User talk:Djr13

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

Why IWW?[edit]

[1][2]: Why add Category:Industrial Workers of the World? I can't imagine anything more antithetical to the IWW than the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen. - Jmabel ! talk 08:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The LLLL's purpose was primarily to deter IWW organizing, making it historically relevant to the IWW. I'm new to Commons though, so it's entirely possible I'm categorizing wrongly. Thanks, djr13 (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I just did some recategorizing based on Category:Spruce Production Division and have subcategorized that with the IWW category. If this is incorrect or should be done in another way, please correct it. Thanks, djr13 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
While it's not an absolute rule, putting something in a category means "is part of this", not "is relevant to this". So, for example, you don't stick a photo of one person in another person's category unless the only reason someone would ever be likely to care is the other person (e.g. you might do this with the utterly unknown child of a very famous person). When the relations are trickier, we try to put in an intermediate category so, for example, we wouldn't put John Wilkes Booth directly under Abraham Lincoln: we have an intervening Category:Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. A similar principle applies here: I'll create a Category:Opposition to the Industrial Workers of the World. - Jmabel ! talk 19:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
That said, Spruce Production Division was a good choice, also. - Jmabel ! talk 19:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I do seem to err on the side of overcategorization (or even miscategorization perhaps) sometimes when I'm not sure. The intermediate category is a great idea though. To reduce redundancy I'll subcategorize the SPD cat rather than the individual LLLL logos. Thanks, djr13 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
That last change, again, seems wrong to me. The Spruce Production Division was primarily exactly what its name says, an operation to produce high quality light wood for military use. It had nothing to do with the IWW, but when the latter started attempting to organize SPD workers and, even more so, to use that organization to call for work stoppages centered on opposition to the war rather than on labor concerns as such, people at the top of the SPD created the LLLL to counter the Wobblies. The LLLL survived for a while after the war for a few years as something akin to a company union, though a bit more independent than that. So it is wrong to categorize the SPD itself under opposition to the IWW. - Jmabel ! talk 08:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken (I could very well be), the SPD was formed to counter the IWW's 1917 LWIU organizing which was already leading to strikes. By that time the IWW had long had a reputation for being anti-war and quick to strike if its relatively high goals weren't met, which often led to images and accusations of foreign-driven sedition by those who didn't want to make consessions to workers but seen their production drop. However, the IWW wasn't, from what I've read, so actively anti-war as to attempt to subvert war efforts, but often rather found itself in conflicts speaking out against conscription and war production being used as an excuse to stagnate or worsen working conditions. Besides this, categorizing SPD as I did makes sense as the SPD were there not only to put soldiers into production but to act as a security force to force out organizing attempts. djr13 (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Based on our article Spruce Production Division, you seem to be more correct than I realized. I'll leave this as you have it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be on the same note again (especially because you were right last time and I wasted your time) but why Category:Centralia Square (building) in Category:Wesley Everest, rather than the specific photos that show the mural? Seems odd to me to place File:Centralia Square Building 04.jpg indirectly in Category:Wesley Everest. And would be even odder if we ever get photos of the interior. - Jmabel ! talk 16:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, you're probably right about this one. I wasn't sure how to best sort the category tree between all of: Category:Centralia Square (building), Category:Wesley Everest, Category:Centralia Massacre (Washington) and Category:Industrial Workers of the World, including considering redundant cats, avoiding circular cats, and all that. I guessed at it so that at least it'd show up in Everest's category in some form, since he's being depicted in particular. However, despite briefly looking into the mural, I don't know much about it or the building. I don't think the building owner is an IWW member nor the shop within unionized. It's further complicated because the mural is currently blurred out to avoid possible copyright infringement. djr13 (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Yup. The building has no particular affiliation with the IWW -- it's currently an antiques mall. The owner simply allowed this wall facing the town square to be used for a mural. Now, in Centralia, the Massacre is by no means a dead issue, and it was nervy of him to do that: probably a lot of people boycotted him for it. But certainly my intent in posting the pictures was mainly to depict the building, not the mural: I don't think there is any way we could do the latter without the artist's permission, which is why I added Gaussian blur. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I think I could try finding the artist's info and asking permission, no idea if that'll be successful though. Do you still have unblurred copies? In the meantime, feel free to sort it as you see fit and I'll trust your judgment. Putting the photos themselves under Category:Wesley Everest and Category:Centralia Massacre (Washington) seems like a good idea if the blur, as it stands, doesn't make these categories irrelevant. djr13 (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I should have the unblurred photos on disk; also, there's a picture of the mural as such on my Flickr account: If you want to contact the artist, Mike Alewitz, he's alewitz @ - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I should probably mention, having not done so over the past month, that I decided not to try requesting permission for photographs of the mural. I don't feel familiar enough with Commons's requirements to try formally requesting it right now, and don't yet see a pressing need for images of the mural to get me to overcome that. djr13 (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
OK. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Good work![edit]

