User talk:Aotake

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Suggestion of this Project Moving[edit]

Please look at Category talk:CJK stroke order#Should move to Wiktionary !? --SantaClaus 13:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind; (you don't have to go to have a look) it's cliear now. I just wondered if it should be done somehow if it is not appropriate for this Commons project. --SantaClaus 10:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

TUSC token 39aa70129ffb3b78a908ca65334e118b[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Sweet meals[edit]

Hello! I just saw that you changed the Category:Sweet meals to a redirect to Category:sweet food and put eg Image:Germknoedel.jpg into the Category:Desserts - for me it's quite strange to look for Germknödel as a dessert as in Austria it's quite common to have something sweet for lunch - not as dessert but as main course. That can be Schmarrn, Germknödel, Reisauflauf (rice pudding),... --Anna reg (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the notice, and I apologize for my ignorance. To me, "sweet meals" seems a bit vague category and looked like it wasn't functioning well. But I guess it is possible to have such a category. I will try to sort it out. --Aotake (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token c6deb3ec4c6ad5aeeb34d4cee37a78fc[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

The Commons:Stroke Order Project[edit]


I've been re-organising the Commons:Stroke Order Project and am contacting you because you've had a hand or shown an interest in the Japanese translation.

I joined the project only after the graphics contributors had all but abandoned it. My main interest is in organising the existing content, validating the main image variants (traditional Chinese and Japanese) for use on Wikimedia projects, and lowering the threshold for future contributors to join this daunting task.

I'm not sure if it is a good idea to spend a lot of effort in maintaining a translated version when there are no Japanese speaking members to it (though a short introductory welcoming message to future contributors would be nice). I still wanted to leave you a quick note in case you might be interested in being involved with the project in any way. --Swift (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ja->En translation request[edit]

Hello Aotake, long time no see~

I'm back working on the Stroke order issue, not on image creation, but on the research side.

I'm looking for an 'authoritative' and nowadays available Japanese book. My conclusion is that the most convenient is to follow the 1958 standard, no more 'official', but being the last official standard, I think it's the most respectable of the various sources now available. On the web, I found the following japanese texts:

What means:

"いくつかメモ書き。 ◎「劇」の筆順(101頁の⑯番)  藤原宏(1990)『新版漢字書き順字典』(第一法規)には二通りの筆順が示されている(179頁)。最初に「筆順指導の手びき」(昭和33年、文部省)に示された筆順が示されており、その下に「☆」が付けられた欄に(「筆順指導の手びき」とは)「異なった筆順が一般に広く行われている漢字」としてその「異なった筆順」の「相違する箇所」を取り上げて示している。"

-from here



漢字書き順字典 (単行本)
ISBN-13: 978-4474070950



[english] helped me to see, more or less, what that was talking about. I now need a human made English translation, to know :

  • does the [nowadays available] 漢字書き順字典/新版漢字書き順字典 follow the 1958 「筆順指導の手びき」 standard ?

And same about

...does them follow the 「筆順指導の手びき」 standard ?

This will help me to complete User:Yug/Stroke_order_according_to_national_rules, which will one day move to Yug (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Yug. Unfortunately, I don't have any of these books with me, nor a good access to Japanese books for the moment, so I can't be 100% sure.
From what you quoted, it seems that 漢字書き順字典 shows the rules mentioned in 筆順指導の手びき (1958), supplementing with other possible stroke orders.
Afterwhat, the 江守賢治 is now an authority in this area, so his works would be also helpful. I think most stroke order references list the stroke orders of 筆順指導の手びき, but you must check the explanatory remarks of each book. --Aotake (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, your asnwer is helping me. I also guess that nowadays book refer to the 1958's 筆順指導の手びき. Thanks for your answer. Yug (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 3a700412f5a143c091c1de5a1225885d[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


Hi Aotake! I noticed that your removed Category:National Treasures of Japan from File:Itsukushima Honden Haiden.jpg and File:Hiunkaku.jpg. Could you explain why? bamse (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

