A script in your user namespace may stop working in February 2012
Hi とある白い猫,
I found the deprecated function akeytt somewhere in your user-namespace, e.g. Special:MyPage/monobook.js, , User:とある白い猫/edit.js. It is likely that this will cause JavaScript errors after Commons is updated to MediaWiki 1.19 in February. You can simply remove this function-call as it currently does nothing. If you have a copy of user-messages in your script, you may remove it and instead activate User Messages in your preferences. Please also note that addLink is now natively supported by mw.util.addPortletLink. Thank you.
-- RE rillkequestions?10:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Former_quality_images 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!
"Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute"
I have removed the notice. I believe this work is created by NASA as the image was taken by a NASA operated space probe. I have also contacted the contractor of New Horizons to ask if they have copyright claims. If I am not able to determine that the file is freely licensed, I will nominate it for deletion myself. The communication may take a while though as OTRS would probably be involved. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Please leave a talkback if you get any response, there are multiple files which are critical to get deleted (as I already mentioned of the outcome of the DR)... mabdul16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I did get a (genericish) reply which I replied to. I really want such images to be behind a rock solid license. There is more at stake here than the single image above. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:03 Princes Cairn TWO.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).
The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:03 Princes Cairn TWO.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
Template:PD-Austria 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!
It is vital for images to be processed individually on a case by case basis regardless of the outcome of the discussion. Vast majority of the images do not even comply with the three basic terms set forward by the template. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
That's not the way things are done: we already have Category:Media without a source. If you see an image without source information, tag it with {{subst:nsd}}. Case by case. We certainly won't tag a complete licence category, that's disruptive. That only a "tiny fraction" cite valid sources is just your own perception. Have you checked them all, have you counted them?
If you want a list to check each of the 700 licenced files individually, one by one, go ahead and do it... elsewhere. Write the list at your user space, and follow it. The deletion request is about the licence as a whole, and this project you have is beyond such scope. Keeping the licence does not mean that all images tagged with it must be kept, and some cases may be deleted by other reasons (such as lacking enough author info). As it is, that list is just disrupting the deletion request, which about the licence itself an nothing more. Cambalachero (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disrupting anything. This template's current use clearly has some problems. I can nominate all 703 images under Com:Del individually if you like. However, that would be what I'd call disruptive. I have checked the vast majority of the files at a glance. It is clear that nearly all if not all have problems where proving that content complies with the three terms of the template could be near impossible.
The deletion request is for the license as a whole with implications of every image tagged by it. In the past license discussions of this magnitude were always applied to images on a case by case basis. I do not see how this is any different.
It is not you who is disruptive, but the list inside the DR. It is disruptive because the last part of a discussion is at the bottom of the page, with this unneeded list, it is now in the middle, forcing to scroll several pages around.
It is likely that the template will be kept. As you may notice, nobody but you thinks there's any problem with it. On the other hand, deleting images without enough information to confirm that the use of a certain licence is correct to a specific image, is a long-standing practice, and it is unrelated to which licence does the image use. If you tag them all as lacking sources, even ones that do have them, then it could be considered disruptive, but if actually check case by case and tag only those that may be problematic and leave the correct ones, then it would be acceptable. Cambalachero (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of collapsible lists? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Additionally I have been working on an ambitious template structure at w:Wikipedia:International membership templates which intends to be a historic over view of countries' membership to organization. Take a look when you have time but mind that it isn't complete. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes the rename suceeds but the code is unable to carry on the last two steps (removing the template, posting on commonsdelinker). This happens when the target rename is filtered, ie how .JPG becomes .jpg
The code then complains how it cannot move page onto itself like here: [1]
Also consider the case where a page is moved but the template wasn't removed. There should be a button to remove the template and check if entry was posted to commons delinker and post if it hasn't been. [2]
I created the template. You need a redesign? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The template was modified to add categories for featured pictures etc, then modified again to include categories for "formerly featured" pictures as well. The problem is that discussion pages that display examples of the template and its usage are included in those categories. Of course those pages do not belong in those categories, so of course it would be best to only add the category for pages in "File:" namespace. It is fairly simple to do this, but the originally straight foward code of the template is starting to look very cluttered (need to put a test around every instance of "[[ category:"). It would have been cleaner before the "formerly featured" categories were added because prior to that the categories were added in a seperate section at the bottom of the template, and so could have been excluded with one surrounding test condition. There are also categories added by other sub-pages as well (eg POTY winners). So rather than hacking at the code, I thought it would maybe a good time to look at the structure to see if it could be done more elegantly. I think maintainability of the code is more important than compactness or efficiency unless the template is for use on a huge number of files. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue can be addressed with a few clever If/Elses for the relevant conditions. Could you link me to a few of the files/categories involved? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 09:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah I see. You want a namespace check if it is in file namespace or not. I will work for this end now. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe what you wanted is now coded in. I am thinking of simplifying this templates code by moving content to sub pages as auto-translate is rather difficult to follow in code. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your work :-). But there are still further categories that the template adds, eg for page Commons_talk:Quality_images there are "Former quality images, Featured picture of the year (finalist), Quality images, Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons, Commons featured widescreen desktop backgrounds". Most of these are hidden categories and are added by code on sub-pages. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that too. I do not immediately see where the category is in the template. I will look though. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Found it. I am unable to edit Template:Assessments/temp though. Some prick protected the page. :( -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I was actually classifying really low quality images, images in the public domain for other reasons and images clearly not covered by afghan laws. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 01:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Afghan symbols
Your change of the licences at the file pages of the numerous afghan flags and emblems do not really solve the proble we've got now with the new copyright law. Of course, those files are created by non-afghan wiki-users, but their files are still deriavatives of the original graphics, which are now protected by copyright.--Antemister (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Their licensing of PD-Afghanistan was bogus from the start. All I claim is they are anything but PD due to the original conditions of PD-Afghanistan. They need to be handled like every other image. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 11:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hm, the images had been in the PD from their creation until 2008, the year the copyright law came into force, so at that time the licence was correct. Your edits now "hide" the problem of the copyright status, a problem we have with many images of flags where we do not know the status of copyright protection in their home country.--Antemister (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the fact that the CC-licences can only apply to the files the wiki-user has drawn, of course it does not apply to the original flag. The SVG files are all deriavatives of the original flags, which had been in the PD at the time the SVGs were drawn, so those files were, according to the uploaders, CC-licenced deriavatives of the original PD-flags. But now the original files are protected, so the CC-licence will be a copyvio.--Antemister (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The source could be treated as PD-Ineligible. I do not see it clear cut basically. COM:DEL is the avenue for them I wager not speedy. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The boiler plate of the instantiation of the standard heads-up you left on my talk page advises me not to take the nomination personally. The text of your nomination, however, personally calls me out. The standard heads up is correct, we are all volunteers here. Unless you have a specific reason to name a contributor whose actions triggered your concern, like that they have a history of disruption, bad faith, or failures to comply with policy, why would you specifically name another volunteer? Why couldn't you say, "all these images were uploaded by a single contributor"?
We all have a limited reserve of good faith. I suggest it is a mistake for any of us the unnecessarily use up other contributor's reserve of good faith through carelessness -- as I think you did here. Geo Swan (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually. I do not believe you are at fault here. When you uploaded these images in good faith they were in the public domain. That does not seem to be the case anymore. I am sorry if you feel singled out. It is just a deletion nomination, not the Spanish inquisition. I have traditionally established the uploader of mass nominations as often the commonality is the uploader. I have removed your username from the nomination per your request, however. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
strategy wiki
Hi! I was wondering when everyone will vote on the Strategy wiki's logo. I saw your logo request on Meta-wiki and then saw all the wonderful logos made on Wikicommons. They're so cool!! --129.107.45.18622:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To establish the criteria so you do not even need to type in a rationale. A value between 1 and 7 corresponding to the criteria. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 18:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Ugly, lacks transparency, assumes user is innately familiar with the criteria code and that all possible instances have been taken into account. Should have an option for "left blank; full criterion added instead". DS (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency? It links to the policy page. In the past it was mere text which was far worse not better. This way the rename action itself links to the policy for people reviewing. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 18:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
They will still show. Parameter 2 used to be the comments, now parameter 2 expects a number as input corresponding to the criteria. Parameter 3 is for the comments like before. So instead of using it {{rename|Filename.ext|text}} it is {{rename|Filename.ext|3|text}}. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 18:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Why do you insist on not using the number parameter? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Images with copyright issues shouldn't really be nominated for page moves until that is resolved. I do not want to move images if they are going to be deleted anyways. I accidentally clicked the button (I accidentally hit enter while reaching to the keyboard) too early so I apologize for that reason as I was not able to input my rationale. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Glad a source was established. I was going to rename it for you but it seems like someone has beaten me to it. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 01:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
There are multiple objects with the same name so I think it falls under COM:FR #3 based on the request of the file rename rationale. Is this incorrect? Should I reject entries unless a specific (numbered) criteria is inputted to the template? There still is some discussion on that end. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 10:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Linking me to the same policy where I specified a rationale I think this falls under is not much of an explanation. Either explain me the problem or your comment will be completely disregarded.
