User talk:Downtowngal

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
English: Welcome to the Commons, Downtowngal!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy.

Icon apps query.svg Getting help

More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Manecke 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Image:Hollywood_mural.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Hollywood_mural.jpg 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Mangostar (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

hanks for the comment... check this... you´ll probably like it... #REDIRECT [[1]]

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks!. It was interesting to get all views. Take care.--Ankara (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Noise_Reduced_Version_2[edit]

Hi, and thanks for the interest in the image File:Peilican.jpg on the above page. After the valuable feedback provided by contributers, I created my own noise reduced version of the file for consideration. Your feedback, if you have a spare moment would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Julielangford (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback on my talk page. all critique is welcome, and useful :) Julielangford (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Gran_calavera_eléctrica2.jpg[edit]

Sorry, am I he Adam you asked the same question to, and if so, have I managed to ignore you by accident? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Adam: No, I had asked this in connection with one of your FP submissions, why you chose that image out of the many available, and you answered.
Although Durova disagrees, I still think that every FP submission of a public domain work of art by an artist of some recognized status should be accompanied by a statement by the nominator as to why that image is particularly valuable. Otherwise, I can imagine someone, e.g., scanning and restoring every single Punch cartoon 1800-1900, or every Audobon print, and every one getting FP until people start getting tired of them - that is, the voters were voting based on prestige, or rarity, rather than the baseline set by the artist his/herself. I think the nominators should be the gatekeepers for this kind of art and only submit what they feel are the best of the best, and explain why. (Valued Images is different - they can submit every one to VI). Downtowngal (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing inappropriate about lodging a complaint when an editor attempts to bypass consensus and insinuate new requirements for featured picture promotion by individual fiat. You assert above that your action was a preventive measure against the prospect that too many Audubon prints might get nominated, with the rationale that it might bore reviewers. For two years I have been seeking even one Audubon print in a high enough quality digitized file to nominate, and have not yet obtained a single one. There is an outside chance with two institutions, which each own a first edition of Birds of America, who might be persuaded to provide suitable files. That won't happen anytime soon, and if we are lucky enough to get that it would be a major accomplishment, due to the value and rarity of the book (for decades now, dealers have been dismantling copies and selling the pages individually because they get more at auction that way). What Commons does have is a profusion of photographs of birds by amateur photographers. I don't regard that as a problem: we can promote as many of them to featured as meet the technical and esthetic merits. What is a problem, though, is when the double standard becomes so blatant that distinguished historic artists get placed on a quota system before their work is even available, while an actual profusion of digital photography on the equivalent subject progresses through the same process without restraint. Durova (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You are mischaracterizing my efforts to open a conversation among FP editors about what I see as a troubling omission in the FP guidelines as an attempt to change the requirements. How could I change them? It seems to me you are objecting to my bringing this issue to light. But in any case, the issue is moot - I have better things to do with my time. Downtowngal (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Hillsdale Avenue, Tenafly, New Jersey, circa 1913-1916.png[edit]

Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

  • Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
  • State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
  • If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
  • Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
  • Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Downtowngal!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 05:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the scanned postcards[edit]

I particularly like the ones from Birmingham. Estillbham (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Pilsen, Chicago[edit]

I noticed that you created the gallery Pilsen, Chicago without any images one minute before you created Category:Pilsen, Chicago, so I assume that it was an error. If that's true, then in the future, please hang the following tag on any file/article/gallery you create in error

{{bad name|the good name goes here}} as in this {{bad name|Category:Pilsen, Chicago}}

If it wasn't an error and you intend to add images to it as a gallery, then go to it and remove the {{bad name}} tag I put on it.

It's helpful when you create a new gallery without an images to put a note on it that you intend to populate it soon. And don't worry about the mistake -- we've all done it a few times when creating categories. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 15:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Bohdan_Khmelnytsky_Monument_in_Cherkasy_Ukraine.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Bohdan_Khmelnytsky_Monument_in_Cherkasy_Ukraine.jpg 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 file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

195.110.6.202 09:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

Hi there! Fellow downtown L.A. dweller stopping to send my regards on all the great photographs you've taken. It looks like you do a lot of traveling in the state -- glad to see you've brought back photographic souvenirs for Wikimedia Commons. Keep up the fine work! --Amineshaker (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in our edit summaries?[edit]

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in our edit summaries?

You removed material from Category:Second_Cup with the edit summary "Removed advertising text". I dispute that this was "advertising text". I request you return to the talk page and offer a more meaningful explanation for your excision. Geo Swan (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

calling for discussion[edit]

You left this message at Category talk:Second Cup and you removed some text I added to Category:Second Cup. You called that text "advertizing". Your message pointed to Commons:Welcome -- as if it justified your excision.

You and I are both experience commons contributors.

  1. I don't see Commons:Welcome proscribing text like that I added;
  2. I dispute your characterization that the text was "advertizing". I have no ties to Second Cup, and haven't ordered a coffee there in over a year.

In my opinion the general lack of introductory text in categories is a serious weakness. The problem is that good faith contributors look for relevant categories, think they have found one, think some image "obviously" belongs there -- however what belongs in categories is not obvious. Different contributors have different opinions on what belongs.