For Itsukushima, the parent category Category:Itsukushima Shinto Shrine is already in the National Treasures of Japan. For Hinkukaku, too, putting Category:Nishi Hongwanji under National Treasures maybe better. --Aotake (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not good. The Agency for Cultural Affairs does not designate temples or shrines as national treasures. They designate structures/buildings (and crafts and arts, etc) that are part of temples or shrines as national treasures. So Category:Itsukushima Shinto Shrine and Category:Nishi Hongwanji should not be in Category:National Treasures of Japan! Only pictures showing in fact national treasure structures should be in that category. For instance File:Northern Noh Stage.jpg should be and File:Nishi Hongwanji taikoro.jpg should not be in Category:National Treasures of Japan.bamse (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen the content of Category:National Treasures of Japan? It doesn't seem to me that what you said is its policy of categorization, and I think the current status is quite reasonable. If you categorize each picture directly under Category:National Treasures of Japan, it would be very difficult to follow the content. If you disagree with the current situation, I suggest you make categories such as National treasures in x and put those under Category:N T of J. --Aotake (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the category is a mess (like on en-wikipedia) since there are quite distinct things in it: true national treasures, temples/shrines that house national treasures (either in their museum or structures on their grounds), living national treasures (which are technically not nationally treasures; it is just a popular name for "Important Intangible Cultural Properties"). To get some order in this mess I propose to: (i) create Category:Living National Treasures (I don't see any items in the category but it is mentioned in the text at the top.), (ii) create new categories for national treasures by type like on ja-wikipedia or at w:Lists of National Treasures of Japan : Category:National Treasures of Japan (paintings), Category:National Treasures of Japan (temples),... Can I just go ahead and do this, or should I get consent first? bamse (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The idea of separating into categories by type sounds very good. I haven't been involved with this topic much, but I don't see much necessity of getting consent. Still, it would be easier to find a photo of an article if they are categorized in subcategories named after their name or location. --Aotake (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The type categories are also used by the Agency for Cultural Affairs which designates national treasures, so it makes sense to use the same system here. I will start creating categories in a moment. bamse (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I basically emptied Category:National Treasures of Japan of all files. There are still about 100 categories of temples in there which need to be dealt with. bamse (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Imperial dynasty of Japan[edit]

hi there,

I had to revert your edits about Category:Imperial dynasty of Japan and your emptying of Category:Japanese monarchy. The category Japanese monarchy is for the institution and everything that pertains to it, be it places or people. The category Imperial dynasty of Japan is for the persons who are members of it, not buildings or the household agency. You can take a look at Category:British monarchy if you need help in orientation. Gryffindor (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your notification. I don't understand why the category Imperial dynasty of Japan has to be only for persons (for example, the categories under Category:Dynasties don't seem to be organized so), but I don't have any problem as long as it is easy to follow how they are organized. Before my edits, I could not make it out at all, and I don't think I was the only one who couldn't follow. --Aotake (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi Aotake, on Dec 27 you changed the behavior of categorization. Since that the automatic categorization of many thousands of characters does not work properly. The Template:ACCLicense still works correctly, creating the character as well into the category of the character itself (whether it is generated, or not), and into the Radical ### category, if that parameter #5 is used. Now SOLicense does not work any more correctly.

We know that categorization is still a problem in the commons, and I did multi hundreds of categorization corrections in the last year. We know that there is some redundant over-categorization.

Depending the 214 radicals, I had almost reached a good state; that is now changed, the radical category shows also a lot of characters that are not the radical itself but built with the radical. With some work I can change the 214 German Radicals that they deal with that change and show then another category (the radical character category instead of the radical number category). But at the moment that will not work, due to your change.

