User talk:Multichill/Archives/2010/February

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Your candidacy for 'crat

Hi Multichill: Wanted to say a few words. I'm sorry I opposed, I know you work very hard around here, and it's appreciated. It was with some regret that I decided to oppose but I just had too many concerns. I think if you really want to be a crat you may want to think about some of the stuff raised by your opposers and see what you could do to address the concerns. If I could answer any questions please ask. In fact, talking to other crats might be a good approach prior to another run if you decide to. (I think it's not likely that you are going to succeed this time but I may be mistaken) Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 03:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

GeographBot glitch

There seems to been a problem with GeographBot in that it has been tagging images of Baltimore in Cork with the category Baltimore, Maryland instead of Baltimore, County Cork. GcSwRhIc (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Baltimore probably causes this. Multichill (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

COM:VP#MediaWiki software not displaying licensing information correctly?

cc-templates are broken, please help. Regards, --Martin H. (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fixed, see VP. Multichill (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick and perfect repair! --Martin H. (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-sa-layout

Something is causing problems; here's how {{subst:cc-by-sa-2.0}} currently displays: AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fixed, see COM:VP#MediaWiki software not displaying licensing information correctly?]. Multichill (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Atlas by country

This category serves as parent category, should not be in category suggestions. Can you fix this? --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The atlas categories seem to attract some images which shouldn't be in there. I'll have a look at it. Multichill (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Templates for organizing uncategorized images

Today I discovered this Category:British steam locomotives requiring categorisation and the template {{Unidentified header}} that labels such "working" categories for requiring further categorization. This seems like a good idea.

Is there a related template for easily tagging images as belonging to such a category (presumably parameterized)? As well as the category membership, this could also display a suitable message and encouragement to revise their cats. We seem to have such templates as {{Check categories}}, is there an equivalent here? ...If there isn't, I might well write one, if I have a moment. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Burley

Category:Burley is for the Burley district of Leeds and not for the village in Rutland. Could the bot be stopped from repeatably putting these geograph images into this category, please. Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Multichill (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

GeographBot import klaar

De geograph.co.uk import is klaar. Ik heb alle batches 03-24 (00-02 had ik al weggegooid) gecheckt op failures, en alle failures alsnog geimporteerd behalve Grishipoll Farm and small wood - geograph.org.uk - 166406.jpg, die maar niet lijkt te willen lukken. --Catrope (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Bedankt voor het importeren! Multichill (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Multichill, nice countrysides and cities from The Island (Great Britain) - but as far as I understand all the 3000 files (about) are uncategorized?! - Is there a bot who can solve this problem? (30. January, must be the upload before.) Best wishes Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

All the files are uncategorized? No. I uploaded about 230.000 files. For some of these files my bot is finding better categories now. See Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph for more information. Multichill (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I talked about files here Category:Media needing categories as of 30 January 2010 - normally there are between 200 and 300 uncategorized files per day, but here and on 31. January (or 29. January?) were more. Part of the problem was fixed obviously. It doesn't matter. Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Batch uploading

I've been in contact with the Swedish National Heritage Board who have previously put up pictures on Flickr. They have a representative who appears to be interested, but is asking about technical details on how long uploads can take. I saw that you helped out with the technical details concerning the Tropenmuseum donation and I just wanted to get some advice. If they want to provide us with a batch upload, what's the best way for them to do so? For example, how should the meta-data be formatted?

sincerely,
Peter Isotalo 06:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like good news :-)
By the way I found this today but it is probably on your to do list http://www.misawa.af.mil/photos/index.asp but no harm done adding a link here. --MGA73 (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Peter, writing User:Multichill/Guide to batch uploading has been on my list for quite some time. Don't expect it to be finished anytime soon. Most important part of getting the metadata is getting it in a structured manner. It doesn't really matter if this is a database, a xml file, a database dump, or something else as long as it's structured. You should ask them how their metadata is stored to get an idea how to extract this. Maybe you can drop by in #wikimedia-commons somewhere in the evening so we can discus this in more detail. You should take a look at the past uploads at Commons:Batch uploading, it contains a lot of information. Multichill (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Counting hidden categories.

