User talk:Makthorpe

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

Contents

The ongoing Article uber alles category controversy[edit]

Note originally left by DennisS on Stahlkocher's DE talk page titled:
  == Bitte um Hilfe ==  

Kannst Du Dir bitte mal ansehen was Commons:User:Makthorpe dort so alles treibt ? Das scheint so ein Kategorie-Fan(atiker) zu sein der das gerade etwas stabilisierte System bei den Flugzeugen, Helikoptern und Schiffen wieder total durcheinanderwürfelt. Teils wird der Inhalt von Artikeln in Kategorien dupliziert aber auch die verlinkten Bilder werden wieder in die Hauptkategorien hinzugefügt. Wäre schön wenn Du ein wenig Zeit dafür hättest. --Denniss 03:10, 28. Mär 2006 (CEST)


This is total BS DennisS. There is no concensus on making commons exlusively article oriented. In fact the article only folks are outnumbered by folks who favor some role of categories by 2 to one. I have made repeated attempts to enter into dialog with DennisS on this matter. DennisS has never bothered to send me any message or respond in any way except with reversions. Please refer to DennisS's talk page on wikicommons- the section concerning removal of categories from images.


DennisS chose to respond to my discussion with mass reversions. As you will see from the history logs, I have made repeated attempts to discuss the matter with DennisS, with no results.


If DennisS would care to discuss the issue, I welcome this. As you will see from the issues I raised, the destruction being done is by DennisS in blanking categories from images. I have no trouble with articles and in fact I have made many improvements to them such as updating the interwikis and adding further historical information to remove confusion created by multiple categorizations that do not apply to all images discussed by the article in question.
Regards, Mak Thorpe on WikiCommons.

Dear Makthorpe, Denniss asked me to help him. It was really destructive. You should have talk about the matter instead reversing. Please talk to Denniss, who spend much afford to bring things right in the planes section and find a solution. If not? We will see. -- Stahlkocher 15:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see what happened, but i, personally, think it is not nice to force thinks. I know Denniss now for years and he was allways as a good fellow. Both of should had ask third party for further opinions. I prefer categories, but Denniss had a working system to keep planes picture accessible. I respect this, because it is working fine. Probably, you can to it, too. Metadata is not to important for commons, i think. The best idea, i suppose so, would be to categorize en-Wiki further instead of these images. Best regards. -- Stahlkocher 17:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I asked Denniss to get in discussion with you. Please be patient. -- Stahlkocher 17:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. In fact I will go further. DennisS has done an extraordinary amount of great work at Wikimedia Commons in the areas I am interested in. We are all indebted to him. However, this does not entitle him to dictate policy. As you know, there is no consensus on this very contentious issue (Commons:Images_on_normal_pages_or_categories:Vote), and in fact the exclusive article position that DennisS favors is in the minority by 2 to 1. So he has no grounds for blanking perfectly valid categories from images. The mixed position is in the majority, and I personally believe both are valuable. I propose the discussion for this be on DennisS' (archived) talk page discussing his removal of many people's images from categories until such time there are enough interested parties to raise it again on village well. Cheers. Mak 19:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

transwiki questions[edit]

Thanks for your example on Skymaster that had some transwiki and interwiki stuff.

  • Question 1: I see you have some text folding stuff in for the french example. Is this the way you expect translated versions will be done in the future (text for all version in one object?)
  • Question 2: Is the main purpose of the transwiki descriptions
eg {{en| foo fah   {{ar| ...

to generate desciptions that native readers would view, or is the purpose to generate search terms that a searcher like Google would hit on. I ask because I have been grabbing text from Wikipedia for these and sometimes there is a lot of general information that should go in if it is for a search hit, but not go in if you just want to have a couple one line descriptions of the category or image.

-Mak 02:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about Category:C-54 Skymaster? I don't see any French text there. About your second question, when I'm creating a category, I usually just copy the first sentence from the corresponding Wikipedia article, to define what the category is supposed to represent. User:dbenbenn 03:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I got it all mixed up. Sorry. It was the modification you did to template en. Your note says it the div desciption-fr tag is to hide text, but it is not clear to me when that happens. I changed preferences to French and everything displayed the same. Do I have to have a Quebec IP address for this to work?  ;-)
-Mak 07:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Because of the code I have in User:Dbenbenn/monobook.css, I only see what's in {{en}}, not {{fr}} or other languages. More info at Commons:Multilinguality. User:dbenbenn 15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I saw the Multilingual stuff but missed this trick. I figured it was a css thing but didn't see how it was enabled. I can use this in a multilingual wiki I set up for an enthusiast group I belong to.
By the way, on most of the interwikis from categories I see links to articles in Wikipedia as you did with Category:C-54 Skymaster. That seems what the user would most often want, but sometimes I see an interwiki to a category. Any policy on that- like link to a category when available, otherwise to a wikipedia article? Thanks. -Mak 17:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

CatScan[edit]

Hi Makthorpe, with your latest VP comment I think you are not aware of the amazing tool that is CatScan! To get the intersection of two categories (as you say, to "AND" them), just put the two categories in the top 2 fields. The tool will also go through subcategories unless you change the 'depth' to 1. Nifty, eh? pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

USS Maine[edit]

Sorry, the diff listing made it look like everything was being mangled. Anyway, my working principle is that commons pages are like skeleton WP articles - minimal text (1-2 sentences per language), the images, and then boilerplate like categorization and interwiki exactly parallel to the WP articles. The theory is that this makes it equally easy to find images for articles and articles for images; either interwiki link goes direct to/from commons, or go up to a category, use the cat's interwiki to get to language WP/commons, look in cat for relevant material. If we're careful about parallelism, then we can eventually set bots to work keeping things consistent; there are thousands of images going unused in the various WPs because nobody even knows they're available. Stan Shebs 21:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

articles promote monolingualism in commons.[edit]

What good are articles. They are never up to date, they have english only captions- they promote a monolingual wikipedia. Until mediawiki software provides some sort of good multilingual text folding feature for captions and intro notes, my opinion is that articles should be avoided. -Mak 17:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Supercat[edit]

Dear Markthorpe, I am only acting as I was told to act, after several of the categories I had inserted in pictures I had upladed were removed for the same reason by adms. The rationale, I was explained, is that once a whole cat. is included within another (eg. "German photographers") as a "daughter" category", the mother category (eg. "Photographers") is redudant, since there is a link from below towards the mother category.
The rationale therefore is: from German photographer X I can go towards "cat. German photographers", and thence towards category "Photographers" (and the reverse) therefore it is redundant to put all of these categories. If the photographer X is a category himself, I only have to put him, since he is contained as a subcategory within "German photographers" which is contained in its turn as a subcategory within "Photographers", and so on.
I had a fight about "Museums in Rome" for this reason. I agree that this makes navigation somewhat harder, although theoretically it is through the search engine (which in my opinion is rather bad) that a single photographer should be looked for.
But if there are rules different from those I have been taught, I would please like at last to know where they are written once for all. There cannot be rules that apply or don't apply according with the subject. :-( Love —G.dallorto 03:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
PS I favor categories over galleries. It makes things much easier to find out. Categories are updated in real time, galleries only when someone feels like doing it (In my opinion, galleries shoud be subordinated to categories). For an example, see: Carl Van Vechten vs. Category:PD_Van_Vechten to know what I mean. But I have been deleted so many categories from patrolling adms that I cannot count them...

Well, if it is a Commons policy, then of course we must comply. I am ignorant of any such policy. Can you point me to the policy document stating this?
In short, if we were undertaking to create a conceptually clean taxonomy of categories, and apply them in a rigorous, scientific fashion as one would as a Botanist, then of course, such a policy makes complete sense.
I think it is wrong to confuse the literal definition with what categories are, and what they mean to actual users of Commons. Only the latter has relevance. Now, if there is an existing category "old people", and I am interested in creating a subset "old men", then fine- create the old men group and tag every image that matches that. But what if someone is looking for pictures of an old person and doesn't care what their gender or race is. If this were really a policy, then the user would have to first visit the old men group, then the old orientals group, then the old white women group, etc etc. See what I mean? When you are creating a category you are creating a navigation set. Segmenting the sets is good, so that people can go specifically to the area they are most interested in. But exclusively requiring images to reside only in such subsets forces images to reside in pigeonholed ghettos. There is no need for such a dark world. They can live everywhere simultaneously. There is no downside to it either. I can understand some practical limits for some categories with thousands of members, like in the people by alphabet category.
I sincerely doubt this is a real policy, but merely the opinion of some admin you spoke to. I know there is a lot of controversy on these matters, but as in the articles vs. categories subject, it seems to me that a "live and let live" attitude will suit Commons just fine for the time being. Let a thousand flowers grow. -Mak 08:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Russia-Moscow-Georgy Zhukov Monument.jpg[edit]

Please include images in most relevant categories only. Generic categories will become overcrowded and useless for search, if you'll add every image there. --EugeneZelenko 14:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You used future tense. Yes I agree. Categories do multiple things. From a user's POV, it adds see also at the bottom of the page (good). The problem is it also clutters those supercats (bad). The thing is that as the supercats become more populated, they do as you say become more generic, and less interesting as a See Also navigation option too. So over time, the value of transclusion changes.
But note that this is ok, becuase it is easily tuned at the category for all Zhukov items. But only if the user has transcluded.
My overall goal is really a maintainable way of getting interwikis and transwikis being used more- not the category supercat issue, which is orthogonal to the transclusion question. -Mak 14:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Category-Pearl Harbor Attack[edit]

Sorry, can you please explain what this is? It seems unusual. I know you are quite capable of speaking English, so please add an English caption to this template. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is obsolete- it is a scheme which makes no sense. I will request delete in due time. Replaced in favor of using categories for transclusion. See code for Category:Pearl Harbor Attack. This idea continues to evolve so this code expression is just a snapshot. and I am working on the code being more hidden so that it won't get messed up by those who don't understand what it is for.
Now, about the english request. I am time constricted and limit the number of transwikis I am putting in to non latin languages with significant populations. THere is a very significant number of english word hits on these pages so that when google is working we will get hits on them. But are we not multilingual? What if someone in Nagoya types in a search expression using kana to phonetically spell out flying fortress and Pearl harbor. Well, they will get a hit on this: Image:NARA 28-1277a.gif because it has a transclusion for pearl harbor and for B-17. Now, this is probably a bad example because flying fortress is not a proper name like USS Tennessee, which would be the same in all latin script languages.
So picture what would happen if all the languages where included as I did in Category:Adolf_Hitler. Until the developers have some text folding capability in mediawiki software (so captions not in your language can optionally be "folded" into expandible text boxes marked with +, it will be a huge huge amount of screen clutter.
Okay? -Mak 17:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I am working on the code being more hidden so that it won't get messed up by those who don't understand what it is for. I think it would be rather better if we didn't employ such code in the first place. For the English request, it would have been quicker to type it than to type this response you have. :P I asked you ADD English, not REMOVE the existing languages.
Also I suggest you have a look at Dbenbenn's monobook code, as he has some that will "hide" language captions of the form {{LC|caption}} (eg. {{en|English caption}}) except for your whitelist, ie. languages you can speak. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of Dbenbenn's code. Text folding is actually very old and predates even Hypercard. Dbenbenn's doesn't do + expansion. I am confident that more serious and robust support will incorporated into Mediawiki to deal with this sort of issue.
As to the speed issue, Dbenbenn's at this point has not even conceded that even subst'ing such template information is ever justified. So whether or not I put in english transwiki is a moot point to him. How about to you? Do you think it is ok to use a template to transclude interwikis? Updating interwikis is actually possible for those non elites who don't understand how to get a pywikipedia bot working. -Mak 02:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of interwiki and transwiki information[edit]