It seems necessary that you repair your change. Would you please explain what your intentions had been? I am hoping that we come to a good end. -- sarang사랑 19:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hallo, 안녕하세요, 사랑씨. The "improper" behavior of the categorization was just what I intended. First of all, I was trying to sort out many files of Chinese characters that were scattered under various categories. After struggling a while, I decided that the traditional way of sorting characters under 214 radicals is the best way, for the categories for 214 radicals already existed and also the whole CJK world can share it. Then I found that categorizing a character both under Radical n and the category for each character was somewhat redundant. Also there were many "red" categories for a Chinese character that are not properly maintained. Thus I made the character to be categorized under the category for itself when that category exists, and when that does not exist, it would be categorized under Radical n. Of course this may not have been the best solution, but I myself was thinking that the characters are much better organized now. Yet I did not recognize the effect on the coordination with the categories outside Commons so if my edit caused you much trouble I apologize. Could you kindly let me know your ideas on how they should be organized? --Aotake (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Aotake こんにちは, as I stated above categorization is a well known problem in the Commons. When I tried to minimize over-categorization that so often occurs I was told by others that redundancies will not be so bad, it is much more essential to have proper categories; it is of less importance whether they interfere improper.

So I accepted that in many cases an identical set of files belongs to more than one category (e.g. character Category:至 and Category:Radical 133 contained both the same 6 files (now after your “repair” of SOLicense two files are not any more in Category:至). Radicals with variations (e.g.radical 4 with 丿 and 乀 and 乁) consist of more character categories.

I cannot see any trouble that Category:至 is not created and remains red; it nevertheless contains and shows the files.

To me (for the German Wikipedia and the traditional Chinese radicals) it seemed good to have a category showing all different drawing versions of a radical character, e.g. animated GIFs, other stroke order PNGs, the seal/bronze/oracle drawings and any other picture. For that I made many hundreds of categorization edits, and the additions to some templates. I made also a lot of substitute pictures (Category:AnimationRequest because many animations are not yet existing.

Aotake, you are right, and it is a good idea to collect somehow (e.g. within a category) all characters ‘’belonging’’ to a radical, together with the radical files itself.

To give an example (shown at radical 4), a NEW category system may look like that:

Three character categories (丿, 乀, 乁); each of the character categories contains one ore more files, e.g. 丿 contains the files 丿-order.gif, 丿-seal.svg, 丿-oracle.svg, 004 - pie1 - slash.svg, Unicode20031 01.png, and possibly 丿部.JPG. This three character categories are contained in the Category:Radical 004-0. A lot of this can be categorized automatically by SOLicense, ACCLicense and ARLicense with small amendments.

Then either are there subsequent character categories Radical 004-1 to Radical 004-n, each containing all files with additional 1 to n strokes. Radical 004-1 containes the character categories 乂 乃 乄, Radical 004-2 containes 久 乆 乇 么 义 乊 之 乡, and so on.

All the categories Radical 004-# (#=0...n) are contained in Category:Radical 004.
So the new Category:Radical 004-0 contains what was in Category:Radical 004 before your actions, and the Category:Radical 004 is what you are intending. OK?

If 004-1 to 004-n is considered unnecessary, let us collect into the Category:Radical 004 only Category:Radical 004-0 (that is needed at least for the German WP, but makes as well sense for other reasons) and all files of characters with additional strokes, without the sub-categories.
Of course, all the 214 categories Radical ### (###=001...214) are collected into a system of higher categories. There is also the possibility to collect all 214 categories Radical ###–0 into a Category:Radical XXX–0, and so.

It means a lot of work to come to a good end with all of that, but it seems to me the optimum solution. Please, give me a comment to that concept. ありがとう -- sarang사랑 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Sarang. I think what you suggested is a good method. However, there are two points that I am against. I understand the general concept that having many categories on a file can be useful, yet putting a file into a parent category and its subcategory is not a good way as clearly stated in Commons:Categorization#Over-categorization. If we follow what is written in Commons:Categorization, when a category for a character, say 至, is created and categorized under Radical 133, files such as File:133 - zhi4 - arrive.svg should be only categorized into Category:至, and not into Category:Radical 133. Of course we can put files concerning the character 至 into Category:至 and Category:Radical 133-0, both of which will be a subcategory of Category:Radical 133, and say that we have avoided the problem of putting into both a parent and a child, yet then the contents of the two categories will be exactly the same. I think we have to think a little more to solve this point. I also cannot agree with you on your comment about "red categories." If the category is not created, no one can reach it but from the files that are in it, or from Special:Wantedcategories, which is very hard to browse and only lists the first 5000 red categories. Thus I don't think we should intentionally use uncreated categories as a tool. --Aotake (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Aotake, thank you for checking it and thinking it over.