I do not respond kindly to threats. Do not do that again to anyone. It creates an hostile environment, demoralizes editors and overall is a very dicky move.
I always copy the discussion I am involved with to the talk pages of everyone. To date in the past 7+ years of my contribution only one individual has complained about this. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 11:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It is clear to me that you do not want to listen. You did not listen to objections in history. I announced what I would do if you kept ignoring policy, and leave it for others to decide. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah so it is a turf war. I complied with a rename request you rejected which is why you are so pissed off about it. It falls under criteria #3 as far as I care. I will continue to make such renames unless you can tell me the actual problem. Randomly linking to policy is no rationale. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 11:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
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!
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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
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!
Thanks for uploading File:Xavier.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).
Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.
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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
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!
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Electric razor transparant.png, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Electric razor transparant.png]]).
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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
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!
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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
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!
Hi,
You renamed my works. For example: File:Army-HUN-OF-09.svg Please, restore them! My image collection is in a name scheme. The army, fire department and police ranks will scattered on my collection. Before it, all ranks was in one.
Bye,
Madboy74 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am renaming all NATO ranks and insignia following ISO and NATO standards. File:Army-HUN-OF-09.svg was labeled as "OF-10" (File:Rank Army Hungary OF-10.svg) which is a wartime only rank (5 star general). File:Army-HUN-OF-09.svg is a Full general rank (4 star general). If the problem is categorization, I can fix that but you need to be more specific as to what is broken. Thanks. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, did you draw all of these? Simply amazing! :) I would ask you to convert some non-svg insignia displayed on the below template to svg form. :)
I am working on standardizing rank names for template use (w:Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO/Generic/Army). I am thinking on working on all rank insignia for every country. Where do you encounter the problem. I need to see the problem to better understand it.
Sorry for my English! If you see the images in category view, (for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Pictures_by_Madboy74&filefrom=Coa+Hungary ) every categorized image in one block. My file naming idea: Category (Coat of arms) - Country (here is Hungary) - Subcategory (Country, County, Family, Town...) - Name - Other important information (History, Actual; Date...) At the ranks: Rank - Country - Which formal (Fire department, Police, Border guard, Army...) OR/OF-X... If i use this form, we can see the ranks and others in one block: Ranks countries all forms in one. These images that you renamed are on other place in the list. Not visible with all other ranks. I sort the images by name, not category! It's faster and easier for me. In the future i will draw more then 1000 images... It's will be a nightmare, when somebody wants to seek a picture.
I can't understand, the google translator wasn't good. Do you need svg from non-svg images? When yes, i can draw few images for you. Bye, Madboy74 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I or you can modify the category tagging of the rank insignia so that they show up where you want them but before you do that please consider my naming scheme which is based on international standards. The convention I use for ranks is branch (Army, Navy, Air Force), three letter abbreviation (HUN for Hungary, FRA for France), STANAG 2116 grade (OF-7, OR-5). So a 4 star US general would be File:Army-USA-OF-09.svg likewise a 4 star French general would be File:Army-FRA-OF-09.svg. I think this naming scheme would be less confusing. Category:Military rank insignia of the Army of Hungary documents the rank insignia.
Are you having problems with the order they appear? Because that can be fixed but I would suggest re-categorization of rank insignia based on branch.
The three letter abbreviation was a big dilemma for me. I use my standard for my ALL images. I drawn historical coat of arms. These countries have now abolished. For example Byzantium, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and other. Here the three letter abbreviation not good idea. The NATO ranks are just a little parts of my works. I'm a Hungarian soldier, and i drawn Hungarian ranks. Police, army, fire department and other. Not for NATO, just for my country. Here is an naming idea:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:WikiProject_Heraldry I think, there aren't too many different in my naming system.
Believe me, it's the best for us. Who ordered pictures from me, that man in searches in my works. If you're scatter, it is difficult to find.
I am sorry but Commons is a free image repository for all human knowledge, not just for Hungarian Government, Hungarian military or NATO. The standard you came up with mislabels rank insignia in a manner that is confusing for the reasons I have mentioned above. The standard I am using for rank insignia equivalence (STANAG 2116) was ratified by all current NATO members including Hungary. As for the 3-letter ISO standard, that is also widely used even by international bodies such as the UN.
I do not see how files are any more difficult to find. I can make them appear inside the category like before if that is what you want to see happen. Do let me know if this is what you want.
My renames are within policy as I am trying to harmonize all rank insignia particularly for template use.