Whatever it is you think you're doing with templates and categories, please stop. It isn't helpful to transclude categories, or to copy the wiki-code of a category to a template and then transclude that. User:dbenbenn 18:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct, but let's examine the conventional wisdom and get concrete. Would your rather than there be no transwikis or interwikis for this image: Image:F-22F119.JPG? This is not about inclusion of additional categories- there are no categories inherited. As to motivation, I covered some of that in my response to pfctdayelise above.-Mak 19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add all the interwiki links you want to Image:F-22F119.JPG. But it's better to include the image in Category:F-22 Raptor directly, rather than using a template parameter to do it. User:dbenbenn 19:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry? You have asserted it is better, but have not provided any substantiation. This is a much more practical method for keeping 500K images up to date with interwikis. Really- there is no sense in wasting your valuable time reverting those changes. I honestly recognize I may be wrong here and promise will clean this all up if you are correct. -Mak 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you include a category in an image directly, anyone who tries to edit the image description page can easily see what's going on, and can change the category. On the other hand, if you pass the category name as a parameter to a template, and have the template include the category, that's much more complicated. A person trying to edit the image won't be able to easily see what's happening. User:dbenbenn
Let's assume you are correct. Then the correct fix to the B-17 images would be to subst the category, not revert the image. Instead you removed all the inter and transwikis. Looking at it from your POV, it seems to me you have not considered what you are doing before acting. -Mak 19:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"Subst the category"? What? You put an image in a category with [[Category:Foo]]. You don't transclude a category, and you certainly don't subst it. User:dbenbenn 20:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
For illustration, I have saved Image:USS West Virginia;014824.jpg using as subst of the category as I wrote it. The category is parameterized, so that the transwiki is included but not the interwiki. Your revert of the category made such a productivity aid of substing categories impossible. -Mak 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Oops. Please ignore that example. It didn't work with that particular example, as I didn't intend it for substing. I will select an alternate example.... One moment please. -Mak 20:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I am sure you understand that I could rewrite the template Category-Pearl Harbor Attack so that it would be subst'd correctly. If the template would never be used in any other way except to be subt'd, then would that be acceptable to your position? -Mak 21:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
But what is it you'd want to subst? Are you trying to make a template to automatically spam an image page with loads of interwiki links? I see that this old version of Image:USS West Virginia;014824.jpg has a bunch of redundant categories, and some Japanese and Chinese text hidden by Qif. Why would you want to add redundant categories? User:dbenbenn 22:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Supercats are an orthogonal issue. Let's confine ourselves to consideration of the value of transcluding interwikis and transwikis. Would you agree to a template so that a person could quickly subst in the inter and transwikis? The value to the end user is obvious. Once Google image search is working on commons as discussed on village pump, when the user types in a search in arabic, hindi or chinese for battleship and pearl harbor they would get a hit on say the USS West Virginia picture. When they get there, they see text in their own language. Commons is welcoming to them, not excluding them due to an english bias (possibly due to unimaginative use of categories). Further, the user can click on a link back into their wikipedia article. Hardly spam. That is solid functionality for end users. -Mak 22:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Image description pages, categories and articles should/can all contain {{en|short multilingual descriptions}}. Dbenbenn is right that it should be simple and easy to change an image's category. If you want to test out different ideas I suggest you do it on a testwiki and come back to us when you have an idea that is simple to understand and implement, obviously advantageous and scalable. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"it should be simple and easy to change an image's category"- pfctdayelise, what does that point have to do with transcluding interwikis or transwikis? If our agreement was never to transclude supercats, it could easily be made so with use of . Or perhaps the templates would be separate from categories entirely (which Dbenbenn appears to disfavor, but you seem undecided about). Do you believe that it is ok to use a Template to include Interwikis for an image? How about transwikis? If not why not? -Mak 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


For futher comments, let's agree to continue this thread to Dbenbenn's talk page. OK? -Mak 02:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Transwikis on image pages- Mapping restricted languages to natural languages for better recall.[edit]

I wrote: "In formal terms, what we are actually doing is performing a synonym expansion from a restricted vocabulary into a natural language." I went on to say we couldn't use metatags because they are ignored. In the pile of words, I think you might have missed this essential point regarding the value of transwikis on image pages. -Mak

Transwikis? Do you mean interwiki links? I have nothing against interwiki links (though I'm not convinced they're useful on image pages, either). User:dbenbenn 21:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I mean the process of transfering the first sentence of a wiki article on a subject into a corresponding Commons page. This is accepted practice for Categories and Galleries. -Mak 22:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you show me an example of what you're talking about? User:dbenbenn 22:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Image:USS West Virginia;014824.jpg -Mak 22:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
That image description page is unacceptable, because it transcludes two categories. It's fragile, because anyone editing either of the categories can easily break the complicated coding. And it's confusing to anyone who isn't familiar with the system. User:dbenbenn 22:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I am asking about the presence of the transwikis themselves on the image page, let's set aside how they got there for now. Assume the wiki code contains no transclusions- the two {{ja| etc. lines are in the west virginia image page itself. What I am getting at is your mistaken notion that this has no value- that it is as you put it, "spam". I fully appreciate and am a believer in the idea of stamping our mediocrity on wiki pages. Mindless repetition adds nothing, and I agree. But that is not what is going on here. I'd like to see if you have understood that. -Mak 22:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can't really comment on the value of the Japanese text, because I don't speak that languages. Perhaps you ought to ask some Japanese speaking people. But if I did speak Japanese, I think I would find the text annoying, because it simply duplicates the Japanese text at Category:USS Tennessee (BB-43). I certainly wouldn't want the equivalent thing with English descriptions. User:dbenbenn 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
(Discussion continued and concluded at User_talk:Dbenbenn#Transwikis_on_image_pages-...])

Subst'ing templates[edit]

Recognizing now the value of copy/ pasting text strings into image pages, do you think it necessary to delete templates if they are only to be used for Subst ing Transwikis onto image pages? EG:Template:Category-Pearl Harbor Attack? -Mak 23:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that seems fine. I really like the fact that Template:Category-Pearl Harbor Attack doesn't have any complicated wiki-programming. User:dbenbenn 23:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

I only tried to avoid duplicate listing a picture in a huge "world war II ships" category, while it is in a sub-category already. Sorry for a mess. Noinclude seems OK. Pibwl 19:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Use of talk pages[edit]

(Note: the full discussion for this section may be found at User_talk:Pfctdayelise#Use_of_talk_pages This mostly only has Pfctdayelise responses- they may be found in context on the above mentioned page.

Are you referring to something specific that I (or another administrator) have deleted? If so, please provide a link. If there was a mistake I will happily undelete it.

Is there a policy/etiquette about not deleting remarks, or is it just like any other wiki text?

I believe there is an unwritten guideline that nonsense, tests or text not relating to the topic at hand can be deleted (eg: on image talk pages: should be talking about the image's quality or accuracy of description, not asking questions like "When did Stalin die?" on a picture of Stalin. I follow this guideline. It keeps the Commons neater and more professional.

Are the rules any different if the comments are one's own User:Talk pages?

It depends if it seems like you are trying to remove criticism of yourself, or if you're merely archiving your talk page. Plenty of people archive their talk page by blanking it. Just put a comment like "archiving" in the edit summary and I don't think anyone will accuse you of untoward behaviour.

Regards, pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at your contribs and I believe I know what you are referring to. In this case I believe Fred Chessplayer's comment and revert was correct. You have been able to state your case elsewhere and that will certainly be read by people interested in the issue. The archive of the user's talk page is easily accessible and will certainly be viewed by people who haven't made up their minds on this issue yet.
Many users reserve the right to remove irrelevant comments from their talk page. I don't see that as censorship or suppression of information. Since you were not addressing the user directly, it's not really an appropriate user talk page comment. So, I wouldn't really worry about it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Just as it would be inappropriate to leave comments encouraging other people to vote for him, it is also inappropriate to leave comments encouraging to oppose. You are not even adressing DenisS, but other users ("urge anyone"). You have made your point well enough in the RfA. You can hardly accuse him of "silencing criticism" when critical comments are clearly viewable in his talk archive and on the RfA, I think that is a very unfair criticism. If you have some specific criticism to take up with DenisS personally then it is appropriate to do that on his talk page, but I don't see that that's what you were doing.
I would really just leave this one alone. You have visibly stated your case and as I said, anyone who hadn't already made their mind up will no doubt take your comments into consideration. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
(Note: the full discussion for this section may be found at User_talk:Pfctdayelise#Use_of_talk_pages This mostly only has Pfctdayelise responses- they may be found in context on the above mentioned page.

Flamarande - Japanese Imperial Navy[edit]

Hi, sorry for the delay in answering (I am human, and I fear that I need some sleep). The problem was that my brother turned of the main computer which is in his room or I would allready done it and you wouldn´t see my half-finished work. Well, I was trying to organize the diffrent pictures of the "Japanese Imperial Navy" under the "Category:Japanese Imperial Navy" and then place all the images of the Japanese aircraft carriers under the "Sub-category: Japanese Aircraft carriers". In the near future I plan to give every single "Japanese aircraft carrier" its own category, in which the proper articles and images can be listed and to use the allready exising ones. I plan to put the allready created articles inside of the proper categories. For example, a article about the "Japanese Imperial Navy" will be easily found in "Category:Japanese Imperial Navy". An article about the Yamato will be easily found in Category:Yamato which in turm be a subcategrory of Category:Japanese Destroyers wich in turn will be a Sub of "Japanase Imperial Navy" which will be a Sub of "Ships of Japan". A single class or ship of the Imperial Japanese Aircraft Carriers can alltoo easily be placed inside of this schema. Its looks complicated, but it is really easy to use.

As for the "category Hiryu" you are right, I had not noticed it. I allready put alot of images under "Japanese Imperial Navy" and I am going to start to sort them out under the allready existing categories. All images of Hiryu are going to be placed under the category Hiryu as well as any article about that ship.

To be honest, I think that a category called "naval actions" is bit too vague, but if you think it is worthy enough I won´t object to it. What I am afraid of is that almost any image, of any ship, of any military conflict engaged in a military action can and propably will be listed under this category.

I am still new here, I operate mainly in the english wiki and used to go from time to time "here" to see if there were any good images. Three days ago, I noticed the enormous mess in Category:Romans and just decided to improve it. I even made the Category:Roman navy. Please take a look at both of them. I was amazed how easy it was done, so I simply decided to continue. I don´t want to step on any toes, and I am sorry if I did. Flamarande 14:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have found the template inside the categories of the Japanese aircraft carriers I followed the talk links and I found this message:

"I suggest no one use this early version of info templates that I wrote. If you wish, you may consider the current format which is template:More. However, the design continues to evolve rapidly so any pages you make using it will also likely have to upgrade."

This was an interim template. Soon, all pages using Endnote will be upgraded to the final form of info-template. Any questions contact me, the template author -Mak 23:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)".

Basicly telling us not to use the template. Is that correct? Flamarande 16:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

response may be found on your talk page. Copied here for the benefit of others: Mak 17:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Please note the implications of Catscan on category design. Even if you have a general classification like naval actions and there are 2K images in it, it doesn't really matter. You search for category battleship intersected with naval actions and bingo- you have all the battleship involved naval actions. Note that if you make the category really really deep though, the novice may not find it. EG. Iowa class battleships in WWII (ISA) USN battleship in WWII ISA USN battleship ISA battleship. Now, the image is buried under 4 layers of categories, and the default 3 layers of catsan won't find the image. Sure the expert user will change the value to 4 or 5, but how does the user know that is a problem? They will get some hits and will probably assume that is all the hits. Whatever- if it is a strict tree then it is a problem. If it is a graph, and it is permitted to have iowa class be a direct child of battleship then the user doesn't run into the such problems with catscan and corresponding user problems navigating such a thicket of branches.
IMHO- we shouldn't create a deep structure unless the cats are getting so populated that we are forced to. Note also that these cats you are created can be created virtually. But really- no need to make an argument. I don't really care that much. The cat structure is very malleable and will be subject to many many many revisions in the future.
Regarding your comment on giving every single carrier its own category. This is very interesting and I think a contribution that will not blow away like dust in the wind like upper level cat changes inevitably will. There is one Hiryu- There is no controversy about that. If a picture has Hiryu in it, it is really hard to argue that the image should not have the Hiryu tag.
Note there is a bunch of information on these lowest level categories (I call them identity categories for want of a better term) that is associated with them. For example, there are corresponding articles in wikis for many different languages. If you go to category Category:Hiryu you will see an Info-Hiryu object on the page. Click on the edit button. If you change the values in these fields, they will be changed on all pages that carry the {{More|Info-Hiryu}} wiki text. These also insert the Identity category, so instead of tagging an image [[Category:Hiryu]], inserting {{More|Info-Hiryu}} gives you the translations, the interwikis, the IDcat, and the See Also links.


