Template talk:Check categories

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Info non-talk.svg Template:Check categories has been protected indefinitely because it is a highly-used or visible template. Use {{Edit request}} on this page to request an edit.

This template is screwed. WAY.[edit]

How do you remove it? The source code gets totally fucked up by it; if you rm the cat-check bit, large parts of the content page simply break. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just click the link. Example please where it goes wrong. Multichill (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I also have had problems removing the template. Clicking the link removes the template, yes, but it also removes all of the other links on the page. Please see Image:Amy_Grant_in_1998.jpg. It removes the "Usage" and "Related galleries" sections when removing template. ArielGold 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove «by author»[edit]

Hello. When we remove the template, the contributor name is add into the comment. It is just unneed, and dup. ~ bayo or talk 10:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Pantalla inflable[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Could someone remove Category:Pantalla Inflable category from this template?? It's a nonsense. Lobo Huella lobo.svg (howl?) 16:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done but it wasn't this template, it was Template:Check categories/es. Rocket000 (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Usage[edit]

{{editprotected}}

As there is now a "Global file usage" section on the file description pages, the "Usage:" section could be removed. -- User:Docu at 09:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

E? Could you be a bit more specific? I see no “Usage:” section on this template. --Mormegil (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You might want to leave it to someone else to do. -- User:Docu at 13:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad, I was looking at the wrong source code (the perils of autotranslation…). --Mormegil (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
If I remove it, it'll probably screw up the bot. I think Multichill better do this. Rocket000 (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Please don't remove it. With this section you can see where the bot based it's guess on. It's not always the same as the global usage section. Rewording it or making it less visible might be an option. Multichill (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
To allow people to customize display, would you add span tags like this? Changes to do. -- User:Docu at 11:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying you never want to help check categories (by hiding the whole thing)? ;) Rocket000 (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The span tag doesn't hide the whole thing. It just allows to customize colors. Remove the blink tag, etc. -- User:Docu at 05:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that, along with hiding the whole thing (display:none). That's what I was implying that you wanted it for. Rocket000 (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you add it? -- User:Docu at 05:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Rocket000 (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

To make it work correctly, would you change the span to div? -- User:Docu at 14:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Rocket000 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Internationalisation[edit]

Ce modèle devrait être internationalisé, actuellement il place des sections nommées : « Usage: » et « Related galleries: », de plus, il me semble que l’usage qui prévaut sur les wiki est de ne pas mettre de « : » en fin de nom de section. MetalGearLiquid (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

660 review categories[edit]

Hi, we currently have in Category:Media needing category review by date 660 categories from several years old. Even the most courageous user will not dare to jump in that. It might be better to group all files older than 1 year into one category, older than 2 months in one category per month.

It might be intereting too to bring to the attention of various wiki-users that in Category:Media needing category review by usage there are files to be checked originating from their wikipedia. --Foroa (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's scarier: 100 categories with 100 files or one big category with 10.000 files. I prefer the first. Either way, I don't think it will change a lot. Somehow we need users to check these files. If users aren't willing to check these files, maybe we should change the system.
I've been thinking about this for a while. Totally different way of handling this: Let's just accept the error rate (seems to be rather low now) and don't tag files with this template anymore. What do you think about that strategy? Multichill (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess that a lot of people are preferring to walk through a number of pictures and decide on sight what looks interesting and where they could do something. From experience, I know that it is much harder to process a list from the beginning till the end, especially if there are many things in Russian, Chinese, Arab ...
For the new strategy, I have to process a couple of lists myself and think on it. Anyway, most people here are very attached to their local place, so a classification per country or county might be more effective than the worldwide lists. In other words, all images that can be dropped in "Check categories for xxx country" might be faster and better processed than just being in "check categories". --Foroa (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
In the mean time, the simplest solution might be to rerun the categorisation bot on files older than one year: after all, the bot has evolved and whe have nearly 450000 new categories since last year. --Foroa (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This is really doing more harm than good. It simply seems to map categories indiscriminately from any Wikipedia, and >90% of the requests are totally nonsensical (e.g. non-English or other non-Commons terms, terms which are main categories on Commons, categories already used etc). Check e.g. File:Archaeoraptor.jpg for a particularly egregious example.
I think it should be put on hold for the time being, because we have 100,000s of media needing manual review (of which presumably at least half, if not 80-90% are suggestions that make no sense at all). Removing the crap suggestions has become a major pain and workload, and it seems the dumb tool keeps re-adding the template.
Catcheck should be stopped as long as it does not incorporate either or all of:
  • check whether category exists on Commons (might be incorporated already, but it's not easy to tell - it disregards catredirect etc in any case)
  • check whether media is not already categorized on Commons downstream of the proposed category
  • Most important: show proposed categories and one-click removal of template code
Without these improvements, it is one of the most bothersome "workload parasites" on Commons, improving little and creating need for many person-hours' workload for manual review/removal. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
(Frankly, the best thing would be to utterly eradicate this miserable piece of shit code from Commons, burn every trace of it from the system (KILL IT WITH FIRE), and focus on cleaning up CAT:UNCAT. I have never seen anything on Commons or any Wikipedia that was so obnxiously good-faith yet so destructive and disruptive at the same time.)

Categorizing this template[edit]

Could be useful to add this to Category:Image cleanup templates. --ELEKHHT 01:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

I edited documentation page. ✓ Added Category:Media cleanup templates. – Kwj2772 (msg) 08:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Categorization[edit]

{{editrequest}} The template should check if the subcategory actually exists and if not put the fill into "No timestamp given". --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The same goes here: I am opposed to that as it would be potentially confusing. Making a dedicated category, e.g. "Category:Media needing categories where timestamp category does not exist" would be my suggestion. -- Rillke(q?) 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Then please do. --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now. Please sandbox and test the exact code. Once you have that do a new edit request so it's just copy and paste for the admin. Multichill (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please add to the end just before the </includeonly>:

{{#ifexist:Category:Media needing category review as of {{{day|}}} {{{month}}} {{{year}}} | | [[Category:Media needing category review where timestamp category does not exist]]}}

--Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 19:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Add category[edit]

{{edit protected}}

Can we add Category:Commons categories so editors can find it a little easier? A better one would be Category:Commons category related templates but it does not exist. Alan Liefting (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done : {{Check categories}} allegedly adds files to one of the subcategories of Media needing category review, and that is already a sub-category of Commons categories, so what you suggested would be a policy violation known as COM:OVERCAT (there's a picture explaining the issue.) –Be..anyone (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Icon edit request[edit]

{{Edit request}} The icon is a bit non talking, I've created an more speaking one File:Applications-category-tree-info.svg (I think it should not be neutral blue, because it's a lack)!? User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  13:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done no oppose for a while. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I mean it looks clear more meaningful. If there is something else, then I can adjust that. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  19:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)