Here is the Hungarian ranks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ranks_of_Hungary It's the CORRECT. In Europe EVERYBODY uses this. I'm a soldier eleven years ago, but i never seen your rank table. Maybe standard, but nobody uses. There is a table in every office. This table contains every army's ranks, thats in this mission. If you give me an e-mail address, i can send it to you.
Please recover my image names! We need it. If you want, you can make an other version for yourself, but don't change our images.
Bye: Madboy74 (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody in NATO uses NATO standards (which is most of Europe). The page you liked has the NATO standards I mentioned. See how full general is OF-9 and not OF-10. You can also see how Ezredes (ezds) (colonel) is an OF-5 not OF-6. Also notice how there is no OR-10 rank for Non-commissioned/enlisted ranks. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The images not successful, because the room was dark. If you want, you can see that the names that i given is correct. The figure shows the rankings are old versions, but the new ones differ only in shape. Remember, this picture made by the NATO, for NATO soldiers! Maybe there is a standard that you referenced, but here nobody uses them. I take personal offense that I am member 11 years ago of the Hungarian Army, and you think, i don't know our ranks. Our leadership isn't stupid they're known the NATO standards. I really hope that does not fall into this trap. I think, you are an outsider, and you don't know nothing about the Hungarian Army.
Please restore the old names, because we don't use other version. Madboy74 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are looking at the NATO grades comparison chart created for the NSA (NATO Standardization Agency). The image is clearly labeled as "NATO Ranks/National Grades". I have seen it at the wall of NATO HQ as well. As you can see, Hungary does not have an OF-10 equivalent rank. Hungary has 4 star general (OF-9) as the highest rank. I am trying to explain you something present in the file you linked to me. Just look at the picture please. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I think, you can't understand me! Don't do it! Please recover them to my old image names! I will ask to the administrators, because that you do its a typical vandalism!!!! Madboy74 (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to be hostile. You have not expressed any reason why there is a problem at all. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
My English isn't enough. It's unfair. I wrote my all problems for you. We are in fair, when you use a translator.
Google translate is good for you:
Szét fog hullani az egész kategória nézet. A katonai rendfokozatok külön válnak a többi, nem katonaitól. Sőt, a jövőben a régi, nem NATO rendfokozatok is meg lesznek csinálva. Így meg főleg rossz lesz, ha az egyik fele itt van, a másik meg ott. Tehát: Kategorikusan RAGASZKODOK a név első feléhez!!!
(Rank_Army_Hungary_) A másik felével azt csinálsz, amit akarsz. A jövőben kérlek ne csinálj semmit az én munkáimmal. Túl sok időm ment már el felesleges hülyeségre. Sok képet kell még megcsinálnom és nincs rá időm. Nem értem, te miért ragaszkodsz ennyire az elképzeléseidhez, amikor egy percet se töltöttél a megrajzolásukkal. Határozottan nem szeretem, ha valaki ilyen módon nyúl bele a munkáimba. Ezek a munkák nem a Commonsnak készültek első sorban. Ajándékba kaptátok, csak hagyjátok békén, mert más meg használja. Ha ez így nem megy, akkor sok képtől szabadítod meg a Commons közösségét, mert más helyre fogom feltenni!!! Különben is, a névadás szabadsága engem illet: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_renaming#What_files_should_be_renamed.3F A közepe táján lesz, ami ide vonatkozik. Jó szótázazást, ha már az angolomat nem érted meg.
That is a fair point. Thank you for posting this in your native language. I will try to seek a translation for you. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I modified categorization of 4 files (General ranks). Is this what you want? You can see the change here. If this is what you want, I can apply it to the rest of the files. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Almost good, but I can't understand why makes pain the first tag on the name for you. The last tag not enough for you?
My original tag are cleanest. I'm happy, because you understood my problem! My English is so bad?
I realize you are upset. I really do not want to upset you. I am trying to fix the issue in a manner that would make both you and me happy. Your English isn't bad I just want to fully understand your desire so that I can find the best solution.
I have applied the change you wished for to all of the insignia. Hopefully this is what you wanted. Let me know if there is a problem with it in terms of categorization. We can also discuss other aspects you want fixed.
The reason why I renamed the files is for their use on Wikipedia projects. I want to make it so that people will see the correct Hungarian rank insignia when they read about Hungarian officers, non-commissioned officers and enlisted personnel. This is very hard to do if everyone prefers their own standard.
I do not understand the reason why the whole is more important to you than me. We're just a little bit country, with a small army. What do you find an interesting energy to pity him so much?