Don't use early versions of more (EG Endnote and Include_notes are obsolete). If you want to experiment, use More. I think there should be a VP discussion on it before widespread use is promoted. I welcome your use of it, so long as you have the understanding that I am not going to upgrade any of the articles you make that use it. We need it to have the best design. I don't think its design should be constrained by having to be backwards compatible with a bunch of commons pages. It's just premature. Okey dokey?


Further information in Template talk:More I have not docced all the parms (you can switch of things like passing Text=n or Links=n). Please don't change the template code- it is exceptionally subtle, and even a carriage return can create wickedly odd results. -Mak 17:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I don´t know that much about images and I am not planning to delete any texts. What I am doing is sorting images. I began at Romans and now I doing it at the Japanese Imperial Navy. Take a look, and tell if you approve (I am not finished yet). I am also linking the diffrent categories with each other, e.g. I allready linked the "categoriy:Japanese Subamarines" wih the "Category:Subamarines" and "Category:Japanese Battleships" with Category.Battleships" and will linking all to each other respectivly. I am also planning to link the categories with the correct articles of the other wikis. I allready have done it with the single categories of the Roman battles, just take a look. I am new here, but not really a newbie. :) Flamarande 17:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I am largely done with sorting the images and linking the diffrent categories of the Japanese Imperial Navy. Every class is linked to the correct category, and every images that I could find is sorted in the correct class, the articles can also be easily found under the diffrent categories and everything is linked in a rational manner. I am not finished yet, but it won´t change much now. This is more or less what I did in Romans. Please, take a look Category:Japanese Imperial Navy and tell me what you think. I will return in two hours, more or less, I have to buy some stuff. Flamarande 18:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the transwiki because it does the same thing as a simple category, if you write down the categories inside the articles, you will end up with the same links as this transwiki. Just look below. But if think it is better with this transwiki..., I think it is a kind of a copy of the categories. It is also easier to correct any mistake, or to add a new category (at least in my opinion). Well I won´t oppose if you put it back. But I fear that I have deleted them all, but don´t get mad, all article and categories about the japanese navy are conected and I also linked the four aircraft carriers with the category "Pearl Harbour" and "Midway". I also linked the categories and the articles with the other wikis. Thats the beauty of using categories. Flamarande 21:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You deleted the entire template, which does more than transwikis. What benefit is there for not having multilingual translations of the category? What sense is there in repeating the interwiki links everywhere. Why not have them in one place so that they can all be updated. If Category links replace See also, then tell me how you do a see also to an article, or to an external site.
Really, I think you should pause to consider what it is you are deleting before you delete it. -Mak 21:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand (my english is not that good). The multilingual translations are allready there, I copied them quite easily frome the english wiki. Repeating the interwiki links is simply neccessary.
Let me give an example: We have the "Kaga" which is a an "Aircraft Carrier", specificially an "Japanese aircraft carrier" and is part of the "Japanese Imperial Navy", a part of the "Japanese Military" which belongs (or belonged) to "Japan". The ship participated in the "Attack of Pearl Harbour" and was destroyed in the battle of "Midway". I
Inside of the "Category:Kaga" and inside of the article "Kaga" I will copy these categories (quite easily) so that any user can jump from wherever he is, to any place he wants to go, quite easily. Of course, I won´t link Kaga to "Japanese food" or to to "Russian aircraft carriers" or something like that.
I am sorry to have deleted these things if you think there are usefull, but try it out: go to any "ship of Japan" and then use the diffrent categories. Flamarande 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I will corect the deletions of the links of the images from the battles of Pearl Harbour and Midway. Ops, never said that I am perfect. Flamarande 21:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Responses may be found on User talk:Flamarande -Mak 21:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you allready corected everything before I could do it myself. But I don´t know, I can´t see any advantage of using this "interwiki template" instead of the categories. To be honest, I think that the categories are simply easier to use. I mean, just look at the category Japanese Imperial navy. really go there, try the diffrent subcategories of shipclasses, they link tho all the relevant categories, which themselves have any existing articles quite efficiently. This interwiki for example does not link to the ships class (aircraft carrier). I can´t see any advantage. Flamarande 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please let's keep this discussion in one place. Let's carry on either here or your page. Most of the volume is on your page, so let's do it there. I will copy this response there. Please poste any future responses there. OK? Any other readers, please jump to User talk:Flamarande

Ostrich box[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure what you're trying to do by adding the template to Image:OstrichCartJacksonville1.jpg. The image is already in the struthio camelus category. Interwiki links should show other wikis using the image, not ostrich articles in other wikis. (By the same token of adding interwikis to all the ostrich articles, I presume we could also add links to all the articles on carts, on postcards, and on Jacksonville Florida to the image-- but I don't see how that would be appropriate either). Explanation, please? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 00:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

For responses to this and any continuation of discussion, interested parties are directed to User_talk:Infrogmation#ostrich_cart. -Mak 20:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:More ("Information object abstraction")[edit]

Hi - you asked me about the template you created. I'll try to make some general point, as I don't quite understand what you said on my talk page.

  • The template seems extremely complicated - it's hard to even tell what it's supposed to do. What exactly is it supposed to do, and why do we want a complex template for that?
  • Is it intended for image desciption pages, or for categories, or what? Image description pages have a distinct purpose, and should probably be treated differently.
  • Categorization is a good thing, sure. I also don't see where categorization-links are fought over...
  • Interlanguage-Links in image description pages should only be used to point to description pages for the same image in another language. Interlanguage-links pointing to a topic page or category in another wiki are misleading and polluting the interlanguage mapping.
  • If I understand correcly, you want to use interlanguage-links for images so their title is translated in the category listing. This will not work, translations is not done in the gallery part of a category, on purpose. Any possible interlanguage link will be much too generic, and thus misleading, for individual images.

Generally, if you plan some structural feature/change that involves a lot of edits (and thus a lot of work to undo, if it does not work out), please always dicuss it on the village pump first, and only implement it on a large scale if you have the consent of the community.

Regards -- Duesentrieb(?!) 14:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


For responses to this and any continuation of this discussion, interested parties are directed to de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Duesentrieb#Information_object_abstraction. -Mak 20:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I replied at my place - sorry for the delay. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 00:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Replied again - please tell me if you want to be notified here, or if it annoyes you... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 12:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ships[edit]

Thanks for contributing to the discussion on ship cats. I think you bring up some very good points. I may disagree with some of your arguments about the whys, but I do agree with you that there is no need to eliminate the decade-based categories. The strongest reason is its healthy use by the fr wiki. Since the idea is that Commons supports the other Wikis, we should retain schemes that mirror the others to the best of our ability. However, as you can see in the en Wiki, there are no decade or year based categories, but instead eras, so we need to have those here as well. They are not necessarily duplicate trees either.

I have modified my proposal at Commons:Category scheme ships to reflect this and hope you could take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Josh 13:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Museum ships[edit]

Thanks for the kind words! Museum ships are an underappreciated cornucopia of photo ops. I suppose in theory MediaWiki could allow image maps as raw HTML, so clicking on dots (or short arrows, to show direction of view) would jump to a chosen image. Probably not too hard to write a little program to generate the image map from relative position/orientation stashed with each image's description. Stan Shebs 18:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Category talk:Maritime Command[edit]

I responded to you at the Category talk page. Let me know what your thoughts are. Jkelly 16:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Interwikilinks with images[edit]

Hi Makthorpe, thanks for your reply on the interwikilink issue. Do I understand coorectly that it would be OK to put a link in the side bar to the most relevant article (in the Wikipedia of a given language) plus a link in the description section of the image itself? In the Image:Plofsluis.jpg example, we now have side bar links to the articles on the canal where this funny contracption is located (English and German), and on the defence system of which it is part (Dutch). It's quite OK with me, I'd be happy to add those links when uploading a picture. It's just a matter of how to ad to the usefulness of the picture. Best regards, MartinD 09:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[response may be found on Martin's page] -Mak

Re: Image:ADMIRALTOGO.JPG[edit]

Thanks for the message! I don't mind; I was just really surprised at the amount of substituting I had to do in order to get the actual code, so I could copy it to en for temporary protection on the Main Page. Thanks! Flcelloguy 17:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Seaplanes[edit]

OK, I agree with Category:Water capable aircraft, that's fine. --Tano4595 00:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

duplicate pictures[edit]

But you proposed to delete one with higher resolution and quality. I think we can remove smaller one. Cropping is IMHO not an issue in this case. Ss181292 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the problem with duplicates has been resolved. Better (IMHO) version stayed and one with lower quality has been removed. By the way, thanks for uploading such fine picture on commons WikiThanks.png.

Ss181292 15:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

bugzilla:3402[edit]

Mak why don't you make your arguments on bugzilla requests? You know putting them on the Village pump is not going to make a lick of difference. For a start we couldn't do anything about it even if we wanted to. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Well for one, someone was motivated enough to write the Exif code and is invested with seeing it stay enabled, without having to do a bunch more work to make it user overridable. IMHO, It would appear to me to not be a well chosen battle, since I really have no standing. Besides, I am interested to see how things work. (Or don't, as the case may be).


On the other hand, perhaps if someone with the status of having been around for more than 4 months, like someone who is an admin who agrees and would be willing to support the bug report, then I would be willing to file it. -Mak 04:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
?? Bugzilla is not about status or "standing". The key to being listened to there is to write brief, consise explanations and if at all possible post your own patch/suggested solution. But even then it will not necessarily guarantee an implemented solution. Duesentrieb, an admin of excellent standing and on a good relationship with the developers, has several bugs going nowhere. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh huh. I have two decades of programming as a developer under my belt. This little monster of a feature is someone's dear child and I am asking them to turn it off. The key is to get a developer that knows the particular code motivated enough to fix it, or someone ballsey enough to turn off the feature if they don't have the time to fix it. Now, I can choose to correct some information about Ohka suicide weapons today, or I can make an attempt, with dubious chances of success to clear up a silly error that some users have even had the timerity to suggest is not a problem at all. (See comments by Pomakis at (Category_talk:Camera_type#Delete_category_revisited:_Totally_wrong_information_from_this_auto_category).


Really, I think there are monumentally more serious problems than this in the Wikimedia code, but the best way to fix it is to get into the code and do it myself. If I didn't have twin newborns and a raft of other duties, I might do that, but really it holds little appeal for me. It is work. It would not be as relaxing to me as understanding this phenomenon of modern suicide weapons.


Anyhow, I have spent more time talking about it than it would take to do what you ask anyway. I set up a bugzilla account long ago and I suppose I can fiddle around with it again. Then maybe I can join Duesey in watching several bugs go nowhere. You kind of shot yourself in the foot with your argument there, but I like your spirit. -Mak 16:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I just don't understand why you complain at the village pump when you already know there is nothing that the people who read the Village pump can do. I consider there are many more vital bugs totally central to decent operation of the Commons that are apparently complete ignored (see Commons:Bugs), so I'm not too concerned about a little wrong metadata. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought the village pump was the place to state problems. I stated a problem. Seems to me there is evidence here that not just software is broken, but process. You told me two steps I could take in addition. The first one I did- posting on Category talk:Camera type. I discovered that there is considerable support for this feature. Some time ago, the unanimous vote was to keep this category Commons:Deletion requests/Archives03#Category:Camera type. As you can see, I stated the case for suspending automated inclusion of metadata until it could be overriden easily by mere mortals. I was surprized that anyone would consider the point arguable, though one actually did. Now, if a dissinterested party would argue the point, how successful do you think the author of this little monster of a feature is going to be in rounding up support for his point of view?
I passed on your second suggestion and you decline to take up my hint, further adding that it is an item of little concern to you, and that I will be able to join others who also have found the bugzilla process futile. Pardon me, but with such obstacles, I don't understand why you are recommending I waste my time. The Ohka pictures are in, and both the polish and english wiki articles have benefitted. That is value. Fiddling with Commons politics is not. Nonetheless, I told you I will perform the other step you suggested and add the bugzilla item. Ohka took higher priority yesterday. -Mak 17:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ohka in en[edit]

I think the section you added in the Differing Attitudes section of the page is probably better put in the en:Kamikaze article. (en:User:Megapixie)

Image:Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.jpg[edit]

Ok, no problem. The discussion isn't closed -- it is the discussions above and below that are closed. (I had to wait delete because the {{delete}} tag was removed).