The result of the lack of introductory text is creep in the use of categories -- creep that wouldn't occur if all categories had introductory text to begin with.

Forgive me if I offer an example of the general problem that besets commons and wikipedia categories with an example from my pre-internet life. I used to be a member of a small food coop. This was in the days when both bulk stores and organic food stores weren't widely available, and most of our stock was either bulk or organic stuff.

We kept track of our stock on a rolodex. The plan was to have a 3x5 inch rolodex card for every item we carried. Every time we purchased more stock we would add an entry to the card with the date, amount, price. For several years my volunteer duty was to meet the truck that shipped most of our food, confirm the shipment contained what we ordered, and then update the record of our stock.

The cards were organized into broad categories. Sometimes I would have to add a new card for an item when I couldn't find an existing card. This wasn't always because we didn't have a card for that item. Even with a small rolodex, with less than 200 cards, I would sometimes fail to find an existing card when my idea of the obvious broad category for an item differed from someone else's idea of the obvious category.

When I started paying attention to the rolodex there were about a dozen cards in a category labelled "cereals", which contained Wheat, Oats, Barley, Millet. Adding oatmeal to the cereals category didn't seem much of a stretch. But then our supplier made available some organic prepared breakfast foods, organic equivalents to Cheerios and Cornflakes. After I stopped taking responsibility for the inventory someone else added a bunch of cards to the "cereals" category for these prepared foods. A year or so later yet another volunteer decided that grains obviously didn't belong in the same category as prepared breakfast foods, and they created a new category for "grains and nuts".

Chaos results when volunteers share the responsibility for adding items to a category, or adding new categories, when those volunteers don't use the means available to them to communicate with one another. That was true at the food coop, and it is true here.

I am going to repeat that I think it would be best if all of our categories had some brief introductory text.

Your note seemed to indicate you were answering some kind of question. Well, if so, where was this question. Geo Swan (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • The question is the one you asked above: What is the "more meaningful explanation for your excision"?
  • Wikimedia Commons is not very useful for the person who is searching for images. I directed you to the Commons:Welcome page because the mission of Commons is described there. I recall a discussion a couple of years ago (probably on Village Pump) where I brought up the difficulty of finding images and categorizing them correctly. Someone pointed out (I think this is what they said) that Commons is an image repository using software designed for an encyclopedia.
  • I agree that it isn't flexible enough. Lots of people agree. Unless a person has a really good command of English and knowledge of how things are categorized (to assist Wikipedia article writers to illustrate articles), they will have a hard time finding all the images that might be useful for them. However, that is the way Commons is designed. I am not the person to complain about it to. Any further discussion of making Commons more user-friendly belongs on the Village Pump page. I suggest you make suggestions there.
  • There is text permitted at the top of category pages. For example, see Category:Old photographs. The text tells the user what kind of images belong on the pages, and directs them to other categories that are likely to be useful to them. Other examples showing text that assists the reader in determining if they are on the right page are Category:Oranges and Category:São Paulo.
  • You will see that Commons convention is to only put text at the top of the page that assists the reader in determining if they are at the right category. The readers should be able to tell if they are at least in the vicinity of the right category by looking at the categories one level up, which appear on the page. The text you placed, I deleted, and you replaced on the page Category:Second Cup does not follow Commons conventions. I will assume you did it innocently and it is not "advertising" (which is what I typed, not "advertizing"). It should be removed. This kind of descriptive text belongs in Wikipedia and in the image descriptions, not on a category page. What you consider "informative text" is not necessarily what I would consider informative text. There would be no end to editing of these text sections of the category pages and people would take advantage of their existence to expand them to the length of a Wikipedia article, or longer.
  • One thing that is helpful and I think should be created MUCH more often is redirect pages, such as Category:Los_Angeles, as people from different countries use different default terms (e.g., British "wooden fences", American "wood fences"). There is always going to be some arbitrariness in what is chosen as 'the' category. Downtowngal (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Invalid javaScript in User:Downtowngal/common.js[edit]

Hi, if you have wondered why it doesn't work, just replace

== VisualFileChange script ==

with

// == VisualFileChange script ==

Kind regards (developer) RE rillke questions? 17:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

POTY 2011 - voting - 1944 NormandyLST clean.jpg[edit]

Dear POTY-voter, some helpful people made us aware of a mistake in our candidate list. We regret the inconvenience.

Therefore we will add your vote to Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/R1/Into the Jaws of Death 23-0455M edit.jpg after voting is over, if you do not disagree and it is not yet there. If you don't want to have your vote transferred, visit Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/R1/1944 NormandyLST clean.jpg and remove your vote, either by editing the page and removing exactly the line containing your username or clicking the button.

Yours sincerely -- RE rillke questions? 10:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


File:Anemopsis californica.jpg[edit]

I have renamed your photo Uleli (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC).



Afrikaans | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | eesti | français | עברית | हिन्दी | italiano | Lëtzebuergesch | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | norsk nynorsk | polski | română | русский | српски (ћирилица)‎ | srpski (latinica)‎ | slovenčina | svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | Tagalog | українська | +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!