Stay, if fanatical, or mine, but only on condition that they will stay out of my works. It has long been supposed to be ready for the next job, but I'm preoccupied with the messages. I do not want such a case again, because it really will be notified of the problem.
This I consider the whole matter is closed Madboy74 (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I wasn't clear. I was hoping the rename would satisfy the discussion with the user as he indeed identified an error with the classification I conducted. The disagreement seems to be unresolved despite my efforts. I am unable to understand the users concern as I have made my out most best effort to understand what the problem really is. My guess is perhaps external use but I have no way to assert this. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I see. But I am sure you understand no file mover or admin can satisfy both of you at the same time. I love to be courteous, non-meddling and helpful in this case but these three are not exactly at peace with each other. For the time being, I declined all three upstanding rename requests in this regard until the dispute is resolved, either through talk or a third opinion; although I do not persist. (After all, you are a file mover yourself and I also do not want to wheel war.) I might participate in the discussions but I have neither been to NATO HQ nor have served 11 years in the Hungarian army. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly fair. I do not want to wheel war either.
I would like to note that the only outstanding problem currently is File:Army-HUN-OR-04b.svg which should be File:Army-HUN-OR-03.svg because it is an OR-3 rank not OR-4. I propose a rename to OR-3 for the time being (as this is the only image that doesn't follow the format all other variants follow). It can be renamed later if there is a need for it. Would renaming that one file for the time being be OK for you?
Comment we have category schemes (Category:Commons category schemes), but not file naming schemes. Maybe such naming schemes could be part of a relevant category scheme, or maybe we could have Category:File naming schemes. These things can also be documented as part of a WikiProject, if there is a relevant one. Certainly, Commons:File renaming point 6 permits renaming for a standard scheme; but we need to agree on a standard scheme. White Cat's NATO/UN/ISO scheme makes sense for modern/current files, but does it (should it, can it) apply to historical files (files where countries don't exist or otherwise don't easily fit into the scheme)? Anyway, maybe it would be best to move the discussion to the Village Pump, to get more input on the question of which schemes to apply where. Rd232 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS Madboy74's original post said The army, fire department and police ranks will scattered on my collection. Before it, all ranks was in one. - that points to issues of schemes overlapping. Maybe that can be solved with file redirects, so a file is within both naming schemes? Again, that would be a question for wider discussion. Rd232 (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Currently, I know of no formal file naming scheme, and I will oppose most of them as they tend to be country specific and it only leaves the place for one specific image file with one specific resolution. File renamings to fit templates should in most cases not happen: it is easier and more flexible to redirect the specific wanted file name to the file that provides the right content. So indeed, in the case that a file naming standard would be absolutely needed, it has to be formally defined and agreed. The file renaming rules should be probably sharpened for that as I have seen already many for and backward renamings as many people try to push their (undocumented) personal file naming standard. --Foroa (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than willing to discuss the filename convention, is there a specific location you would like to discuss this?
This standard can only be applied (officially) to NATO member states as NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) #2116 only covers ranks for NATO member states and only for military ranks (Army, Navy, Air Force, Gendermerie, Marines, etc.)
Like flag naming scheme it would make a lot of sense if we followed a standard naming scheme for all rank insignia and related symbols. On a related note, I am unsure how to handle historic files as I have no reliable source for NATO equivalence for starters.
While some rank equivalences are straight forward where a 4 star general is a 4 star general for every country (except France whom have a 5 star general that does what 4 star general does (France has no 1 star general)). It gets especially complicated in OR ranks (Non-commissioned/Enlisted officers) where for example a "Belgian Corporal" ranks below most other corporals having an equivalent rank to a "US private first class". Or consider how Turkish corporal equivalent rank has only one symbol unlike many other whom have two or more symbols. Dutch warrant officer rank insignia is used for 3 ranks (OR-8, OR-9, OF-D/1). More examples can be observed at w:Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO/Generic/Army.
When I look at a rank insignia filename I would want to be able to tell if it is an equivalent to a colonel or sergeant, what country it is from, and what branch of the military it is from.