  1. Identical content may be at radicals as e.g. for 133in Category:Radical 133-0 and in Category:至, because 133 has no variations. I would need 133-0 and accept that redundancy, because it is possible to create the 133-0 link automatically, as for any other radical, but it is not possible (except with heavy changings) to create a link to 至. And whenever are variations of radical characters, automatic link creation is obliged to the radical category, which contains all. Instead of linking to such a category 133-0 it may be another option to create a page, preferable in the Commons, with a gallery showing the files – exact the same files as it would be at 133-0. But, a gallery page is much more action to create, it is necessary to keep all 214 of them up-to-date (which soon will fail), and it requires much more space than a category because it is a complete other thing than just a reference. It is always told that space is not a problem to WP but even so I do not want to waste it without reason. Each system or database accepts some necessary redundance. Anyway, I can create automatically categories, but not galleries.
  2. Ok, not-created categories do not hurt so bad, but I agree we should not produce them intentionally. Most of the character categories in question exist, and it is easy to care that all newly created cats are filled with super cat refs and some explanation. I will keep that in mind and view.

To come to an end, until next week I will think whether I have a better idea to satisfy all needs without too many disadvantages. Now you hopefuly know the request you are also invited to find the best solution. -- sarang사랑 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi Aotake, why did you take Category:Writing systems out of it? Alphabets like Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, or Georgian are just as well writing systems as Category:Abugida writing systems or Category:Logographic writing systems are. As it is now, e.g. Category:Latin alphabet is connected to Category:Writing systems only via Category:Latin writing, which can easily be understood as "Latin-language writing", and Category:Armenian alphabet isn't connected to Category:Writing systems at all. --Hämbörger (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I was trying to figure out the relations of various categories such as Category:Letters, Category:Characters, Category:Graphemes, and Category:Alphabets. I changed a parent category of Category:Alphabets from Category:Characters to Category:Letters, and since Category:Letters is a sub-category of Category:Writing systems, I removed it from Category:Alphabets. Later I changed Category:Letters to Category:Graphemes, but Category:Graphemes also belongs to Category:Writing systems so I didn't restore Category:Writing systems in Category:Alphabets. I have to admit that my change is not thorough since Category:Graphemes belongs both to Category:Letters and Category:Writing systems but these categories are so tangled up that I couldn't decide alone what would be the best way to organize them. I don't have a strong objection to restoring Category:Writing systems to Category:Alphabets, but I still think the categories should be better organized (for example there is also Category:Alphabet . . .). --Aotake (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Seattle is in the United States[edit]

I have reverted your changes to File:Kubota Garden 20.jpg and File:Kubota Garden 20 A.jpg. Seattle is in the United States, not in Japan. - Jmabel ! talk 08:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind notification. I know that Seattle is not in Japan that but putting them under Category:Japanese writing looks odd to me and since there is not a category for Japanese language signs, I put them under Signs in Japan. . . --Aotake (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Inscriptions, where you put them now, is a lot better.
This keeps happening with culturally Japanese things in Seattle: they keep being put in "in Japan" categories. - Jmabel ! talk 08:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I think I've done a similar mistake before with lanterns. Anyway, thank you for you trouble. --Aotake (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a question[edit]

Hi Aotake, do you have any knowlegde about BOTs, or know about somebody knowing? I have neither much knowledge, nor yet access to somebody for asking or requesting. Their are still thousands of category and license corrections pending, they can be made better automaticaly, otherwise it will need weeks of stupid editing. I am not very eager to continue that way, and so I look for a better solution. Greetings, -- sarang사랑 12:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarang. Using bots sounds a good idea, but unfortunately I don't have much knowledge myself. But I assume we can try Commons:Bots/Work requests. Cheers. --Aotake (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanx, I will give it a look. -- sarang사랑 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi Aotake, would you please check my ideas: I would like to expand the 214 categories "Category:###" that it is possible to browse from each category to the next (and previous) one. I enabled this to all the categories "Category:Radical ###–0", as you may see at Category:Radical 002-0. As an example I expanded Category:Radical 001 manually.