I thought your bot didn't count hidden categories as real ones. Or do you just use a list? I'm asking because of this. I mean, I guess Category:Animated GIF's ok, but it's not really a content-oriented category. I'm not complaining about anything, I'm just curious as to how your bot works. Rocket000 (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not hidden at that time. Multichill (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
But your bot removed it after it was hidden. Rocket000 (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The bot removed uncategorized on 10 January 2009, the category was made hidden on 8 September 2009. Looks like the other way around, or am I missing something? Multichill (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, misread the year.. nevermind. Rocket000 (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:People by city

Same problem as Category:Atlas by Country. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Foutmelding

Ik werd geacht dit even te melden:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Naval_ships_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_Name&diff=0&oldid=34567367

werkte niet toen ik er op klikte. --Stunteltje (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Alleen als het niet over een verwijderde pagina gaat  ;-) Category:Naval_ships_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_Name is een tijdje terug vervangen door Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom by name. Multichill (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote on my RfCU

I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my request for checkuser rights. I hope one more CU will make a difference, at least for the other CUs' workload! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fords

Ford Motor Company is not a Fords. Marek Banach (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this category should have a clearer name. Multichill (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Name category "Ford" is good. You must change yours bot transformed files from geograph.org.uk. If category "Ford" will by redirect and by like empty (redirect) category, your bot will by put it on new files. It's your problem!!! Lukas 3z (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I repete: Ford Motor Company is not a fords. Think what you and your's bot doing. Please!!! Marek Banach (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "Ford" is that it is both a company and a commons word. So for the bot it makes perfectly sense to put images in that category. Should more images show up in that category they can easily be removed in a few seconds.
Multichill uploaded almost 250,000 images from Geograph and we are working to categorize the images. It will take some time so you have to be patient or you are most welcome to help fix the images. We start with the "biggest mess" (easy things could of course also be fixed). Feel free to leave a note on Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph if you find other things that should be fixed. --MGA73 (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

It is a little late but, thank you very much for your support on my RfA, I should said that many times ago, but I thought it is kind of spamming, writing to everybody who voted for me, so I decided to just write a thank you note on my own talk page, but when I saw what Eusebius did, I realized that it is ok, anyway, I apologize for being late, thanks and best regards Smile   ■ MMXX  talk  23:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of your pics...

I found one of your pics on here while i was browsing the net. It's of a few of my old shipmates at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida speaking with a member of Lynard Skynard, Ricky Medlock. I was with them during the event pictured, but I do not see myself in the pic. I was wondering if you have anymore pics of this event.

Respectfully,

     Nathan Harris

Nathan_Harris80@live.com 24.129.41.47 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nathan, these images all come from the navy site, see for example http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=65724 . I don't know if more images exist. Multichill (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Check categories

Would you mind taking a look at the edit-protected request on this page when you get a chance? Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Multichill (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We should probably create the red categories

Hi Multichill. I guess we should create the red categories to avoid things like this [1]. I think the missing link between "Roads in Somewhere" and "Somewhere" is the reason images is still in "Somewhere". --MGA73 (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I created these. If I find any others problems like that I will make the matching categories for them too. --MGA73 (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Multichill (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Using images from the Royal Collections of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Hello! Recently there were many high quality images downloaded from the Royal Collections of Great Britain. Also there is a large category of these images. And it is not forbidden to spread the image of the Royal Collection? Since earlier scandal was already with the National Portrait Gallery in London. Moreover, the Royal Collection is not allowed to spread these images, I asked. It is better to remove them, so that later there was no problem. In principle, I'm waiting for the last answer from the Royal Collection, which accurately recognize the legal capacity of such images. Today we all will know and I'll still write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Рихтер (talk • contribs) 12:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to go to Commons:Village pump. Multichill (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot problem

Hi, unsure why in this edit the bot added Category:Arras. The category relates to a place in France and so is inappropriate for a location in England. I would have expected the location category to be Category:Kiplingcotes. It looks like there are numerous other files in the same category be viewing the first page of images in that category, but appropriate location categories vary. Keith D (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because the bot is too clever. When looking for example here, this image from the same area points to something with the name Arras. As we can see here, there must be some Arras parish/quarter/hamlet around geograph square SE9240 and SE9241, but I could not find a trace on the en:wikipedia. Shows how useful this work is. --Foroa (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
There is an Arras Wold in Sancton parish in SE9240 and an Arras & Arras Cottages in Market Weighton parish in SE9241. Keith D (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
So, you have to thank the bot and offer it an apology. Bots are fainthearted creatures that let you down when badly treated. --Foroa (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
If it's worth creating a category, tag it with {{Intersect categories|Arras|Images from the Geograph British Isles project}}, that should clear out all the Geograph images. Multichill (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:First_Mars_Surface_Photo_-_GPN-2003-00061.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:First_Mars_Surface_Photo_-_GPN-2003-00061.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)‎ | +/−

Van der Hoorn (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


File:WLANL - 23dingenvoormusea - Zelfportret.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:WLANL - 23dingenvoormusea - Zelfportret.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Vincent Steenberg (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Verwijderd, Multichill (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

