User talk:W.carter

Jury for Wiki Loves Folklore

Hi,

I would like to invite you to be one of our jury member for the International photography contest Wiki Loves Folklore. If interested please drop us an email at supportwikilovesfolklore.org ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 02:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tiven2240 thank you for asking, but not this time. All the best, --Cart (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Gallery link for “Mosaïque Université de Tlemcen”

Dear Cart,

have you a good idea for the gallery link of this nomination? The gallery link was invalid (pointed to an obsolete gallery page), so I have changed it for now to Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements, but I am sure there are better solutions. As far as I can tell the photo does not really show a “mosaïque”, but rather painted azulejos – do you see the same? If yes, some other FPs of azulejos are in Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others. Should we use that galley page?

All the best, – Aristeas (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, yep they look like azulejos or some other form of painted, glazed and fires ceramics. A quick Google picture search of University of Abou Bekr Belkaïd shows that these art tiles looks like they are primarily on walls, so you could go with Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Walls, since we have similar artworks there. Best, --Cart (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Cart! Very good – I remembered the azulejos in Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others but forgot about the ones in Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Walls. Have changed the gallery link accordingly. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Featured media

Hi, Do you think that creating more categories would be useful? For example, subdivisions of "Fiction": comedy, drama, etc.? Yann (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Yann, first of all, let's clarify what you are speaking of. It sounds like you mean the FM galleries and not the FM categories. Is this correct?

The galleries are fine for now. New gallery subsections are usually created when a page starts to become too messy with lots of entries. In the case of Commons:Featured media/Fiction, it only has 8 files listed, so it's very small. The only FM gallery page that is close to needing some subsections is Commons:Featured media/Animals, but it's nowhere close to what similar pages of FPs look like. FM is still a very small project, but hopefully it will grow and subsections will be necessary.

The categories however, are virtually non-existent for FM subjects. There should be at least one category corresponding to each gallery page, with the gallery page as part of that category, like we have with FPs. Example. This really needs some work. I'm rather busy this weekend, but I could take some time to fix this at the beginning of next week if you like. --Cart (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me better to plan this in advance, but OK. I am going to create the categories. Yann (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about having subsections on the gallery pages and you don't mind doing the work, by all means create them. I just think it might look a bit thin with so few files on every gallery page. Thanks for starting on the categories. --Cart (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Is "Time-lapse" a subject? Or rather a style of videos? We already have time-lapse videos of different subjects. I am quite confused what to do with that.

Then IMO there is a confusion between Category:Featured media by creator‎ and Category:Featured media uploaded by user name‎. The later ones should be "FM uploaded by ..." isn't? Yann (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yann Strictly speaking, time-lapse is a technique and not a style or subject, more related to animation than normal video. I think it's alright to let it have it's own category and gallery page, just like we do with 'Animated'. You could set up a parallell category tree with 'FMs by technique' and have normal/filmed videos, animations and time-lapse as subcats of it. The categories are so much more flexible than the gallery pages. An FM can be in several categories but only one gallery.

I haven't had a closer look at the categories in your other question. Can I get back to you later when I have more time, please. --Cart (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, categories are most done. I separated "historical recordings‎" than "historical videos‎". And I found 2 files IMO in the wrong category: File:Draining the Oceans video by NASA.webm is not a fiction. Should it be in "Educational"? File:Le Déjeuner des Minet (1906).webm is not really a fiction either. Should it be in Historical, Documentary, or else? And shouldn't we rename Fiction to "Feature films"? Yann (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Great work Yann! I think you are right about Educational for the NASA file, and to me Le Déjeuner looks like it could belong in the historical gallery, but could be in both historical and documentary categories. I think we should keep the names for all the FM consistent. Having one in 'Commons:Feature films' would look odd as it breaks the pattern. I also discovered some old categories floating around: Category:Featured videos & Category:Featured animations. They are from before media was separated from FPC. It would be great is these could be integrated into the categories you are working on now. You know, files moved, cat redirects and so on. It's all a bit messy and murky in the old archives. --Cart (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I am done for today. BTW we already have Commons:Featured media/Drama, but it is empty. Yann (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yann, getting back to you on your question about Category:Featured media by creator‎ and Category:Featured media uploaded by user name‎. Yeah, they really are a mess. People have just lazily copied over their cats from 'by creator' to 'uploader' when these are in fact two separate things. Sure, in some cases the uploader and creator are the same user, but this needs to be clarified. Category:Featured media uploaded by user name‎ is also clumsily named, it would be better as 'Category:Featured media by uploader' ands the subcats should be 'Category:Featured media uploaded by Xxxx'. Do you agree? I can get started on fixing these if you like.

