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:Village pump/Copyright.
|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
- 1 Tip: Categorizing images
- 2 File:Flockyarn.JPG
- 3 Please read COM:OVERCAT
- 4 Removing "unidentified" categories
- 5 Removing flax category context from images
- 6 Autopatrol
- 7 waste container
- 8 Category:Pictures and images
- 9 Please don't replace unidentified categories with already identified location categories
Tip: Categorizing 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.
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:
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]]
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.
- Image:P4210004.JPG was uncategorized on 13 April 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Image:P4210003.JPG was uncategorized on 13 April 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Image:Novelty yarn.jpg was uncategorized on 8 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Image:Texturized yarn.JPG was uncategorized on 15 October 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Image:Torsiomètre.jpg was uncategorized on 30 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? 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. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 17:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Please read COM:OVERCAT
- Ha, ik zie dat je een snelle leerder bent. Een textielspecialist is hier zeker meer dan welkom. --Foroa (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Het aanzetten van HotCat en Cat-a-lot in menu "my preferences/Gadgets" zou je wel veel kunnen helpen. Beste. --Foroa (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the textile jungle. Its good to see some intelligent work- if you want a chat in Engels/Duits/Nederlands o Flams- pop over to my talk page. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Judging by your recent edit to File:MTR Textile 2.jpg, you still don't quite get how categories should work here. Category:Romania is redundant to the category for the specific museum, and while Category:Textiles may be too broad, the solution to that is to replace it with something more specific, not to remove it. Please be especially careful about removing categories until you have a better grasp of the system. Adding a wrong category is no big deal (easily fixed). Removing a correct one is a much bigger problem: if no one spots it right away, the information is probably lost, since it will only be found if someone examines the history of the page. - Jmabel ! talk 04:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Gerrit41 is actually doing very well. The problem is that he is a bit too much focused on his technical speciality. While cleaning out the generic textiles category, which can be very frustrating because of the millions of non precise cats and overcats, he has a problem with pictures that don't really focus on the textile itself and where the textiles are more creating a "textile ambiance". We should have some sort of category such as "textiles on display", "textile collections" or something to collect such type of pictures. --Foroa (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
First the categorization scheme.I would say :one mistake, not bad. With alittle bit more concentration you can have zero mistakes next time. (Teacher is one of my former professions). Then the category Textiles. I think the pictures should have a clear connexion to textiles in any form. If textile is the main isue it is clear. But if the textile is only padding I think it has tobe moved to another (sub)category. Mostly I move them to Colorful textiles which fits for almost everything. But this was not possible with the black and white German pictures.All these pictures have at least two other categories, so they are not lost. In these pictures the textiles were "Nebensache" and did in my opinion not belong to Textiles. The same goes for people in costum, they don't fit in Textiles but have to be recategorized to a costum type or a country.I agree with Foroa that it had been possible to create a new category and the title "Textile collections" sounds good to me. Gerrit41 (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Have you found this group- Category:Images from KIT, Voorstelling Activiteit / Functie - bont-, haar-, wol-, veren-, stekelsbewerking there are some useful images but as yet they are not linked to the textile tree. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Removing "unidentified" categories
Hoi Gerrit41, it seems you like to remove "unidentified" categories from images. Please be aware that this is only meaningful (and helpful) if you add correct categories instead …
 – adding "Potato harvest" when the image was already in "Potato harvest in the German Democratic Republic" didn't make sense, and you haven't named the type of machine so removing "unidentified agricultural machines" isn't helpful at all
If you are not able to identify a machine yourself, then please leave unidentified categories in place. Otherwise it's nearly impossible for other users (with better knowledge) to make the needed changes (to really identify an object), because the images in question are not findable in the relevant "unidentified" category any more (because you removed them from there). Generally, please have a second look at Foroa's COM:OVERCAT hint above. Thanks --:bdk: 19:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Removing flax category context from images
- These pictures have nothing to do with the production of flax. The buildings only have a name with flax in it.
- Gerrit41 (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hallo If I look for pictures about toothpaste production then I want to see not the buildings but the machines, the raw material and so on. But I am a technician and I believe most people on Wikimedia are hobbyists, folklorists and historians. I will not empty this category nor any other. I will use Wikimedia from now on as a consumer and nothing more. 184.108.40.206 18:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Gerrit41 (I assume that IP was really yours),
- your comment sounds as if you're the only one who knows the facts … which appears, ahem, rather beside the point, given the factual errors you made (not only a few) e.g. with identifying images of machines as ploughs, dump rakes etc., when they actually show different machines (see the thread above). Anyway, the main problem I tried to point out is that your categorization attempts caused "loss of relevant context" in several cases. We are glad about every file that is in good categories (as correct and precise as possible), and which is thereby findable (note: categories also work like "tags" for internal and external search, especially if file descriptions are weak and don't contain the relevant key words). Category removal (if not completely wrong) without adding better/more precise categories instead usually results in "lost" images therefore.
- Examples: If you remove "Unidentified machines" from a file, and only put it into another, e.g. location based category, then the information, that it's showing some kind of machine (of whichever type) is lost. If you remove "flax production" from a file showing a building that was specifically built for and used within the flax drying process, then the flax context is lost. And yes, even if these flax kilns are not used in modern production in the flax regions of France/Benelux, they present a relevant part of flax production history in Scandinavia.
- Let's take one of your own images as another example: File:Hardness meter.jpg is in Category:Textile testing equipment. What would you say if someone removed that category (and thereby the textile context) and put the image into Category:Hardness tests, Category:Measuring instruments and Category:Round objects instead? (ok, that's not the most vivid example, but it's illustrating the basic problem, hopefully). --:bdk: 22:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your confidence Funfood
are you really sure this is a waste container? can you give a reference or a source? I think this is neither architectural element, nor waste container. Please don't change category, until you are sure to know the right one. giving a wrong category doesn't help at all...
Thank you for changing. I have no idea how I succeeded to make this category. I only know for sure I never typed Pictures and images in CataLot.
Please don't replace unidentified categories with already identified location categories
I've reverted a number of your edits where you've replaced a category for unidentified objects with a less correct location one. First, IDing a location does not ID the objects in questions. Second, it seems that you have not bothered to check if a location category exists, as you added a less correct (town) location to images which already had a specific building (in said town) location. Please be more careful in the future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)