With the interwiki care. Thank you Orrlingtalk 06:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! djr13 (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Interlanguage categories[edit]

Hi Djr13, You added some categories with an en: prefix to categories I watch. I think I can guess what this is for, but would prefer to know how it works, so I can do the necessary work when I am categorising something anyway. I quite often create new categories, so it would save on effort if I add more relevant categories at the same time. Can you direct me to the relevant policy or help pages? Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Peter, the interlanguage tags I added aren't categorization related per se, rather they're for associating categories/pages on Commons with a corresponding category/page on Wikipedia. This is primarily done so that Commons users, in various languages, have an easy and consistent means, in the Commons sidebar, to see more on the topic. This can usually be found under "In Wikipedia" on the left. It's meant to be used in addition to any other means of internationalization, such as translated descriptions, here on Commons.
However, you'll notice that I only placed an interlanguage link to the English Wikipedia but not other languages. I did this because it's easier than digging up all of the associated links, and because it only needs one associated category or other page for a wiki-bot to see the rest missing and maintain any further interlanguage changes to come.
Eventually Commons's interlanguage system will be going the same way Wikipedia's already has, deleting its in-page tags and transferring its associational system into Wikidata. However, this isn't expected anytime soon, so basically, to maintain this way of letting users (and computers) easily see associations between, and jump between, Commons and Wikipedia, we have to manually locate and assign interlanguage tags here and Commons category templates there.
Although I've not seen any policy on the matter (either are allowed for Commons categories), I prefer and suggest attempting to assign Commons categories to an equivalent Wikipedia category, whenever such a category exists, rather than associating Commons categories with Wikipedia articles, but still assign Wikipedia articles when equivalent categories don't exist. This allows people navigating Commons's category-based system to move between and compare Wikipedia's category system with similar navigation structure and associational hierarchy.
For category editors, interlanguage links between Commons categories and Wikipedia categories serves an added benefit of making it easier for them (and, eventually, computers) to monitor the development and differences between the two category trees. djr13 (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I saw your edit on May 25 which said, interlanguage now in wikidata. Is there a way to automate this to take care of the rest of the days of the year? Evrik (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I wish I knew! Sometimes these are taken care of by bots, and sometimes only partially (maybe the bot doesn't realize there's a matching pair and needs a hint), and sometimes not at all for whatever reason. Help:Interlanguage links doesn't give any good clues, seemingly describing the case with bots only as it relates to the old link style, and basically as 'it's complicated'. I spotted a page on Wikidata describing open questions on the Commons-Wikidata relation. Automation would definitely be better than manually working through these (as I was doing a limited degree of before the switch) or random patchwork (as I do now). djr13 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing category[edit]

At File:Everett - Labor Temple - Timberworker's banner 01.jpg you added Category:International Union of Timberworkers, but you haven't created the category. - Jmabel ! talk 15:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I figure a red-category isn't very disruptive to viewers. In particular, I left relevant categories, which otherwise would be redundant, for sorting and navigation. And eventually if that subject gets more than that one file in it, there will be more incentive and context for creating the category. Also, having a red-category lets viewers know there's potential for that category, provides a clear name for it, and adds an entry into Special:WantedCategories. I'm pretty slow and meticulous at creating pages, but tagging the file with the red-category was a quick way to indicate inclusion in a future category. So basically the same rationale as w:Wikipedia:Red link (though Wikipedia is stricter about it for categories). djr13 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Normally we don't do that on Commons. I strongly recommend that if you want that to stick around, fill in the category. Otherwise, someone is just liable to delete it from the photo, because we get tons of beginners' uploads with red-linked categories. - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point. There's people on Wikipedia who do the same with red links. Redundant categories helps some, less of a problem to lose them. I often leave them out if it's categories for people who just happen to be in the photo. djr13 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Named-after category[edit]

I replied to your question on my talk page at User talk:Ipoellet#Named-after category. Thanks! — Ipoellet (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

PDF Maps[edit]

Latest revision as of 07:37, 2015 July 9 (edit) (undo) (thank) Djr13 (talk | contribs) (Undo revision 141751457 by WayneRay (talk): appears to be intended to be a category, but category is redundant with Category:Geography PDF files)

  • Thanks for the Undo, I created the Cat:PDF files and most of the sub categories years ago. I only just returned to editing after an absence of 4 years. I probably assumed that although part of geography, maps are different. My new motto is "do it right the second time" WayneRay (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
(For reference to myself: ‎Special:Diff/165346252) To be sure, I probably wouldn't have even noticed the edit if you didn't accidentally add the wrong kind of link, forgetting the Category: part. At that point I didn't really think if maps might have an independent meaning or not, fixing the link into a category just didn't seem right at the time when it's already in that one via the Geography one. It might also fit in Category:PDF diagrams though. djr13 (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


File:SPGB-1905-conference.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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jcb (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)