Dear Downtowngal,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world!

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo
Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 02:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Category:Snow_on_trees[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Snow_on_trees has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

MPF (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"Never significant"[edit]

[2]: Are you sure it was "Never significant", as in you know what building it was and it was unimportant? Because it looked to me like a partially demolished former theater, and may well have a quite significant history. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't know for sure. The facade, however, looks like a commercial building or a small residential building, too small to be part of an originally architecturally significant building. I don't think we can assume that every building that looks old may be significant. In any case, the new building incorporating the facade is what is being photographed and at this point THAT is not a significant building. If you can provide the street address I can try to find out more. Downtowngal (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I was passing through for a single day so, no, I don't know anything else about the building. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of time & place category[edit]

Hello. What was your reasoning for removing "Category:1973 in New York" in this edit from a photo that the description indicates was taken in New York in 1973? The category seems appropriate to me. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For almost all the DOCUMERICA sets, the category "Photographer's name" and "197x in X location" will lead the Commons user to the same set of photographs. To save on categorization time, nstead of the "197x in X location", I decided to put a text link to the photographer's name in the closest meta-year category: see Category:1973 in New York for what I would like to do with all the DOCUMERICA sets. Downtowngal (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
If every single photograph by a particular photographer that we have or might potentially ever get under a free license were taken at a particular time and place, you might consider making "Category:photographs by [photographer name]" a subcategory of "Category:[date] in [location]". Personally I'd prefer to err on the side of caution (since most photographers were active at least on occasion in more than one place and in more than one year) and create subcategories - Maybe something like "1973 in [so and so County or region] by [photographer name]". (eg, perhaps a "Category:1973 in Old Forge, New York, by Anne LaBastille"?) I agree that when we get much more than 100 or so pix in a category it's usually useful to do some rearranging, but I think making sub-categories would be better than simply removing the photos from the relevant category (even if there is some hypothetical alternative way people might find the photo by other an other route). Other thoughts? Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the match may not always be 100%, but one way to handle it would be, for each involved photographer, to create a subcategory of the photographer called "DOCUMERICA set of (date) (location/topic) photos by (name)". Then the user would go to the photographer and see the set. I would still rather keep the photographer's name as the main pointer because the photos' individual categories could be quite different, and the name "DOCUMERICA set of 1973 Upstate New York photos by Anne LaBastille" is my interpretation of her project scope, which may not be correct. Ideally, there would be a list of 'project titles' or 'project scopes' for the DOCUMERICA series placed on the Wikipedia page and on the Commons DOCUMERICA page, but I haven't found one. Downtowngal (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Category mistake[edit]

An apparent category mistake in this edit. I can't say if the Mulkey Square neighborhood of Kansas City Missouri extends into Bonner Springs, Kansas, but I can certainly say that 1973 is a different year from 1975. I'm not sure what your were trying to do here, but as this was clearly wrong I reverted it. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Rationale was that this entire set by Kenneth Paik appears to be on the theme of "a neighborhood about to be destroyed for the highway", and as I don't live there and in addition the neighborhoods that do exist now may not have the same boundaries, I put the whole set under the photographer's name. I don't think it's worth time to refine the categorization of 40-year-old photographs, many of which are discolored. If someone from that area wants to, at least now they can find them all in one place. The date was a mistake: I would swear I saw a 1975 date on the one photo from the set I checked before making the category. I will move the entire set to "Mulkey Square in 1973". Downtowngal (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Beach_and_park_signs_in_California[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Beach_and_park_signs_in_California has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

— hike395 (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Subdivisions[edit]

Why have you removed this parent category? Orrlingtalk 03:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • It appears to me that the category "Subdivisions" is really a meta-category for the smaller geographical jurisdictions that a place can be divided into, such as counties, zones and regions. Americans use "subdivisions" to refer to (usually) rural pieces of land that have been divided into building lots for a large number of similar houses. I added disambiguation text at the top of the page to direct readers looking for those to "Land development". Not the best solution, so I welcome alternative suggestions. As to "road traffic lanes", I do not see how that fits into either of the two concepts of subdivision I have just described, or why it would be useful to any person looking for an image of a road traffic lane to have them available under "subdivision." I think "road traffic lanes" should be a subcategory of "roads" or some category of road engineering. We could be putting everything that's a subdivision of something in this category and I don't see that as useful. Downtowngal (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It's probably correct that readers won't start their search after a road-lane illustration by going to Category:Subdivisions. But at the same time, my sincere impression is that traffic lanes are in no way associated only by the engineering dimension but also - as accurate - by the fact that a lane of a road is clearly a result of a conscious subdividing-mindedness for that road. By far this has more relevance than, as you say, 'everything that's a subdivision of something'. I similarly tagged Category:Parts at Subdivisions, for the same logic (but have now reversed the direction...). I also created Category:Land lots, that is more realty-oriented. I'll be happy if you check it or add content to it. Orrlingtalk 21:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Downtowngal,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)