Maybe. Our tradition is very different. The Hungarian army ranks older then all NATO... So, there are ranks, that not correct in your table. My names was correct. I'm now in a NATO mission. Here is a sample: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendfokozat
My OR-3 friends was very happy, because in your table they are OR-4. I will scan an ID card for you, if you don't believe me. I wrote, we are in a NATO mission. Not we made our IDcard. Madboy74 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hungary is a signatory to NATO STANAG 2116 and has accepted this equivalence as a standard. If you are in armed services you should be able to acquire the STANAG 2116 document (it is a NATO Unclassified document). Every country has their own ranking system which is precisely why the NATO STANAG exists. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Rd232 and Foroa above. I think the "harmonize" justification of rename should be used sparingly and only when all concerned parties agree. Moving this discussion to Commons talk:File renaming may encourage broader participation and make it easier to locate in the future. --Walter Siegmund(talk)16:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe Commons talk:File renaming is the right address for this kind of discussion. This is a user/content decision not a policy-level decision. This affects perhaps fewer than 2500 files which hardly requires a commons-wide discussion. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
It is the place to have the discussion of the scope of the "harmonize" justification of rename. It should be apparent to you that a consensus on your proposed rename of 2500 files is unlikely. I think you would be well-advised to revert your attempt to rename these files without consensus. --Walter Siegmund(talk)16:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should have any more moves in either direction until we've had a chance to clarify consensus on these naming schemes. I will start a new thread at COM:VP. Rd232 (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will make no renames of rank insignia whatsoever until a consensus is reached. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Village_pump#File_naming_schemes. Please heed the warning there: I want to use the present case as an illustrative example of the general issue of file naming schemes, and not make the entire thread about the clash between White Cat's and Madboy74's naming schemes. Feel free to comment there, but please bear that in mind: we want to not just solve this particular problem, but figure out how to handle these issues better in future. Rd232 (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jagiellońska Street
Jagielonska with "one L" is very very bad (see polish orthography). The street name "Jagiellonska" is for polish dynasty of Jagiellon with dubble "L". Only with one "L" is very very bad. 77.187.241.6019:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing this refers to the File:Jagielońska 3 in Katowice.JPG file, I have renamed it after reviewing edit history. Please use {{Move}} with the proper parameters in the future. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
To long a name
I messed up a file name with an unintended extra (Dutch) description sentence in the name. The rename was refused as no valid reason. Come on! I agree that "To long a Name" is not a valid reason, but junk in the name is.
I believe you have incorrectly piped the {{Rename}}. I have corrected it but I think you should still define a better rationale per rename criteria. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 11:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Normally I would wait for an explanation. But since speedy deletions can be speedy I am going to change these to a regular deletion discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are copyrighted files as far as Afghan law is concerned. This was discussed. Most of the files under PD-Afghanistan needs to be deleted per Afghan law. I am going to be blocked anyways so feel free to revert or disregard my very existence. I am unwelcome on commons clearly. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 day for the following reason: {{{2}}}.
If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.
The whole discussion was going no where, it was turning into a battleground with uncivil comments coming from both directions, however you undoing the close is pure disruption and you have blocked since you threatened to continue to undo it. You will be unblocked if you agree not to continue to be disruptive on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am seriously considering a 2 year break (I am fully convinced actually). This guy has been attacking me for 2-3 weeks and I am not even allowed to file a complaint at ANB. He has disrupted my normal edits to commons. All I wanted to do is harmonize a few rank insignia. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Clearly no one is listening. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 01:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
He is clearly stalking. Multiple people explained this. My suggestion would be to contact Russavia. He has also reverted the entire French OR file range by the way. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 01:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
You are of course allowed to file a complaint at ANB, but it is important to retain the ability to differentiate between topical discussions and personal issues. If you cannot do that then a break is probably a good solution. --Dschwen (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so for the past 2-3 weeks. The thread is there. All you need to do is read it. I have presented objective evidence as well. Last batch was removed by Bidgee. I am not implying malice, it is merely the end result. This person will revert my contribution first and then ask why I made the changes I made. This person has been consistently attacking me. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 02:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Adversity
Hounded into wiki-retirement award
In recognition of having to put up with extreme image stalking and an immature Wikimedia Commons environment that does not protect the targets of uncivil behaviour. Hopefully after a wiki-break you will feel like you can cope better with such hostile behaviour again. Fæ (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think this is helpful? White cat has a problem. The interaction with PK consumes him completely. He is not open to reasoning and discussion of his action once PK is involved the lightest bit. It suddenly is all about "stalking" and the possibility that he actually did something wrong does not occur to him at all. I'm terribly sorry about the entire situation, but his behavior is starting be become a problem for commons. Handing out cute kittens just reinforces his attitude. White cat is probably a really nice guy IRL, but I think he needs a break, before this situation breaks him, and commons is collateral damage. --Dschwen (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I may screwed up from time to time and I am more than willing to acknowledge that. I am more than willing to discuss to reach a consensus.
However, that becomes a different story when the same user also
Orders me around
Floods my talk page with problems when not interested in resolving them
Butts in to my own talk page on a discussion he isn't a party of disrupting the pre-existing conversation.