At the moment there are 48 from the 214 categories "Category:###" provided with the "Template:Wiktionary", so it is not too much effort to change them. I prefere to make another expansion to that template do have more comfort, I can do that easily.

I suggest to make no interwiki links from the "Category:###" anymore, and have them instead only from "Category:Radical ###–0". But if you want to let them there remaining, I agree. For my part, I will maintain only ###–0 categories.

As a snapshot, just half of the Radical ###–0 categories are generated, and the first 43 of them (containig 359 single characters) are now checked and ready, When everything is done and ready, there will be no more need to keep the double categorisation of the single characters; we can then think that again. Cheers, -- sarang사랑 13:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I don't have any opposition on adding links to the preceding and next radicals or using a template for the purpose. For the interwiki, I consider it is more appropriate to have them from Radical ###s, for the Wikipedia articles on each radical are in general about the group under each radical. Thank you for all your work. --Aotake (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

OK Aotake, within the next time I will develop a template, and contact the BOT people whether they can do something. About interwiki: to&from the de:radicals, there will be a link only to Radical ###–0; and from Radical ###–0 to de:, ja: and zh:. There are a few of the 214 done in en:, fr:, :ko, :ru, :uk and at some others; when they preceed, more interwike links can be inserted. Greetings from -- sarang사랑 11:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aotake, the Template:Radicalw makes now everything required. Or do you wish anything more? For the moment it is used just 3 times.
The is no answer from the BOT people. -- sarang사랑 12:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. It looks nice, but maybe it would be more user-friendly if you put the arrows outside the wiktionary template. What do you think? For the Bot work request, I suggest you provide them with the list of works. I think the request posted now is too vague. --Aotake (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Radicalw now better? With an alternate wiktionary icon, may be you will not like that. I shall make a BOT request more specific. -- sarang사랑 12:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi Aotake, you seem to indend to a category system that is IMHO somehow questionable. You crosscategorize categories. AFAIK this is a not wanted shortcut. You make 问 to a subcat of 問, and 問 to a subcat of 问. As a fact, is

  • 问 (radical 169 门+3, 06 strokes), U+95EE
  • 問 (radical 030 口+8, 11 strokes), U+554F

问 is a simplification of 問. But neither should 问 categorized by any means or deviation to radical 030, nor 問 to 169. And a file should never be placed in several categories within the same tree.

The similar happens for variations of characters in (nowadays) ~15 cases (國 學 氣 門 馬 黃 黑 黽 鼓 鼠 齊 齒 龍 龜). They should not be categorized into each other, it is sufficient if they are both belonging to the same radical. If a category "Radical xxx-y" exists, as for y=0, it can be clearly seen, and I have nothing against any comment showing this. An example is 肉 with and .

Such relations are worth a comment with a link to the mentioned character cat, but IMHO it should not be shown by categorization. Greetings -- sarang사랑 10:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (News: I am in discussion with a BOT tamer)

Using category was the simplest way of showing the relation between different forms of CJK, but I agree that it is not a recommendable solution to the problem. Maybe I can add a parameter to Template:CJK category.
I have never heard before that 内 (內) is a variant of 肉. Could you kindly give me a reference for this fact? --Aotake (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Look up Wiktionary:内 or Wiktionary:內. At Wiktionary:肉 since Jan. 2007 something is told that I read for that. I am not at all common with CJK, but if you better know make a correction.