You are right about Commons:Featured media/Drama, it would be better if it was removed from the main galleries and became a subsection of Commons:Featured media/Fiction. I guess that Eatcha set up the galleries as best he could when he created the FM pages, but this is easy to fix and I'll get on it. --Cart (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am OK with your proposal for the category and the gallery. Best, Yann (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yann, FYI, fixing the FM user cats is going to take longer than I thought. The bug is that Eatcha included the categories in the headings, with no regard for the difference between creator and uploader. I'm going to have to dismantel his system and build a new one. <sigh!> I'll let you know when I'm done. --Cart (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I would like to tweak the template used for creating nominations, but I couldn't find it. Yann (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yann, you'll find it at: Template:FMCnomNewerPreload and the instructions for it are at Template:FMCnomNewInstructions. It was written in just code on FMC, not using the normal {{}}. --Cart (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yann, the categories for uploaders and creators are fixed and sorted out. There is probably still a big bunch of FM that doesn't have these categories since they were promoted after Eatcha left, but that is a task for later. I'm rather sick of those categories right now, but at least the system works. --Cart (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Fab Aurora

So... like most others I was out to catch the totally mind-blowing aurora last night. Up here in the north I could see straight up into the aurora. It was like being inside a dome or force field! As usual, I got a bit carried away and took too many photos, but hey, you would have done the same if you were out and stared up into some CGI for Star Trek. ;-) It's all in Category:May 2024 solar storms in Tuntorp, Brastad. Best, --Cart (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I was going over to your talk page to congratulate you on this ... when I saw "Brastad" in the cutline in the enwiki article I said "I bet I know who took that!" and indeed I had guessed right.

Interestingly, down at our latitude, 17º further south than you, it also appeared to be originating from directly overhead. I didn't try to take a picture because I didn't know how long I'd have to expose for and I didn't have anything to keep the camera steady (Now I do, but our skies have clouded over in preparation for raining all day tomorrow, so it's unlikely I will get a second chance).

But maybe the memory is best ... it was the most brilliant aurora I've seen in a long time, and it wound up being the first time my wife ever really saw the aurorae (I was wondering for a second why the sky was so bright to the west over two hours after sunset, then I realized what I was looking at. A nice sequel to last month's eclipse (which, unlike 2017, was behind a thin layer of cloud, but that created some interesting visual effects you don't get in a clear sky).

I really love the Star Trek comment ... I am seriously considering making this image my desktop. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel! :-) Yes, it was one of those "once in a lifetime" shots. When I saw the graphic on NOAA's site, there was a "rouge" big red blob (indicating the G5 probability) that seemed to go on a path of its own a bit further south and detached from the usual polar "doughnut". It came down from around Murmansk and floated south as it crossed the Atlantic. So I guess we saw that odd activity overhead at different times.

The evening started cloudy, but it cleared up just in time for me to get out. When I'm out on these night shoots, I'm usually alone, but not so this time. I have never met so many people at night in the woods as last night, although I was the only one with a good camera. But they tired long before I did, and standing alone the in the field surrounded by the forest with this "dome" over me, I confess that I got goosebumps all over my skin. I have seen spectacular curtains in mid-winter up in Jokkmokk, but this red dome beats everything. I hope it will be allowed to stay in the en article; I think it is unusual enough. --Cart (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much for that whole series! Stunning pictures! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)