Insists on continuing behavior he is clearly told is considered offensive such as a derogatory attitude towards non-latin text/username/signature.
Object to non-issues for the sake of objecting in a manner that is not constructive such as reverting file uploads and then pretend to discuss.
All this is what I have been dealing with in the last 2-3 weeks. The problem here is not my attitude. Then again you are the person that said "I do not give the littlest crap about your beef with PK" so I suppose you do not really care.
Sigh, it seems that I have difficulties getting my point across. I'll blame it on the language barrier. Let me spell it out again: Being stalked by someone does not absolve you form acting in a responsible and courteous way on commons. Full stop. You need to get out of this mindset that you are always right, just because you are the stalking victim. It will not do you any good here (obviously, since as a result you are currently blocked here). Absurd paranoid talk, like commons is run by PK will not gain you any sympathies. It's the cold hard truth. --Dschwen (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no language problem here. If Pieter Kuiper does not need to be acting in a responsible and courteous way on commons, why should I be expected to do so? I acted in a responsible and courteous way on commons on making my original post on the ANB. You can see the thread and how it proceeded.
There would not be problem of any kind if Pieter Kuiper disengaged and adjusted his tone. This IS my complaint. I complained about Pieter Kuiper's conduct and ended up getting reverted and then getting blocked for it. When people are undermining his bad conduct I only feel Pieter Kuiper is running the show.
Please do not be stupid about this. If you think someone "has broken the rules" and is not being blocked for it the answer is not breaking the rules yourself. That should be obvious. As I stated above, feeling violated in any way does not put you above commons "law". "Somebody got away with murder" is not a "license to kill" for you! PK has been discussed many many times, and yet there has not been a substantial block I can remember. His "putting people under the magnifying glass" after a run in with him has annoyed many people, and I'm sure he would have been blocked, if he wouldn't be right most of the time. It happened to me as well (remember the Matzos, Pieter?), but in the end commons is better of having a problematic image altered or deleted than having a copyright violation slip through undetected. So, try and pop the bubble you are currently trapped in and try to at least consider the option that you might have done something wrong with the rotaton/crop and renaming of insignia. I mean, come on! People are leaving you messages about it on you talk page! Do you think Pieter sent them here?! --Dschwen (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of rank insignia,
Pieter Kuiper's complaint about Hungarian ranks did not improve the situation. I was already discussing it with another person when he declared the discussion "concluded" and ordered me to move the files back to how they were. The issue was in discussion before Pieter Kuiper had taken charge and disrupted it.
Pieter Kuiper considers me a file move activist that needs to be gotten rid of. As a result Pieter Kuiper was advised to steer clear from me which he chose to mass revert the french rank insignia rotations. My rotations and move of rank insignia was done in good faith. His rotations are clearly motivated for different reasons.
It is very hard for me to "defend" my actions when I am in the middle of a discussion about them. I have made quite a number of renames and rotations and no one objected to them. I have done my moves slowly to give time for people to object if they have a reason to object. Clearly people have concerns and these need to be addressed through consensus. In the meanwhile files should be left as they are. In fact this was something I was quick to agree. There is no emergency to move or rotate rank insignia provided it does not affect the local wikis.
People are of course entitled to disagreeing with each others actions.
Under normal conditions people would be more than happy to discuss issues seeking consensus/compromise when one is needed. That becomes a different issue when people feel under fire by someone they feel is trying to get rid of them.
"Putting people under the magnifying glass" can be considered harassment. People should not be annoying others. Period! Causing others intense stress has no benefit to the project.
If someone is getting annoyed with your conduct you want to explain them the problems or at least discuss the problem, NOT order them around and/or agitate them further. This is how people acting in a responsible and courteous way on commons discuss issues.