Fred Chess 07:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

test[edit]

GuitarX1X1 guitarX1X1

Commons:Image:General petain.jpg[edit]

For this picture that you uploaded, you indicated the license as PD-US. Although you cited a US book in which it appeared, it is hard to believe a famous French general's photo like this would not have been published outside of the US first. Do you have the photo credit on this image? If it was a US newspaper, I think it is plausible it is PD-US, otherwise it is dubious and will have have to be removed from Commons.
Also- the picture is actually of Joffre, not Petain.
-Mak Thorpe 04:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC) (any mail, contact me on commons- Commons:User talk:Makthorpe)

The listed image source is valid--I got the book out of the local library. But it is always possible there was an error in the caption. I'll check out the copy again the next time I'm over there and double-check. If you feel the need to quash this image though, feel free. I won't be offended. — RJHall 02:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel any great need to nuke images. For Commons to survive we have to stay straight with the rules though. I don't have any question that the image is in that book. The issue is whether the first publication this photo ever had in the world was in that book. If it was, then since it is a US book, then PD-US can be used. Otherwise, it is questionable.
So if you have a chance- take a look at the credit for the photo. If it is a US newspaper, then it's a fair bet the photo was first published in their Newspaper before being offered to anyone else.
Don't know that it is worth it- lots of pictures of Joffre that are free.

In that case the picture might as well be deleted then. I could check the source, but if there are already comparable or better illustrations that aren't in question, then, like you say, it's not worth the bother. Sorry for the trouble. :-) — RJHall 02:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Celtic crosses[edit]

Hi. Category:Celtic crosses should not be renamed to "Crosses of the celts" or anything like that. It's a term for a specific design style, like Category:Gothic architecture. Jkelly 19:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Jkelly 03:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

the of[edit]

Don't see why you need to do this English isn't French), seems very unnatural.

Anyway, please note:

Category:British electric locomotives should become category:electric locomotives of Great Britain rather than category:electric locomotives of the United Kingdom, and likewise the same for railway-related ones. This is because for geographic and historical reasons, the railway boundaries do not correspond to the political boundaries. Dunc| 20:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that you've started. Good luck! Jkelly 22:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose that when you do the Xian singers you could change them all to Vocalists of X? The top-level cat is Vocalists (to include spoken-word performers, rappers, etc.), but all the secondary ones are "Singers". There's too many to do by hand. Regardless of whether or not this makes sense to do at the same time, you have a huge project, and I hope it won't take up too much of your time. Jkelly 00:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's great! Jkelly 01:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Adjectival placenames[edit]

It looks good. The RDRs are good (glad you remembered to put in the leading colon :)). The US cats really needed standardisation by the look of it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

heh heh. as you may have guessed, there is more going on with walking a tree of categories than trivial things like leading colons. -Mak 11:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Curious[edit]

I've answered you on my talk page.--Orgullomoore 12:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Belarus tractors[edit]

Could you please returm back all images from Category:Tractors from Belarus back to Category:Belarus tractors? Belarus is tractors brand. See en:Belarus (tractor). --EugeneZelenko 03:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Bot returned images to Category:Belarus tractors, but after that moved them into Category:Tractors from Belarus again. Strange... May be mistake in job queue? --EugeneZelenko 13:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. --EugeneZelenko 03:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Scientists from Britain[edit]

Hello, Makthorpe, why 'Botanists from Britain', 'Zoologists from Britain' and 'Geologists of Britain' and 'Paleontologists of Britain'? Greetings Orchi 09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

in technical terms, this was what engineers generally call a foobar. Will pick this up on cleanup passes of occupations aggregation categories. Thanks for the heads up- I will specifically look for these. -Mak 16:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Renaming[edit]

Hi, you might want to include the Category:Budapest as well as Category:Building (Budapest) and its subcats in your renaming queue. I also found Category:Montreal buildings, Category:Copenhagen buildings, Category:Synagogues in the UK and Category:Military people (UK). Maye you could take of Category:Government offices of Japan and Category:Universities and colleges of Japan as well. And while we are at it: What about Category:Nature by country and its subcats? I am happy somebody finally takes care of this mess...Cheers Geofrog 00:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Russian Federal subjects"[edit]

I'm not sure that it is correct English name, but it is used for the members of Russian Federation (administrative subdivisions): for republics, oblasts, krais, autonomous oblasts and autonomous districts, see w:Federal subjects of Russia. MaxiMaxiMax 04:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

MakBot[edit]

MakBot has made this edit. Note how interlanguage links are now above Categories. Is it supposed to be like that? Dustsucker 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that it reorderred it. I didn not write code to do this position change. It is the way that pywikipedia framework software does it, and because they have to go to some trouble to do it this way, they must be doing it on purpose. In any case, as far as I have ever seen this ordering makes no difference on what appears on the page. -Mak 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I wonder why they would do that intentionally – the guideline tells us to “enter [categories] at the bottom, but before interlanguage links”. Sorry for replying late. Dustsucker 15:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is project "By location category scheme" done?[edit]

I go to Category:Money by country and still find the process incomplete. What's the status on it? What can I do to help? --Chochopk 03:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"red" categories[edit]

Please also create the categories, when renaming them. thank you. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] --BLueFiSH  16:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As you will see on the progress list well advertised for this bot, The Bot has correctly created all the categories for the letters which it has finished processing. You may have noticed that all of these are for the letters F and G. It's not a coincidence. In a few hours they will be completed. Sorry for the inconvenience. If this is a huge problem, I can make the delays more brief, but it is better from a technical perspective not to create the category until all of the images and subcats have been moved over. -Mak 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
hm, okay, but i think it would be better if the time interval between changing the old and creating the new category is as short as possible. this was good i think, but [6] is still full of subcategories while this [7] is still red since this morning [8] ;-) --BLueFiSH  16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You are right. I will make changes today that should shorten this to a period of minutes rather than several hours. In the meantime, bear with me as the bot churns through the F's and G's the old way. SHould be complete in about 6 hours. The trouble is I don't want to speed it in order to keep server load down. -Mak 18:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Go Gauls![edit]

Hi Makthorpe, this is about MakBot. Splendid job you did there, only one tiny remark: you renamed Category:Gaul coins to Category:Coins of Gau where it should be Category:Coins of Gaul, with a final l... Jastrow 16:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OOps. Will fix this shortly.

Categories[edit]

Why do you rename categories like "German architects" in "Architects from Germany"?????????? It doesn't mean the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shaqspeare 18:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right. There is meaning shift which is more or less pronounced from category to category depending on context. In general, the benefits outweigh the costs. There is a discussion of this as well as other issues on the scheme's talk page. Commons talk:By_location_category_scheme You are welcome to contribute. If you have identified an unrecognized issue, I will be happy to run the bot to revert the change. -Mak 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"By location category scheme" (again)[edit]

Hi,

I know bots are doing this (at "G" now), and will take some time as individual images and subcat must be attached to the new categories. But I noticed one thing: Cat sort is still a problem. Example: Category:Money by country. Many "moeny of xyz" are sorted under M. My interpretation is that people didn't bother to put "|Canada" for under the old naming convention because they didn't have to. I guess this has to be done manually by users of those interests.

Can I help by doing this manually: move old cat, and change the tag of sub cat and images below it. And then repeat recursively. Would that interfere with the bot? Any caveat? --Chochopk 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind offer. YThis is a follow on task as I have noted on the User:MakBot page under "Upcoming tasks". You are brave to have at it manually, but I think the immensity of the task would surprise you. I would recommend letting my bot work them over then help with the manual checking for whatever unspeakable errors it makes. Unfortunately, I must wait until the adjectival pass is complete before I run this pass, so it will be a bit messy for the next 4 days or so.
My problem was that the key to sort on is different depending on the context of the parent cat. Take for example a category:Paintings of France
  • -> subcat Paintings of Europe|France
  • -> subcat Culture of France|Paintings
That is why I delayed this step to a follow on- it really should be run from the perspective of the enclosing (parent) cat. -Mak 02:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Understood. Does your bot always check whether or not some action needs to be done before doing it? For example, if I do cat sorting on the subject that I care about (and I could miss some), my action will not confuse the bot in the upcoming task?
The bot won't mess up your work. My bot will only add sort keys for those not posessing them. If there is any character following the bar, I won't override it. Any changes you make to an unconverted category will be copied over exactly as they were in the old category.
So no, I don't think you will be affected by it at all. If that is incorrect, let me know. As for confusing the bot- don't be concerned about that. I will fix it if it gets lost in a corner somewhere. -Mak 04:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cat' move[edit]