File:WLANL - MicheleLovesArt - Van Gogh Museum - Emile Bernard - Self-portrait with portrait of Gauguin, 1888.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:WLANL - MicheleLovesArt - Van Gogh Museum - Emile Bernard - Self-portrait with portrait of Gauguin, 1888.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

API upload on commons

Hej, do you know if the upload function of the Mediawiki api is working on Commons? I was playing a little bit around, end editing is working fine. However, i did not manage to upload a file: by using the url parameter, the api responds a timeout when fetching the file, whereas passing the file directly with the file paameter results in "One of the parameters sessionkey, file, url, enablechunks is required". I want to upload the new pictures of the security conference and a chunk of other stuff, and doing it directly in php would be much more convenient than querying pywikipedia for that job... --Prolineserver (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Image categorization notice

On 20 September 2009 you sent me the following message asking me to categorize an image I uploaded: [2]. It turns out that was a copyright violation (I was ignorant of WMC copyright rules at the time). Shortly thereafter another user pointed this out to me and removed the image: [3].

Thanks for the info anyway. RecoveryMinded (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Multichill (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

BotMultichill glitch?

I'm looking at the edits being made by the bot to File:JD Maverick as Santa.jpg and File:JD Maverick red.jpg - it's been running the date added part to the OTRS received on a twice daily basis and seems to be not checking if there's already a date received tag present. E.g., look at this difference, then track forward the newer edits (all made by the bot). Tabercil (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like multiple templates are used which causes images to end up in the no timestamp given category. No time to fix it, I disabled the bot. Multichill (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I didn't completely disable it, I think I got it now ;-) Multichill (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

File:WLANL - jankie - Zelfportret met portret van Gaugin, Emile Bernard (1888).jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:WLANL - jankie - Zelfportret met portret van Gaugin, Emile Bernard (1888).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Vincent Steenberg (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopelessly incorrect edits

Please slap the bot's wrists very firmly for its edits to the descriptions of File:Great Bentley 319.jpg and File:Great Bentley 330.jpg. The descriptions were perfectly clear - there was a link to an image on Geograph but there was no claim that these images came from Geograph. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just a slip up while cleaning up thousands of images. Speaking of vandalism is not very nice. Multichill (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not call it vandalism - bots have no feelings so it won't get annoyed. Can you assure me that the bot will not find these images again and repeat its error? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Weeley 298.jpg and File:Dalby City of Troy turf maze.jpg similarly vandalised. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No bots do not have feelings but bots do nothing without a human to give it orders. Cleaning up is a huge job and my guess is that bot might edit some of your images again. When cleanup is done perhaps Multichill can make a list of your images and tell the bot to "un-cleanup". If yes that is easier than for you and the bot to edit the same images.
Also since you are the author of the images perhaps you have a file in higher resolution? If so it would be super if you were willing to let us have them. --MGA73 (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"The bot might edit some of your images again" - not very encouraging. I was hoping to hear that the bug had been fixed. If the bot were to check for "source=" in close proximity to a geograph link, that would be sufficient.

As you can see, I have already uploaded some higher res versions. I have identified the others needing higher res - don't expect immediate action - there will be 500 images by the time the GeographBot has finished. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

More vandalism - "planting potatoes" indeed! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel a media or gallery needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikimedia Commons is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any media and gallery by simply following the Edit link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.. Multichill (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am fixing them. Here is another one. Don't just reply with a standard message! What I want to hear is a) an explanation of why the bot is doing this vandalism and b) an assurance that it will stop doing it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of vandalism and you might get a normal answer. Multichill (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of vandalism. I am accusing your bot! OK. I withdraw all references to vandalism. Will "hopelessly incorrect edit" do instead? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Another 232334. I won't bother to list any more but I think that just about every Geograph image originally uploaded by PMJ has been butchered. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone whose file (File:Dalby City of Troy turf maze.jpg) has also been affected by this bot's unwanted attentions, I'd like to ask for it to be fixed or withdrawn from use. There's no point in using a labour-saving bot to save time by doing thousands of edits automatically, if a large percentage of those edits then have to be undone, and perhaps undone again and again, by real people in their own time. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", the saying goes, and it evidently applies to many of the files the bot is altering. This bot, however, is demonstrably broke, so please fix it. SiGarb (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Move reasoning

Why the move to Category:Bogor (city)‎ when you were the one requesting the move, and I strongly disagree with it? "Disambiguation"? What is it ambiguous with? En.wp doesn't even have a disambiguation page for w:Bogor (disambiguation). Wknight94 talk 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Bogor Regency. People tend to mix up Kota Bogor and Kabupaten Bogor, see id:Bogor (disambiguasi). It's just like Category:Utrecht (city) and Category:Utrecht (province). Multichill (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-move reasoning

