is removed from the gallery, who will move it to the right category? Probably no one. So this doesn't seem like a very certain solution to me.

Also creating a parallel category structure just to appease people -- it seems like we need to work on solving that conflict rather than just pushing it to the side. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK pleasing people is hard. I am more worried about the first problem. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific as to why you want to remove pics from a species gallery? I'm watching hundreds of these galleries and this has happened only until now because the pic itself got deleted, or someone improved the identification by putting it in the right gallery. -- Ayacop 14:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What if the gallery is very huge, and someone cleans it up, deciding some image is too low quality?

OK I realise I'm not making very good arguments. :) I will think about this some more. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cross-posting this from another page, so as to put it on the record if this is now intended to be the discussion page:

People will browse the plant categories, and when they come to Proteaceae, they will discover that there are two categories, Category:Proteaceae and Category:Proteaceae (indexed). They will wonder why there are two categories, and they will wonder why the latter category has such a strange name, and the answer will be that it has to do with internal maintenance procedures. In this way we damage the user experience in order to make out own work easier. I'm opposed to that. Snottygobble 12:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes... it will mean that there's no way to view all images in one category... is that correct? They'll either need to view 2 categories, or one category and (at least) one gallery. Which seems to reduce the functionality of the category as a "catch-all" collection of absolutely everything. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The familia is in any case the catch-all. The problem was that with more than 200 images, subcategories are no longer shown 'all first'. You pointed me to this grave bug, remember? Also, had the above poster cited everything from that discussion you could read my answer on it:

Why should, for example, people be confused by Category:Unidentified cacti or Category:Cactus collections in Category:Cactaceae? If you mean the word 'Indexed' is something only used by this project and, thus, difficult to understand, then I propose Category:Cactaceae in galleries or Category:Archived Cactaceae or one of the many choices I mentioned previously on this talk page. I even like the simple Category:Cactaceae photos, as there will be most of the photos of the family collected in this one place. Confusion is not an argument if the name is worded right. -- Ayacop 17:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. (I do like 'X in galleries' better, it seems more obvious to me.) But basically the thing is: you want some way to identify which images haven't yet been sorted, right? Why not create a template called {{TOL}} and put it on images when you sort them [that is, put them in galleries]. Then, to find unsorted images, use CatScan on the category, with 'TOL' filled out in 'for pages by template', and choose 'inverse (unsorted only)'. Then it will only show you the images from the category that don't yet have this tag... right?

You could either make the template more or less invisible (like & nbsp ; ), or else put a small advertisement for TOL: This file has been sorted by the Tree of Life project. You can help!

With this approach you can even search the subcategories as well, to any depth you like.

Is there something I have missed? (Quite likely.) Would this work? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I am quite excited. I think this proposal will work perfectly for you. The only problem I can see is that the toolserver quite often suffers lag. But since that is something that affects us admins in image deletions, I think maybe TOL can deal with it too. :)

This generally won't help with bringing subcategories to the front. I think that will still have to be done manually with * or @ searchkeys as is sometimes done at the moment. That is really a true MediaWiki bug. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 18:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Using * for subcategories is a new idea for me, and I have verified in Category:Unidentified plants that it works except, as you can see, that one has to give an additional string to get it alphabetically sorted. The only (IMHO minor) disadvantage is that there are no subsections named 'A', 'B', 'C' etc. but people cope with long indices elsewhere too.

Work around that bug

OK. From the previous subject, we don't need an additional subcategory, at all, as the mentioned bug can be worked around mostly. The next question would be which of the alternative solutions to chose:

1. using |zz or similar for gallery images to move unindexed ones to the top --- probably one delimiting image would be needed to separate indexed from unindexed ones (proposed by User:Juicy Lemon, separation image idea by me). For an example how this would look like, please see Category:Caprifoliaceae.
2. using a {{TOL}} tag in conjunction with toolserver to find unindexed images (proposed by User:pfctdayelise).

One difference would be that using toolserver can give you ALL unindexed images in the family (including subcategories), and it gives you links without the need to download even a thumbnail, good for speed.

Ah, what do we do with the problem of both categories and galleries of a species showing if uploaders put their image in a species category? Such categories would still have to be removed or moved somewhere else. But maybe people are less angry if one replaces their species category tag with the family or genus category tag. That should do. -- Ayacop 09:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That should do. No it shouldn't. The disputed rule that we don't categorise below familia level goes together with the disputed rule that we don't categorise images that are in galleries. If we implement the former but not the latter, then familia categories will grow ridiculously large. A category with 10000 entries that we can't subdivide because of a ridiculous rule is worse than having no categories at all.

Besides, both categories and galleries for a species won't show up together, because if there is a category for the species, then the species' gallery will be in the species' category. Snottygobble 11:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I still have problems understanding what you say, really. There never was a disputed rule about subcategories of families, we have a lot of those in the database, please see, e.g., Category:Fabaceae or Category:Poaceae. There are also galleries with species. I personally am with that vote favoring a mixed system until there is a merged system. Just don't jump at me because I' m adding that {{TOL}} tag to your pic. So, what's your opinion on 1 or 2? -- Ayacop 15:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies for the misunderstanding re: not categorising below familia level.

Weakly opposed to 1. No objection to 2. I expect I'll quite like 2 actually. Snottygobble 01:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, great. I was sure there was a better solution available. ;) LifeBot will still be very useful in inserting the template. I suggest not leaving it blank, because people might remove it, not understanding its purpose. Also TOLers should be careful not to subst: it, because then this method obviously won't work. I suggest publicising this idea to all the people who previously commented on LifeBot et al, and unless there are any objections (I can't think of any, but something might have escaped me), it can probably get started pretty soon. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I'll be writing something up for ToL the next days. Have a nice weekend. -- Ayacop 06:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)