Hi there! I noticed Category:British Army was moved to Category:Army of Britain during the renaming process. The new title is wholly inaccurate and disregards the fact that "British Army" is the correct title (see [9]). I do hope this will quickly be resolved and the move, perhaps, reverted. Happy editing! SoLando (Talk) 09:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The intention of the Scheme is best spelled out by itself and on the talk page Commons talk:By location category scheme. I agree it is the best way to refer to it in an article or in conversation. Everyone knows it is the British Army and would use it in conversation that way. Categories are not conversation and one of the purposes of using nouns instead of adjectives is that this is what they use in search expressions. So when they are attempting to find a challenger tank for example, they will use the term Britain much more often than British. Certainly, we could use the more comfortable term British Army, but if it will result in far fewer people finding the pictures we upload, is that what we want? This is not an issue on the wikis because they normally have huge amounts of text associated with them, and the noun form will occur.
In any case, when anyone types in "British Army" on Commons, they will be redirected to the army of Britain. Same for the French, Russian, German, Indian Armies. Arguably, the United States Army already has the noun form but it also is being converted to the regular pattern that the scheme advocates should be used for all [objects] of [placename]. One mechanism of categories is to move from particulars to generalities, and after all, it is the army of the United States
Regarding the conversions, my general viewpoint is not hard line. If a category switch is disputed understanding what the scheme alleges is price of the use of such an adjective, personally, I'm probably not going to agree, but also I am not going to make the bot do the conversion. I will leave the interested parties argue out the matter. There was a two week warning prior to this conversion and it has already been done, but if you still have concerns after considering the subject let me know. -Mak 15:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm unsure that Britain is the predominant term used by those searching for articles/pictures/general information on the British Army. Googling alone accrues (obviously) more results for "British Army" than "Army of Britain" (many of which pertain to the Roman-era), but that's presumably irrelevant. To me, the use seems fundamentally odd/wrong, similar to changing a category like "United States Marine Corps" to <obvious new title>. Perhaps it is just me, but it's conceivable that the renamed category might be considered by some to pertain exclusively to the island (or Kingdom) of Great Britain (as was mentioned in the discussion at "By location category scheme"). The ambiguity would be preferably eliminated by adopting the more formal alternative "Army of the United Kingdom", comparable to Army of the United States (rather than Army of America ;-)). Still, I object to the original renaming, but it's not particularly important.
Unfortunately, I wasn't active during the 2-week notice period. I've been on an extended wikibreak over at en. and have rarely visited the commons since February. Anyway, happy editing! SoLando (Talk) 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, without question people would use "British Army" rather than "Army of Britain". Do you think this is about such specific queries? I was refering to typical searches which are rather unfocussed. For example, someone wants to know about Montgomery or Mountbatten. So what do they do? They just put in the name and get tons of hits on Montgomery and even mountbatten (brailler and an institute. Ok so they want to narrow it down. They know these chaps were from Britain so they search {Mountbatten Britain) or {Montgomery Britain). For demonstration purposes, I narrowed it to commons so you can see the hit.[10] and [11]. Three days ago, you wouldn't get hits on either of the image pages listed for these queries, because the only "Britain" on these pages is from "army of Britain" category name. Now, we can make speculative statements about just how many people use Britain as opposed to British, but try the search with British and Mountbatten.[12] You still get the same hit. Or do a search on british montgomery [13] - 7 image pages. Why? Experts on the content use adjectives for the simple reason that they don't state the obvious. Of course they don't say Mountbatten or Montgomery is from Britain in the caption. Yet in describing their surroundings, there will be a lot of "British" objects laying about. So with the Mountbatten image they were at a "British Headquarters", you still have a hit on Britain even though the category name is no longer "British Army".
Do a cost benefit- Say you are right that 60% of the people would search for British mountbatten, or british montgomery. Ok, with the "incorrect" cat name of "Army of Britain" they get 7 hits on Montgomery. and 1 Image hit on Mountbatten. Now compare to the cost of the "Correct" "British Army" cat name. What do the 40% of people get if they say the chaps were from britain? Prior to this change, Zero in both cases.
Category Benefits Costs
British Army
  1. Adjective searches no change
  1. Zero Noun search hits
Army of Britain
  1. Adjective searches none or negligible change
  2. Noun searches on Britain work
None
So really, there are positive benefit at zero cost to this change even if you don't think that people use nouns much more frequently than adjectives in queries.
Which they do, as many SIGIR research projects have found. -Mak 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't object to the move in principle and I'm not too inclined to persist with this. But "Army of Britain" seems far too casual (after all, it's subordinate to "Military of the United Kingdom" and "Army of the United States" understandbly won't be located at "Army of America"). Clearly it is considered to be incorrect in referring to the political entity of the UK. Yes, Britain is the common informal term, but so is "America/American". It's pedantic and disregards the convenience of using "Britain" in searches on the Commons, yes, but it seems so glaringly wrong. ;-) By the way, I never rejected the likelihood/possibility of people using such search terms, I merely said I was "unsure" ;-) SoLando (Talk) 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am willing to run the bot to put it back as British Army if folks would rather that it be harder to get search hits subjects related to the British Army. I can imagine the US armed forces enthusiasts may be a little ticked off when the bot gets to their cats- eg. Air force of the United States may not have the whatever grandeur is associated with calling it the USAF. The general way of refering to it may seem too diminutive and common to some people's ears.
It is an unusual situation in internet search. Usually there is a lot of text and the differences between the language of the search target and the search query are not pronounced. I have been struggling with these differences by undertaking a few experiments (Info pages being another).
People who don't know about a subject and are doing searches to educate themselves understandibly use more feeble terminology than the people who know a lot about a subject. It is not an issue if there is a lot of text (not typical on commons, but typical in all the other wikis). It's not just because the tide of words has gone out and there is not the kind of word variety you would find in a typical wiki article. The other problem is that the purpose of text in image captions is to describe specifics- not to describe what those specifics are in more general terminology. Info pages are designed to transclude some general terminology on the specifics for an image, thereby enlarging the search target so that queries will hit on them. This mini project is normalizing the category names to use terms more frequently used in queries. It is certainly not a general solution to the problem for a number of reasons, but it may be affecting up to 100K images, so it may have some impact on getting commons images into search results. -Mak 16:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I don't object to the move in principle. My primary objection is merely the use of "Britain". The British Amy is relevant only to the political entity and not the geographic, therefore using the informal term is incorrect. Would including text in the categories and articles themselves not circumvent the problematic issue of searches? For example, the "British Army is the land force of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", thus contains a number of search queries at a centralised location. Or would that not have a tangible effect? Either way, I suspect those who are interested in U.S subjects will probably be the most vocal and influential. :-) SoLando (Talk) 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fashion of Greece[edit]

Category "Greek Fashion" should not have been changed to Category:Fashion of Greece , because a lot of times ancient Greek people did not live in Greece -- according to either a modern or an ancient definition of "Greece". If you insist on including "of" in the name, then "Category:Fashion of Greeks" would be better. Churchh 02:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How about Fashion from Greece? That's the way we did many other styles, including cuisine architecture styles, etc. -Mak 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not what I would have chosen, but it's certainly preferable to "Fashion of Greece", so yes, thanks. Churchh 20:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Done. -Mak 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Russian Empire[edit]

Please move back all content from Category:Empire of Russia to Category:Russian Empire. See en:Russian Empire, Google results for Empire of Russia and Russian Empire. --EugeneZelenko 14:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please consider the thread immediately above that Solando started. Your confusion is the same as his. I completely and totally agree that "Russian Empire" is the more common expression and even that I as a native speaker I would use it far more in a conversation. Likewise with British Army. But as I pointed out to Solando, the purpose of the placename scheme is not to find the most common phrasing for a place. Indeed, it often creates more clumsy and unnatural phrases.
Please consider the points I made about the British Army. If you prefer that people not be able to find out things about the Russian Empire in the same way that they would not have search hits on Mountbatten and Montgomery above, then my question to you would be, why is it better to have a particular category name if it makes it harder for people to find things? We have had this conversation before. But now with google working it is no longer academic. It is better that people be able to search for commons objects from internet searchers and get more hits than it is to have the most comfortable descriptions of things. We should not be so inflexible that it condemns our beloved images to obscurity.-Mak 15:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think will be much more easy to find images in category with more commons name. Please try to think about this again. Please don't invent a bicycle. --EugeneZelenko 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Easier? Why? The facts show you are wrong. If your position is taken, the Mountbatten and Montgomery images would not be found. They are today due to this change. Since you appear not to have read the earlier discussion as requested, please note that anyone typing in Russian empire will be redirected, so people can still use the more common expression just find. Consider the cost benefit table. If you prefer that images not be found via internet search, then I have to say your position baffles me. -Mak 16:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
We had discussion about relevancy. With current category name you will create huge number of images with relevant word Russia. But you'll create disadvantage for people who want to find images related to 2 centuries period of time in history of Russia, named Russian Empire. I feel that good idea to help people who want to find relevant information, not for those who want to dig further into big heap of irrelevant images. --EugeneZelenko 20:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Eugene. Please don't attempt to rewrite history. The discussion was about internet search and how it interacts with commons. You didn't think that text you regarded as "irrelevant" should appear on an image page. Ok. You reverted my version of the page[14] and Eugene, please don't be surprized about the outcome because I warned you. Because of your insistence on your phony characterization of it as a discussion of "relevance", it is still impossible to find ANY image of Zhukov on Commons including your brother's if they spell zhukov as they were taught in school: Eg: tr: Jukov[15]; nl: Zjoekov[16]; fa: گئورگی ژوکوف [17]; pl: Żukow [18]; sv: Zjukov [19]; de: Schukow[20]; zh: 朱可夫; fr: Joukov;. You can use any of those terms and you will get a hit on my category page- the only page with those transliterated transclusions. Why is it better that all of these people be ignorant about Zhukov? What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this stubborn refusal to accept change? None of these people of these languages can search on images of Zhukov because I bowed to your request in order to prove how mistaken you are on this subject.
Congratulations on relegating your brother's picture to obscurity. This is what I mean about loving an image to death and a misguided adherance to some esoteric principle regardless the disasterous outcome.
You had your way, and search hits do not occur on that particular image.
I am not optimistic that you have learned anything by your errors and in this case will insist on your way with this, and again I will bow to your request, and again it will mean that people will be more ignorant about Russia. It really is sad, Eugene, and I hope one day you will stop and think before you lash out. Your request will result in less information getting to people about the Russian Empire.
To the meat of this particular meal- You are asserting that there will be some loss of search hits, but have not provided any evidence of this. Eugene, unfounded conjecture is really not something to base an argument on. Did you read the previous case of the case of British army. Here are facts to ponder Eugene. Not speculation. Were we to believe your point, we would expect that there would be fewer hits on British army. But here weren't, and I explained why. Either you didn't read the prior case or you feel that somehow it will be different for the case of Russian Empire. So which is it, and why?
Really Eugene, I am perfectly happy to revert this for you to demonstrate again how sorely wrong you are.

P.S. Sometime do an image search on Страус [21] There is exactly one image on Commons waiting for you Eugene.

Think about it why that is so.

-Mak 06:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You could do whatever you like. My POV is: Russia is very huge topic, so it's bad idea to search images for such generic terms as Russia. --EugeneZelenko 15:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
?? Britain is a huge subject. But (Montgomery Britain) returns a search hit out of mountains of search hits. Really this conversation would have been much easier if you had read and reflected on that previous thread.-Mak 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

errata: PolishApril2006[edit]

Was: Category:Polish Wikimedian meetup April2006, has been changed into: Category:Wikimedian meetup of PolishApril2006, which doesn't make any sense. Shaqspeare 20:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Changed to Category:Wikimedian meetup in Poland April2006.

Category:United States Air Force[edit]

Please move the category back to Category:United States Air Force from Category:Air force of the United States. There is one air force of the U.S., and United States Air Force is its name. Shouldn't MakBot include a link to where this change should have been discussed? --Pmsyyz 07:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. Link to the scheme is on the User:MakBot page.
  2. A warning was placed on the Category:United States Air Force page two weeks ago with a warning of the change, and a link to the scheme page, inviting comments.
  3. The User:MakBot page also has a link to all other adjectival placename changes.
  4. Multiple announcements of this renaming and the links to the scheme pages have appeared on Village pump over the past three weeks.
You are the first person to complain about the renaming of any military branches of the US to more generic forms similar to the generic naming for all other countries.
Incorrect, see Commons_talk:By_location_category_scheme#Oddities --Pmsyyz 09:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You will find a similar observation to yours above. The name of the army of Britain is the British Army. The air forces of Spain, France, Germany, Finland, etc etc, plus the armies and navies are refered to in the generic.
Why should the naming for United States military branches be different than other countries?

-Mak 07:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't, it should be Category:United States Air Force for the same reason as Category:Royal Australian Air Force. --Pmsyyz 09:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the reason for Royal Australian and Royal Navy is that they are mistakes according to the scheme and should have been converted. The benefits of the conversion is the same principle as the Mountbatten and Montgomery examples of users not being able to find things due to the noun not being present.
You will notice that in the ships scheme, "Naval ships of the United States" has replaced the top of the naval forces hierarchy in place of "US Navy". The reason why is that there are and were naval forces that were not US Navy, such as CSS ships, coast guard, etc.
Those waves of strategic B-29 bombers flying from Saipan in WWII were not USAF. But they were certainly part of the air forces of the United States. Categories are meant to move from specifics to generalities- that is why specific names are much more constrained. I suspect a future scheme for air forces would say precisely the same for two reasons:
  1. firstly as in the case of USAF prior to 1947, many countries had substantial air forces prior to their formal recognition as a separate military service- France's substantial air force in WWI was under the army, and though separated in the 1930s, is still called "Armée de l'Air". Germany and Japan has had multiple air forces, making a distinction between those of the Nazi's (Luftwaffe) and those of the emperor. (imperial forces as opposed to the self defence forces).
  2. secondly, modern combined forces principles have made it necessary to combine air and sea forces with ground forces, so that all branches of substantial militaries have air units associated at the division level with ground units. With the dilapidation of the Russian strategic air force, the US Navy has air forces arguably more powerful than any other air force in the world other than the US.


But it is correct that this is a semantic shift and deeper organizational change and is best dealt with specifically with a scheme such as that for Ships. I am not the person to go to the mat over such fine points, so if you insist, because the USAF has the noun form in it, I would rather put it back the way it was and let folks hash it out a scheme for air forces at some later date. -Mak 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tolita-Tumaco gold figure 1st century BC.jpg[edit]

Hi Makthorpe, I noticed Image:Tolita-Tumaco gold figure 1st century BC.jpg did not have a license note. So I checked the original which is CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0. We can not use this license because of the NonCommercial restriction. Could you please the delete the image? Jan Arkesteijn 16:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thing I didn't note it, because I would have noted it incorrectly. When I looked at his stuff, I mistakenly read it as CC 2.0 without the restriction. I will correct the others. Regretable. I spent a lot of time on one or two of those. I will contact the author about it and request deletion if he does not respond. -Mak 16:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


The photographer got back to me on Flickr mail and was very kind to release this photo as well as the others he took at the Met.