I'm wondering how you chose not to move Category:Manhattan, New York City as well. How about the fact that almost none of the Wikipedias bother to disambiguate "Manhattan"? As far as I can tell, every other use of "Manhattan" is based on Manhattan island. Wknight94 talk 20:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Commons is not Wikipedia. Apparently Manhatten has multiple meanings, see for example Category:Manhattan, Kansas. Multichill (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Manhattan, Kansas is named after Manhattan island. Besides, there is no limit to your reasoning - we should also move Category:London because of Category:London, Ontario, and move Category:Mexico because of Category:México (state) ---- and even rename Category:Earth because of the numerous entries at w:Earth (disambiguation). Commons isn't Wikipedia, but the same reasoning there applies here. Wknight94 talk 20:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
There's no difference in reasoning, we just tend to disambiguate quicker than the English Wikipedia, that doesn't mean we disambiguate everything. Multichill (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
What is your basis then? What's the difference between Manhattan and London? I'm not even giving you a hard time - I really want to know. It really seems like people here favor disambiguating all American names, but only American names - and I don't understand it. If I proposed disambiguating Category:Amsterdam or Category:Florence or Category:Venice or Category:Naples, would you support? Wknight94 talk 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Commons does seem to have a slight bias against things American when it comes to place names and, um, statues... but it's actually more neutral in a way when you treat every name the same and don't worry about which one deserves the non-disambig name. The overall effect it has is a lot different that it would have on an encyclopedia. The thing I dislike is the inconsistency. For example, there's Streets in Manhattan, Midtown Manhattan, 116th Street (Manhattan), Manhattan cityscapes, Wikis Take Manhattan, etc. But what Manhattan are they talking about? Rocket000 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
In this case, Manhattan Island is so far-and-away the most used that disambiguation seems silly. More so even than London or Florence. Florence in particular is a woman's name! But I think if I proposed a move at Category:Florence, it would fail miserably. Wknight94 talk 02:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of Manhattans on Commons
Rocket000 is right is the sense that a wikipedia, where one tries to find the right article is different from a category system where we want to have uniform and consistent rules so that people can categorise without having to search for the most likely category (we sometimes use redirects for the most likely one)
Commons must try to be more country/culture/language/wikipedia independent so whenever there is confusion possible (and a disambiguation exist somewhere on a wikipedia), we try to integrate that
So far, de facto, there is a non official priority rule for countries before states (Georgia), states before cities (New York) en for (former) capitals (Paris, Rome, London, Amsterdam, Bruges). Another de facto priority rule is the oldest city, often used for cities with thousands years of history: Ghent, Naples, Florence, Hanover, ...
Another de facto priority is given so far to "more important" cities such as Houston, Boston, ...
If the Commons project could restart, I would give no priority to any of them, thereby ensuring an overall naming consistency. Cutting the current situation back seems not realistic/pragmatic because of the thousands of existing categories. But at least, we should try to not worsten the situation, such as for Manhattan.
I renamed Toldeo to Toledo, Spain with some pain. But if you do that before the category is really developed, it can work. Changing afterwards is a much bigger problem. I had to do hundreds of moves because Macedonia has been split, so disambiguation was suddenly unavoidable. I moved thousands of categories because the province was initially using the same name as its capital.
If one has the impression that there is an anti-American movement, I guess that it comes from the fact that en:wikipedia gives naturally priority to the Western world and America, while Commons needs to be more neutral and systematic.
Personally, I would rename Florence to Firenze (and use Roma, Napoli, Hannover, Köln, Den Haag) but that is another issue. --Foroa (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Well it would be nice if all the "de facto" rules were formalized somewhere because people coming from Wikipedia (which is most people I suspect) get very confused. I am still confused about things like Category:Worcester, esp. when Category:Worcester, Massachusetts has twice as many people! Wknight94 talk 11:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Probably a good idea. Category:Worcester, Massachusetts has indeed twice the population, three times the surface of Category:Worcester, but it is 7 times younger. en:Worcester, Western Cape is sitting between the two but is probably larger, en:Worcester, Wisconsin is 3 times larger. What criteria to use and how a Commons user is supposed to know that ? --Foroa (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I prefer to leave that decision to the Wikipedias, which of course often results in more than one answer (keeping in mind that not everything they do is appropriate here like Multichill said). Thus, disambig. But in the case of Worcester, we're the same as en.wp, so no problem there. Rocket000 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

PD

Feel free to tell me what your after, rather than what you aren't. Aliter (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this about fy:Kategory:Wikipedy:NowCommons selde namme? If so, I want you to press the "Fuort wiskje" link at least 347 times ;-)
Or you could flag me so I can do it myself. Multichill (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)