Your expansion of Template:CJK category looks good. It may give a good quick overview and explains the complicated relations.
It looks that our work becomes always more and more, and no end in sight — but it is growing always to a better state.
With the BOT man, I am in good progress. -- sarang사랑 14:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear that a Bot is working fine for the works. About 内 and 肉, I think the person added this piece of information on the Wiktionary did not know very well about CJK. I will remove the information. --Aotake (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I will believe you, and I changed therefore the wrong information in de:Radikal 130. Cheers -- sarang사랑 10:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC) (you keep in mind Category:门?)
I checked several dictionaries at hand and none gave any such reference. Their origins are different and their meanings are totally different as well. --Aotake (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It's fine, you are a trustworth souce. -- sarang사랑 16:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

More categories[edit]

Hi Aotake, please consider that I requested a lot of categories to create by the bot.
Bot list 1 is the request for definition of the still missing second half of the 214 Radical0-cats;
Bot list 2 will change the 214 Radical ### cats.
Bot list 3 are 276 new radical character categories (242 others are yet defined). You made an expansion to CJK Category template; you are invited to make your definitions in the list, otherwise you change the categories after their definition.
Bot list 3a are the 124 Kangxi radicals, I do not know whether I should request their definition. We could as well require REDIRECTs; or we define nothing at all.

Aotake, may I use once more your knowledge? Throughout Wikipedia are inconsistencies with 靑 and 青. The first one is in traditional Chinese the radical, the second one its variation. Ok? I changed something wrong about that at de:Radikal 174, and at zh:青部 where the German errors came from (characters from rad. 173 in the table). Would you mind to check my edits? Couriously ja:靑部 is a redirect, and the main page is ja:青部; as in :zh:. May be in Japan and modern China the second letter is taken for the radical? Sure you know better. Cheers, -- sarang사랑 16:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

For the bot work lists, I assume they are fine. About the character 青, they are variants of the same character. 靑 is the glyph used in Kangxi dictionary, but today 青 is used all in Mainland China, Taiwan, and Japan. --Aotake (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, we describe the Traditional Kangxi glyphs (of course with mentioning nowadays usage), so I let be 靑 the main radical, and 青 the variation. f you like to add description, feel free to do so. Thanks for your information.

Have you seen that the bot worked? The 214 categories Radical ### are updated, now using the template Radicalw and explicit categorizing. There are many cats more, from the table in Category:Radical-0 any link is now successful. The cats Radical ###–0 use now also ecplicit categorizing instead built-in from Radical0; that is wanted by the tool guys. -- sarang사랑 17:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

More again[edit]

Hi Aotake, it's me again. You are working a lot to make a good system for the CJk glyphs. In the meantime you had a quite good success, it is much better now than some months before.

May I suggest the following: If there are several images for the same glyph, a category for them should be generated. Your template CJK category is very useful, as well for a short description to the category, as for linking to more information. Especially if images are from the stroke order project, like -bw.png or -order.gif, the category is recommended.

If there is only a single glyph for a CJK character, or may be even two, it seems not reasonable to have a category for it. For that, I expanded the template Rcat. It tries to assign the character to the character category, and when none exists, the image becomes assigned to the radical. When it happens that later the category comes, the image is automatically re-assigned to it.

In addition, a short infobox is created (best you see an example e.g. File:冉 倉頡字形特徵.jpg). It is a disadvantage that the Rcat command should be the first one, prior to the description summary, otherwise the generated infobox comes to a place below where it cannot be seen easily.

If you agree that's a good help, you may use it; otherwise don't. Cheers, -- sarang사랑 22:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ;)[edit]

I must have overseen this. Thanks for the fix. ;) abf «Cabale!» 13:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


This and similar edits: really? I'd consider this "basketry" (in terms of the artistic technique) but not a "basket" (you can't carry anything in it). Is there something going on here that I'm missing? - Jmabel ! talk 02:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry if I screwed things up. I was kind of confused with Category:Basket making and Category:Basketry, or Category:Basketry hats and various other Category:Woven hats. Also Category:Fiascos, which is not baskets in my opinion, was under Category:Baskets. I will undo my edits. Can I move Category:Fiascos and some other images under Category:Basketry instead?--Aotake (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. On fiascos, you'd probably do best to talk to whoever created that category. As far as I know, fiasco is just Italian for bottle (besides being slang in Italian, English, Spanish and doubtless other languages for something gone wrong), but it looks like here it is being used consistently for bottles wrapped in basketry. Seems worth a category, though I'm not sure that's the best name. - Jmabel ! talk 15:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)