Following is email regarding the photos I have uploaded here from Flickr:

"Mak:
I agree the CC2.0 wording as noted on wikipedia. It's perfectly okay to use them there. Thanks a lot for your time.
sincerely,
rosemania"

Thanks for bringing this to my attention though. There is a big difference between Flickr's cc2.0's page, and Commons/Wikipedia's. -Mak 09:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Category move errors[edit]

I've noticed that your bot has moved the categories for British Rail carriages as below

These are all incorrect. British Rail is the name of the organisation that designed and built the coaches and as such "British Rail Mk1" etc is the correct name and a proper noun in the same way Category:British Rail Class 150 etc are.

Similarly Category:Pullman coaches of Britain should be reverted back to Category:British Pullman coaches as "British Pullman" is a proper noun.

Although I dislike the new naming format it appears this is an agreed standard. If it is then Category:British industrial diesel locomotives‎ should be moved to category:Industrial diesel locomotives of Britain. Thryduulf 08:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I shall put the British Rail ones back, as well as British Pullman.
Although there is general agreement on the idea of noun forms being better- and although I wrote and championned the scheme, to be honest it is not correct that this is some long established standard. You should know there was only maybe 4 people who made regular contributions to the discussion on the scheme, and made a similar point concerning proper nouns as you did. So long as folks understand the theoretical price of insisting on opting out of the scheme, I am happy to stick things back they way they were. I offered this on both the British Army, Russian Empire and USAF cases, and if they insist I will roll them back. It's pretty easy for me to run the bot on isolated cases like this. So take a look at it and if you feel you understand what I have said about decreased search hits if adjectives are used, and still think it is better with adjectives, I shall roll back the selected categories you feel strongly about.
How does that sound? -Mak 19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the errors I noted above.
While adjectives are generally going to generate less search hits, imho accurate naming is more important than convenient naming when it comes to proper nouns. Many more people will look for "British Rail Class X" than "Rail Class X of Britain", just as "Air Force of the United States" will be searched much less frequently than "United States Air Force" (or abbreviations thereof). Thryduulf 01:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Colour accuracy[edit]

Thank you for asking my opinion on the colour issue. I'm both flattered and extremely perplexed. As it happens, I'm actually red-green colour blind (deuteranopia) so I really can't be of any help :) -Samulili 20:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC).

Image:Hitler and Mussolini propaganda Luce photo.png[edit]

Hello, this image is not what Italian law considers a simple, non-artistic photo. Only reproductions and photocopies and the like fall into this category, images of persons never do by the law's definition (see here, §87). I tagged the image copyvio. --Wikipeder 01:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether it is a simple work or an art work. Read point 88.
"Tuttavia se l'opera è stata ottenuta nel corso e nell'adempimento di un contratto di impiego o di lavoro, entro i limiti dell'oggetto e delle finalità del contratto, il diritto esclusivo compete al datore di lavoro." This is a Luce photo, contracted by the state. As a contracted work, the photographer does not retain copyright.
It is the property of the state, and what is the duration of state copyright? "La durata dei diritti esclusivi di utilizzazione economica spettanti, a termini dell'art. 11, alle amministrazioni dello stato, al partito nazionale fascista, alle provincie, ai comuni, alle accademie, agli enti pubblici culturali nonché agli enti privati che non perseguano scopi di lucro, è di vent'anni a partire dalla prima pubblicazione, qualunque sia la forma nella quale la pubblicazione è stata effettuata." 20 years. [22]
-Mak 02:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It's my understanding that this law has been superseded by the EU copyright directive. I'm rather certain that the image has been copyright protected in Germany on January 1st, 1996, so the standard 70 year time applies in Italy, too. But let's get into that at Commons_talk:Licensing#PD-ItalyGov.
I reverted the copyvio tag for the time being. --Wikipeder 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Order[edit]

Hi Mak. Why do you put interwikis above categories? I don't know any Wikipedia that do that. --Emijrp 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it matters to anyone. Sometimes I put Categories above even the Information and license templates so that the real categories are not buried under spam categories like PD-USAF. If if offends your eyes, go ahead and move it around. I care about how things look on the page, not on the edit page. -Mak 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In that edition I see two changes. One change of category, and one change of order. I don't understand the second change. If I move above the categories and you move under, when will we finish? Have you wanted to do that movement of lines? or is it a bad use of your bot for a poor programming? Cheers. --Emijrp 15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't explicitly tell it to move anything, and actually it is harder for the code to move it than to just change it where it is, so it seems to me they purposely intended this move. The code that does that movement was reviewed by Andre Engles, a Bureaucrat here on commons. If he thinks that movement is ok, then I am not going to argue with him. I don't want to rewrite the thing to not change the order and then get stomped on and have to change it all back later after someone tells me why. If you want to inquire about it, the place to to it would be on the Pywikipedia Robot project page. Sorry but I really don't see it as a priority thing to muck with at this point. If you can convince me otherwise, I am willing to listen though. -Mak 16:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you say that it is a new feature of pywikipedia? Please say me what module you use, and a sample line for the movement of categories that you put. --Emijrp 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, it is not a new feature. The module is cat.py, but the code that does the move might be in catlib.py. The operation being done is a -move command. PyWikipedia is widely used, so perhaps you simply have not seen this reordering performed before.
  • Again- you have provided me no information why we should care about this ordering. But I am willing to listen. -Mak 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I see. You are interested in bots. Well you can't go far wrong using Pywikipedia. As for your project identifying articles that do not have images, consider the sql module. For example what you can do is download an sql dump of all the text of all wikipedia articles and scan that file for articles that do not have Image tags in them.


However, if your interest is music bands, you are going to have a hard time getting images on Commons due to copyright. You might get away with fair use on wikipedia, but if you post music images here, they will most likely get nuked fast due to copyviolations.


Note that your application for a bot flag is wrong procedure. Read Commons:Administrators


Good luck. Python is a nasty little language. Read up on the "Whitespace thing"- it is syntactically significant, and you can generate bugs simply by setting your tab stops to the wrong location. A truly loser language, but what the heck. "It's easy to read!" That's what they said about COBOL.-Mak 17:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hash mark redirected categories"[edit]

Hello,

Regarding edits like this, please be aware that having any more than one line destroys the RDR. You can keep the RDR in tact by placing categories on the same line as the #REDIRECT. cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh... good point. Hm. Nevermind my misconception then. I'll try and figure out why I thought that.... pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Year/Time improvement project[edit]

Thanks for expressing your interest. Either "Time" or "Years" or something similar would be fine by me. What else do you think the project should include in addition to year related categories and articles? Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I'm starting something at Commons:Wikiproject Time. Please sign up, share your thoughts, and invite anyone you think would be interested to do likewise. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 17:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Public artworks in the US[edit]

Hi Mak!

You asked me to report back on the use of my photo on wikipedia. So far no one has reviewed fair use of the Calder sculpture. However, I have found a couple of things that might interest you. One is the recent creation of a statue template on wikipedia [23]—I think that this template is questionable as it gives the impression that I can release a derivative work under the copyright of my choosing without permission from the copyright holder.

I also ran a deletion request on w:Image:Chicago picasso.jpg that resulted in a keep. The Chicago Picasso may be somewhat unique as Picasso refused payment the sculpture saying that it was his gift to the people of Chicago (which some interpret as him releasing it into the public domain). However, a user referred to a case that I think may apply to other public artworks: In Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago it was ruled that Picasso's maquette (and hence the final sculpture) was forever lost to the public domain through general publication. The definition of general publication seems to be fuzzy, but in this case general publication seems to have been because "there were no restrictions on copying and no guards preventing copying. Rather every citizen was free to copy the maquette for his own pleasure and camera permits were available to members of the public. At its first public display the press was freely allowed to photograph the maquette and publish these photographs in major newspapers and magazines. Further, officials at this first public showing of the maquette made uncopyrighted pictures of the maquette available on request." Surely similar arguments could be made about any artwork that is displayed in a public place without any posted restrictions on photography?—do you think that I am going too far in interpreting this ruling to mean that all sculptures in public places in the US are lost to the public domain through general publication? --JeremyA 00:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This Letter Edged ruling is as interesting as it is peculiar. I guess I really have to understand this principle of general divestive publication. Actively giving away photographs for general use and publication without any usage or copyright warnings is a pretty clear indication that the owner is expressing no interest in exploitation rights for those images. So does that make it a special case? It would simplify things if clear, unrestricted public display were divestive as you wonder out loud about. My questions have to do with the limit. If this were true for sculptures like the Bean one in the Christian Science Monitor article that had an agreement that the city owned exploitation rights for the image, then isn't that effectively similar to some commercial art like a toy sitting in a park? There are rights reserved concerning making derivative images in that case as well. The beanie babies case said that was not allowed, and so I imagine the case would be no different if the picture of the doll happened in a park. So what's the difference between that and the Chicago bean sculpture? Is it because the person or agent of the owner of the copyright exercises no limits on copying? Is that the necessary thing for the action to be considerred by the courts to be divestive?

I don't know. But if this line of reasoning is correct, we won't have to boot a lot of these back to fair use. I need to study this ruling more.

Thanks very much for reporting on this- it would be cool if you are right.

Cheers

-Mak 09:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking more about this, and I think that the age of the Picasso sculpture might be relevant. I am not a lawyer, or even a US citizen (although I do live in the US), so I am not in much of a position to make assessments of US copyright law. However, I think that the Picasso ruling is less strange in the light of this statement: "Works published before January 1, 1978, are governed by the previous copyright law. Under that law, if a work was published under the copyright owner’s authority without a proper notice of copyright, all copyright protection for that work was permanently lost in the United States." [24]. So the Picasso sculpture became public domain becasue the city engaged in practices ruled to be publication, without a proper notice of copyright. If the Picasso sculpture was new today this ruling would not apply.
So the question for other sculptures is whether they can be considered published before 1978. This is where I get a little confused. According to [25] "The copyright law defines "publication” as the distribution of copies of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending. Offering to distribute copies to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution or public display also constitutes publication. A public display does not of itself constitute publication" (my emphasis). However, the Picasso ruling seems to say that allowing unrestricted copying also constitutes publication. If that were true, any public artwork that was installed before 1978 without a notice prohibiting photography might be considered public domain—so my photo of the Calder Flamingo (dedicated October 25, 1974) would be OK, but not photos of Cloud Gate (The Bean). I think that the key statement in the Picasso ruling is: "Further, officials at this first public showing of the maquette made uncopyrighted pictures of the maquette available on request"—would the ruling have been the same if this were not the case? The use of the word further suggests to me that this is just additional support for the argument of publication, but all the previous evidence was in itself enough (but maybe I am just being over optimistic!)
With respect to the beanie babies the differences would be, firstly that (I think) the beanie babies came into existence after 1978, and secondly that they all are sold with an attached tag that, amongst other things, likely includes some kind of copyright notice. --JeremyA 15:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah- is that the principle that this turned on? Yes, I recall that principle in the US. You lost copyright if you didn't display the mark. Ok, just looking for the edges of this principle- to address my hypothetical, in the case of taking a picture of a barbie doll that washed up on the beach in 1972, I expect the ruling would be something like the owner of the copyright made every reasonable attempt to alert the public to the copyright but cannot be expected to post guards around lost dolls. So there are at least large sets of cases where public display does not constitute publication. How much is necessary for public art like a Calder statue? Does the owner have to post a guard 24 hours? Or is a one meter square sign required? I wonder if a c in circle on the bronze plaque for the statue is sufficient?


Whatever the measurement is, the burden of proof would be on the person uploading the file to prove that the divesture publication had occured at some point prior to 1974. It would be easy for the 24 hour guard or 1 meter square requirements, but I hardly expect any court to rule that those onerous requirements would need be met.
Have I missed something? It seems to me that proving what the text on a plaque was 30 years ago would be tough. I'd like to believe it would work, but I am pretty confident you are going to have to provide evidence of the divestiture. Or am I mistaken? -Mak 05:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

cat RDR[edit]

Hey,

I don't know what was wrong with the old version. Yours is OK too, but I don't think there is any need to say "When this tag is applied it means" ("this page is being or has been relocated" is surely enough). (Is the red border even necessary? Is a cat RDR an emergency? :)) It was changed by User:Fabartus and I dislike many changes he has made. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot[edit]

Hi I have granted your MakBot the bot flag after the positive vote result on Commons:Administrators. Please add your bot at the right place in Commons:Bots. Regarding large bot runs also consider giving a short note at the Commons mailing list as in some cases the CommonsTicker of User:Duesentrieb can get a hickup, so that Duesentrieb is aware and can avoid that problem. Arnomane 14:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Pueblo peoples/ Anasazi category name controversy[edit]

Briefly moved here from User:Huebi talk page here but after a few minutes I realized it is best on the category talk page. Sorry for the run around. Ancient pueblo people debate. -Mak

Your congratulations[edit]

Thanks! And I am glad that you have your bot flag now. Jkelly 18:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

re: no lang template for color corrected[edit]

Sure, but (a) there was no way I could really know that, I thought they had been left there by a mistaken cut and paste, and (b) I don't really care, so do whatever you like, just make sure they're not PD-self translations when the template goes 'live'. :) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

MIT Music[edit]

Could your bot add a "Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Music" tag to all ogg-files on the commons that were uploaded from hebb.mit.edu e.g. Image:Handel - messiah - 42 he that dwelleth in heaven.ogg ?

Teebeutel 18:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Military people France[edit]

Hello Makthorpe, your MakBot has changed Category:French military people to Category:Military people of France. This is ok, but it is excisting a third Catergory of this topic: Category:Military people (France). When no difference at this, please let MakBot move it. --GeorgHH 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot add category[edit]

Hello,

your bot did add the category Category:Electric locomotives of Switzerland to the picture Image:CH_Gotthard_Basistunnel_Amsteg_1.jpg.

I'm wondering how this has been descided by the bot because:

  • How can the bot differenciate between steam/electric/diesel locomtives in a picture
  • The descision is wrong, according to the manufacturer page at [26] (20-27 tonnes) it's a diesel loc

ZorkNika 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It simply trusted the judgement of whoever set the category of this image to Category:Swiss electric locomotives. All the bot was doing was to change from Swiss-> "of Switzerland". If it was wrongly categorized as electric, then by all means please correct it. -Mak 01:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Oopps, sorry, I did not see that it already had the wrong category. I did already change it to diesel. Best regards. ZorkNika 06:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Anasazi and Puebloans[edit]

Please see my talk and that of Huebi. I hope you agree to what I said to Huebi as well. NielsF 22:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Renamed category[edit]

Hi, during the recent category renaming you renamed Category:Sami people to Category:People of Lapland (also a few subcategories). The corect cathegory name is however "Sami people" or perhaps "People of Sápmi" (the latter name is however not very commonly used/known). /Lokal Profil 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Test[edit]

Exquisite-khelpcenter.png
[[:Category:|]]

See Also

links links links

Wikipedia

French | English | French 

iconic[edit]

Exquisite-khelpcenter.png
[[:Category:|]]

Go-jump.svg

links links links

Button neutral 005 60x30 3d4.png

French | English | French 

compress height[edit]

Exquisite-khelpcenter.png[[:Category:|]]

Documents-small.svg 1rightarrow.svg

links links links

Button neutral 005 60x30 3d4.png1rightarrow.svg

French | English | French 

test line height[edit]

1
2
3

small icons bigger[edit]

Exquisite-khelpcenter.png[[:Category:|]]

Go-jump.svg

links links links

Button neutral 005 60x30 3d4.png

French | English | French 

=Double small icons in first cell[edit]

Exquisite-khelpcenter.png[[:Category:|]] Go-jump.svg
Button neutral 005 60x30 3d4.png

links links links

French | English | French 

Fix small icons[edit]

Exquisite-khelpcenter.png[[:Category:|]] Go-jump.svg
Button neutral 005 60x30 3d4.png

links links links

French | English | French 

WikiPed icon in own cell[edit]

Exquisite-khelpcenter.png[[:Category:|]]
Go-jump.svg

links links links

Button neutral 005 60x30 3d4.png

French | English | French 

Language for test[edit]

Language Test= Lua error: expandTemplate: template "RelatedCats" does not exist.

Test for call to International[edit]

Lua error: expandTemplate: template "More/International" does not exist.

Your post about the Vigeland images[edit]

Hi, replying here 'cause I don't have much time for Commons at the moment, so the nice orange thingy on top of the screen comes in quite handy. To get to the point, to my knowledge I've never deleted a Vigeland image and don't know why I'd have to cease doing that? Furthermore, "by decree of Jimbo" in (probably) a lot of Wikipedia's, at least nl: (and I thought en: as well) I know for sure, commercial use only is "outlawed" or at least has become part of policy. So I'm not quite clear as to what you'd want from me? Cheers, NielsF 01:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mak.
It wasn't NielsF who was involved with these images, it was user:Kjetil_r who nominated them for deletion.
I can't stop deleting them, because I've already deleted all that were copyright violations. Please look in the history of the page to see all images that I deleted. Those images that are left are not copyright violations.
I can give you access to the deleted images and the associated description pages. Just tell me how you want them. / Fred Chess 10:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There are some images uploaded on English Wikipedia: en:Vigeland Sculpture Park. It is also possible that the images can be used commercially outside of Norway -- this will have to be investigated looking through the Bern Convention and other copyright treaties. Anyways, Commons adheres to the copyrights of the country of origin as per Commons:Licensing. Just as you do, I found it peculiar to delete them, but I asked on the mailing list without support. See the thread called "Editorial use vs commercial exploitation", I think it was in July.
Fred Chess 11:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WiktionaryZ and Commons[edit]

Hello Mak,

in late follow-up to earlier comments on my talk page.

http://www.wiktionaryz.org/ is a living prototype of the next generation wiki based dictionary and thesaurus which we are building. Please get in touch with User:GerardM if you would like to get edit access. We are currently implementing the first generation of versioning, which will hopefully go live within the next 14 days.

In the WiktionaryZ model, everything is centered around concepts, which we call "defined meanings". These concepts are language-independent, and synonyms and translations are associated with them. So, for instance, you have the record on horse; it currently has 23 translations and synonyms. It also has relational information: horses are part of the themes "biology" and "livestock breeding", and there is the broader term "equine." If you expand the "Collection membership", you will see that the original concept as imported into WiktionaryZ comes from GEMET, a multilingual thesaurus used by the European Union.

The language-independent concept "large animal with four legs which people ride on or use for carrying things or pulling vehicles" has a unique identifier. This identifier can be associated with anything -- for instance, an image from Commons of a horse. This would then allow you to look for images of horses in any language: you type the word in your language, if necessary disambiguate the meaning, WiktionaryZ returns the ID, and the id is queried in Commons.

This is the simple model. In more advanced versions, you could also make the data accessible through its relational data. For instance, a search for "livestock breeding" should also turn up imges of horses, even though it is not literally a synonym. Beyond simple words, it would be interesting to model complex descriptions of images in a language-independent way by having a sort of "meta-grammar" to describe the relations between concepts, e.g. "a protest which took place in 2004 in New York City".

We have reached an agreement with Kennisnet to implement the InstantCommons proposal on Meta. If this project is completed successfully, Gerard and I will pay another visit to Kennisnet and pitch the idea of annotating Commons with concepts from WiktionaryZ. This strikes me as the best solution for making it searchable -- better than effectively building a mini-dictionary within Commons itself.

Beyond that, one idea I would like to see implemented is giving structure to image description pages. Separating the caption from the license and other metadata, for instance, would allow us to transclude captions on category galleries (even in multiple languages when available). Structuring pages in this way is enabled by the Wikidata technology which we are developing for WiktionaryZ. But this is more distant future stuff -- the WiktionaryZ annotation is something we might be able to implement this year.--Eloquence 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Oldenburg (Oldb), Germany[edit]

Could you please help with moving images to correct category? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

The following had been originally and mistakenly been posted at User talk:Mak. Lupo 11:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Re [27]: Mak, I was asking what your problem with me was, as I perceived your initial response to me as rather aggressive and I wondered what might have caused this, given that we have hardly interacted. But that discussion should better go on my talk page, if you like. I don't make wild guesses about other's motives (such as why some people have asked me whether I'd want to become an admin). I'll make my own decision on that, irrespective of their views or yours. I must say I don't quite understand your reasoning; I fail to see why others' motives for asking me should be a reason to attack me. (And in any case, even if those other people have written that they thought being an admin would give my views more weight, I don't think so, as I have quite clearly said.) But you do whatever you think is right, and I'll do whatever I think is right. And that includes voicing our opinions, for, as you wrote, "Where the wikimedia community draws the line is a matter of continuing and lively debate." I reserve the right to voice my opinion, too. Did it come across as an attempt to cut short the discussion? If so, why? It certainly wasn't intended that way. Lupo 08:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It was not an attack on you, please don't take it personally. Choosing people for positions has to do with whether their inclinations and instincts are a good fit with the goals of an organization. That involves an assessment of the person, but it is not an attack on them. You have some of the best notes on licensing because you focus on the salient issues. These are very valuable to the community especially when you can quote the actual text of the law or caselaw. If there were some position that solely focused on the identification of legal issues, there are few others who have demonstrated the rigor that you have. Great fit there. But in the note I was discussing the difference between identification and assessment of risk. Here is where I see a very bad fit. In all cases wikimedia sites must do what is legal- but there is wide latitude in that domain of legal action about how cautiously one could behave. Google for example is flush with cash and so has the luxury of adopting the position that if it cannot be proved that copyright is still valid, they will host the content. Certainly the foundation is not in the same financial position and but I also see some good historical images being deleted over unreasonable fears concerning litigation. Sometimes it is better to err on the side of extreme caution, other situations call for those who are not intimidated by negligible risks. You have made it clear you are on the caution end of the spectrum. I view that as a bad fit for wikimedia's situation. If you felt insulted or took offence at the evaluation of that fit, this was not intended at all. Possibly I am mistaken about what wikimedia's balance of risk should be. If there were big threats, then there would be a good fit there.


Fair enough? If not, let me know what is unfair in what I stated. -Mak 19:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Location Maps for municipalities of Finland[edit]

Hello, just wondering if this has unusual capitalisation for a reason? --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind - Samulili is having it renamed to Location maps, so no problem. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
ROFL. Ah...thanks. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Esoteric template syntax request[edit]

Hey, I have a bit of a request. Do you know how to to make a template do this? - if no parameter is provided, put the image in category A. - if a parameter is provided, put the image in category B.

Not too hard, right?

It has been noticed that Template:Copyrighted free use provided that gets a lot of abuse, so as a way of systematically checking these items, I suggested adding an optional parameter "reviewed". Then if "reviewed=yes", put the image in a subcategory called like "Reviewed CFUPT". Then other people won't check it twice. Does it make sense?

It could be abused, but if we don't advertise this fact about it I don't think it will be much of an issue (most of the template abuse is from fly-by uploaders anyway).

Do some testing on a test template (this one is quite heavily used, I'd imagine) and when it's ready to go, let me know. I mean, if you can and you're willing. :)

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that, it's close but not quite... also needs the "else" statement to put Category:CFUPT. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Purple flower.jpg

ROARsome. For you fine work, I award you this unidentified flower. You may hang it next to a barnstar with pride.

(:

--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot[edit]

Hallo
There is a template for bots for using it in the babelbox. you only need to add

{{babel-1|bot}}

to the userpage of your bot. With greetings. Augiasstallputzer 13:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oahu/Polynesian photos[edit]

Cheers - yes I am into Polynesian photos heavily as you noticed. Am Māori, that's the main reason, and am an admin on the Māori Wikipedia, so I am looking for photos along those lines. Am also into the Polynesian mythology articles on the English Wiki too, so anything that could illustrate those sorts of articles, like a named carving of a god, eg Kū or Māui. If you are at the Bishop, I'd love some photos of their Polynesian stuff, they have some nice carvings, anything traditionally or distinctively Polynesian wherever it is from - as long as you can include as much of the description and origins as poss. Do they have any Polynesian neck pendants - lacking a decent photo of a Māori hei-tiki for instance. Even a nice photo of that mo'ai (Easter Island head) in front of the Bishop. The Wiki collection at the moment is perhaps a bit heavy on the photos tourists take - the (slightly) unauthentic dance shows at Rotorua etc, or the Polynesian Center in Oahu. It also lacks photos of polynesian people. A good photo of a heiau. A decent photo of a trad canoe - or of Hokulea, or of a trad house etc. Photos of the waka ama on that canal thing along the back of Waikiki - Waiala - might also be good - tho they have those here too, and not far from me. I need to upgrade my camera - I've got a 2megapixel dinosaur from 2003 - because there is a lot that I could take here in NZ as well. Kahuroa 05:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I get the picture on the kinds of thinks you are looking for. I think I'll get over to the Bishop with a good flash set up and just sponge up heaps of images then if there are weak areas I can go back and focus on those. No promises on when/if I will ever deliver, but I do want to do it. -Mak 08:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Cheers man. Yeah, just when and if the mood strikes you. Kahuroa 09:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Politicians of/from country[edit]

I noticed you bot-moved a number of categories of politicians to names like "Politicians from COUNTRY". There are however also a couple of categories named "Politians of COUNTRY" (see for example Category:Politicians by nationality). May I suggest that this be fixed (i.e. categories named uniformly, as far as possible) and that the "of" version be used. This because what you look for is generally where politicians hold office, rather than where they were born. Thanks for clearing this up.

Also, could you please use edit comments for bot runs, which makes edits a lot easier to understand. --139.18.1.5 17:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As stated in the By location category scheme, the use of prepositions should be predictable as you state. The general rule with professions though, is that "from" is used. For example, Dancers from Russia. Where do they work now? New York, Paris, Rome- anywhere that can afford a world class dancer. But are they Dancers of Italy, Dancers of the United States, etc? No. See what I mean? Politicians is probably an exception and has some additional odd choices that are best decided case by case. Is Kofi Annan a Politician of the United Nations, or is he a Politician of Ghana? Ronald Reagan's fame was both as a leader of California state as well as the United States. So is he Politician of California or Politician of the United States? Anyhow, let me know if you still want them all Politician of, I will convert them that way. -Mak 03:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you look at it from the point of professions by nationality. Speaking of Californian Governors, were do you put Schwarzenegger in your scheme (born in Austria, politician in the US, no politician in Austria (so far), dual citizenship)? You look at it from the point of professions by nationality (or origin), therefore, strictly speaking, he is a "politican from Austria". I look at it from the point of the general subject at hand, i.e. for me he is, broadly speaking, an "American politician", more specifically a "Governor of California" and, besides that, a native of Austria. I am sorry for bringing this up so late, but I only stumbled over this issue recently. Thanks for sharing your opinion. --139.18.1.5 10:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Naturally, we should take note of the type of location relationship that most folks would be interested in. In most cases for professions (especially involved in the arts hosted on commons), the locality from which they came is more important than where they found themselves in later life. But that blanket rule does not grasp the essense of the more general principle. Both Reagan and Hillary Clinton are Politicians from Illinois. Not especially interesting. The scheme only noted the more general type of case that like of Baryshnikov, Dancer from Russia. Saying he was a Dancer of New York doesn't tell you anywhere near as much. So the scheme needs to point out it is in no way a blanket rule to follow.
  • So the principle we seem to agree on here is that the decision on "of" versus "from" should be based on deciding the location whose relationship is most important to the set being described.
If you agree, I'll add that to the scheme and change the Politicians cats accordingly. How does that sound? -Mak 16:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Deal! --139.18.1.5 15:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't object, but in my opinion, you took a very fast decision (it changes the way politicians are categorized). Notice that I thought differently about archbishops (and bishops) : see User talk:Orgullobot/commands. We have Archbishops from Sweden and Archbishops of Canterbury, as Embassies of COUNTRY and Embassies in TOWN. --Juiced lemon 12:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Politicians of Romania[edit]

Hello, Mak! I noticed that you moved several files from Category:Politicians from Romania to new Category:Politicians of Romania, which is non-existant page. In this case, could you, please, also transfer the proper classification of the old category to the new one (ie. just copy the text which describes it and puts it in upper categories)? Thanks in advance. --romanm (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Juiced lemon 11:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry guys. I thought the point made by 139.18.1.5 was pretty clear cut and didn't think anyone would object since most of these were ones I moved a month ago from the adjectival forms. I will post a brief notice on VP on any moves affecting greater than 40 pages in the future.
  • Also, I apologize for the delay in completion of the runs. As of today, I still have not completed them. The bot software didn't work the same as before due to the Cat Tree stuff that Doozey talked about at the beginning of the month. Really messes up cat extraction. Anyhow, last night I solved the problem and I will now proof the other moved cats, and make the cleanup runs. Regards, -Mak 16:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Not just Romania got caught in the half converted state. Also Brazil, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, Pakistan, Poland, and South Africa. Should be ok now. -Mak 01:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Template - Show-years-centuries[edit]

Hi this template {{Show-years-centuries}} is creating wanted pages for the 22nd(21 requests) and 23rd centurys and decades 2010,2020. Are you able to turn the link feature off for future dates. Gnangarra 06:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not many expressed an interest in it so I never refined it. I suppose this limit could be put in if you intended to use it more than a handful of times. Is this your intention? -Mak 07:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not using the template I was working through the list of needed pages Gnangarra 09:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
They aren't needed pages. They are pages that don't exist yet. I don't have any information that can lead me to increase the priority of this work item. There is a lot of other stuff to do, and I don't know when I will be able to get to this. -Mak 22:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Soldiers-> military people[edit]

Well, "soldier" is pretty messy too, because it can mean very different things; it's used equally frequently for common soldiers (e.g. "the soldiers climbed over the wall") and as a synonym for military people in general (e.g. "Napoleon is one of history's greatest soldiers").

I would actually suggest that we need something like "Enlisted military personnel" for the common soldiers; but that might be too complicated a wording to use. Kirill Lokshin 02:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Amathus sarcophagus-Cyprus-5th century BC.jpg[edit]

Can you forward the email confirming the permission to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org ? Thanks, Alphax (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The email states exactly what I posted on the Image page. I have given the rights owner's contact infor at Flickr. You are welcome to independently verify that what he wrote is genuine.

If you do contact him, it would be nice if you could persuade him to create a commons account and set the rights for his photos. Let me know if he agrees and I will submit him the entire list of his photos complete with instructions for the text he must insert on the Image rights sections.

How does that sound? -Mak 20:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

J8M Shusui[edit]

Hi Makthorpe, i reuploaded some of your images which were showing a Yokousuka MXY8 Akigusa instead of a Mitsubishi J8M. de:user:Erzwo gave me this hint. I hope this will not bother you. Best regards! -- Stahlkocher 19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:HitlerMussolini1940.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:HitlerMussolini1940.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

This is an automated message from BryanBot. 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Delacroix_Liberty_Leading_the_People_1830.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Delacroix_Liberty_Leading_the_People_1830.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 10:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Edouard Manet. A Bar at the Folies-Bergère.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Edouard Manet. A Bar at the Folies-Bergère.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

This is an automated message from User:DRBot. 14:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ussr0399.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Ussr0399.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hillary Clinton Bill Chelsea on parade.jpg[edit]

Hi. If you're still around sometimes, and can add some information (date, occasion?) to Image:Hillary Clinton Bill Chelsea on parade.jpg, that would be great. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 22:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please archive this page.[edit]

This talk page is becoming long. Some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please archive this talk page in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Image:IED_team_killed_by_premature_explosion.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:IED_team_killed_by_premature_explosion.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Madmax32 13:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture was taking by a US Military soldier during the course of official work for the USGOV. The deletion was improper. On a personal note, sanitization of war images makes war more likely, not less.

-Mak 18:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

MakBot: Moved from Category:United States Executive Departments[edit]

The edit history of Category:United States Executive Departments wasn't moved to the new category name. Shouldn't it have been moved? [28][29] Thanks, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

Hi Mak - there is certainly a sense in which you are right. I deleted this out of process and I apologise for it.

Background tho' - I deal with quite a bit of cross wiki vandalism. I have had to delete images uploaded to Commons and then used on other wikis for shock value a number of times. This image has not been used as far as I am aware however when I saw it I took it to be one of these and hit delete (vandal mode is semi automatic!). Moving swiftly to "block" I realise that this was not a typical vandal image or indeed uploader. All I can say is I intended to return to it and forgot. Let me know what you feel should happen & I'll run it past other admins I think (licensing I'll leave to others - not my specialist subject). Apologies & regards --Herby talk thyme 07:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the image. --MichaelMaggs 12:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
My mistake (human fallibility!!) sorry and glad it is sorted --Herby talk thyme 16:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Image:HillaryClinton from fr wiki.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:HillaryClinton from fr wiki.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Image:Hillary Clinton first lady portraitHRC.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright Image:Hillary Clinton first lady portraitHRC.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.


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

ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

NC-4 image[edit]

I see that NC-4 image that you uploaded has been used in the Wikipedia article about the NC-4, which includes a caption stating that the image was taken after the transatlantic flight. Your information however states that the picture was taken after a "transatlantic test flight". Can you let me know whether it was taken before or after the first transatlantic flight? I have come across conflicting statements, some of which claim that the NC-4 never flew again after returning to the States. Many thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


Category:Browning Model 1919 machine gun[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Browning Model 1919 machine gun has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--Daggerstab (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Makthorpe!

Tip: Add categories to your 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.

Here's how:

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:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

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.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


Template:PD-US-flag[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Template:PD-US-flag 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 template, 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.
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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

proposal01 subpage[edit]

Hey, I've moved your subpage "proposal01" because it used the wrong slash. The right one is "/", the other one ("\") makes the page the user page of a potential user "Makthorpe\proposal01". --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


File:Helmuth Johannes Ludwig von Moltke Hw moltke 01.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Helmuth Johannes Ludwig von Moltke Hw moltke 01.png 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Martin H. (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Kings_Canyon-Grand_Sentinel_Aah02.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Kings_Canyon-Grand_Sentinel_Aah02.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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jarekt (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Kings_Canyon-Paradise_Valley_Aah23.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Kings_Canyon-Paradise_Valley_Aah23.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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

CutOffTies (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


File source is not properly indicated: File:Battleship Fuji.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Battleship Fuji.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Dana boomer (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

File:GMD kill vehicle ift101.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:GMD kill vehicle ift101.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 | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Huntster (t @ c) 10:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ancient_pueblo_people[edit]

Uyvsdi (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

Hello, there is a de-flag proposal at Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag which affects your bot. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

File:H9A-8.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:H9A-8.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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Masur (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot de-flagging notification[edit]

Hi Makthorpe, I'm writing to you because your bot MakBot (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) is about to be de-flagged as a result of inactivity. If you'd like to keep that account flagged as a bot, please speak up at Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag#Discussion; otherwise, I'll remove the bot flag from that account in a week from now (). Thanks for your understanding, odder (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton[edit]

2602:306:CD29:AC00:1133:4ED4:B728:26B4 00:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

Hello, one of the pictures that you shared (X band radar, Pearl Harbor) have a satisfiable level of quality that I would be so glad to share it inside my book. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-based_X-band_Radar#mediaviewer/File:X_band_radar_platform_entering_Pearl_on_Heavy_lift_Marlin.jpg

If there is any copyright issues then you can inform me during next few days. Thanks again for your work, Lt. Ghasemi --85.110.74.83 15:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)