You were lying and your remark (18:00, 18 March 2012) was racist (or at the very least very derogatory at best) which you continued to make after you were told they were perceived as racist. In fact you made the same remark (19:51, 4 April 2012) with the goal of trying to upset me. You have refused to copy paste the unicode or refer to me in a manner that is acceptable. You have went commons-wide to find every opportunity to oppose/object whatever I am doing making me spend most of my time trying to counter your complaints. You are trying to keep me at defence at all times commons-wide. For instance:
21:25, 5 April 2012 - You reverted my upload from days ago,
For gods sake, I gave a WikiLove banner and this is the grief you want to load onto a blocked user? You have no idea of the email conversation I have had with とある白い猫 before leaving a message. Grow up and stop this nasty case of grave dancing. Further, the next person who deliberately does not call this user by their chosen name of "とある白い猫" is being blatantly racist demonstrated by their choice and action in my opinion. --Fæ (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or too lazy (me) or too forgetful (me) or too stupid (me, too) to copy paste とある白い猫 everytime. I actually used とある白い猫 before. Took me a few seconds to figure out which part was the username (looking at the source code of the signature). In any case, dont mistahe stupidity for malice (and certainly not for raceism). This is hopefully not grave dancing either. I cannot take the "retired" message seriously. Looks like a typical case of door slamming (got you my attention at least). --Dschwen (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem if you call me White Cat. I would however have an issue if you called me "#€%&€##€". Pieter Kuiper went great lengths to refer to me in a manner that is derogatory. Mocking other peoples language or writing style is a racist act and should be avoided at all times. I am not saying Pieter Kuiper is a racist. I am saying the way he mocks other people's language is racist.
People can of course act in a racist manner even if that is not their intention. In such a case normally people consolidate with something like "I am sorry I mocked that language but that was not my intent" and carry on. He has not done this and instead refereed to me as "#€%&€##€" after being told that was offensive.
My only hope is him disengaging from me. I do not take pleasure in other people getting blocked. Do read my reply to you above. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the advice of Dschwen (at the top of this section) is both helpful and well-intentioned. Some of us have watched とある白い猫 in his/her various incarnations for at least six years. This latest reminds me a bit of a 2006 discussion on our sister project, for example.[4] I think とある白い猫 has become substantially wiser since then, but s/he would do well to give Dschwen's advice the consideration it deserves. --Walter Siegmund(talk)23:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2006? Really? The issue with Elaragirl is old history. It was resolved back in 2006. Are you claiming Pieter Kuiper is without fault?
Pieter Kuiper is stalking me as far as I care and needs to stop. He is only managing to stress me out. If there is a problem with something I am doing it can be handled through alternate means (means not involving Pieter Kuiper demanding me do things or else he reverts my edits and etc) such as someone other than Pieter Kuiper explaining me the problem. I also think 15 days is a good cool-off period for all involved parties. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, no disagreement from me here. If Pieter could use his time productively and to the benefit of commons without pissing off other contributors he should certainly do so. And I have a feeling that he could very well keep himself busy in other corners of commons. So, yes, let's hope this can all cool down now. --Dschwen (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use this bot to upload images from Flickr together with your Flickrreview tag - the Flickrreview bot will detect this as invalid review tag. Please use a blank flickrreview template instead or add your review tag manually after upload. --Denniss (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to stop the bot but I will review them all once the process is complete. What exactly is the problem? Upploader and username should match? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 02:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
So all I need to preform is a null edit? I can make the review be marked as the bot reviewing it if that fixes things. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 03:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I was unware of this user group. This wasn't an issue when I was an administrator and I had forgotten about it completely. Should I remove entry from all 250 uploads by bot yesterday as well as the files I reviewed while I was an administrator? I have put up a request for this flag. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 11:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you should remove it from all 250 uploads. If the bot is trusted for this task it should be allowed to do it itself. But as far as I can see you did not pass our bot-approval process for this specific task. Please announce the new task on Commons:Bots/Requests and tell us which software you're using or which methods to verify the license-status so we can check it. Yes, this seems to be very bureaucratic but this ensures that we can trust the license-reviews of you bot in future. Thank you. -- RE rillkequestions?17:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK. :) I would welcome some cultural input in regards to this phenomenon :) Feel free to fill the Japanese description as well as English and I will copy edit it should you desire.-- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Please don't
incorporate VI in assessments. Discuss first with the VI project. I get some very bad memories from the past of moving too fast without seeking consensus with the projects first, when I see this. --Slaunger (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely making the template capable of handling it for discussion purposes. The sample code would only run on that very talk page. It is difficult to discuss an idea you can't see. Right? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It is appropriate to test proposals using a sandbox approach, rather than modifying a live template. Each time we edit a template the caching of all pages that transclude that template are invalidated and the pages need to be recreated for display (ie all the FPs and QIs that use it). Also the changes need to be reverted if the proposal is rejected (otherwise if its in there someone will use it), and if other maintenance changes are made, intertwined with your changes, it makes it more difficult to unwind those changes. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing wikipedia since 2005, I think I know a thing or two about templates. A sandbox is impossible in this case as the point is demonstrating integration. Nothing needs to be reverted as it is possible to disable code elements from the main Assessments template with trivial ease. Should the code need to be disabled this can be done so by replacing "{{{com3|}}}" references with a 0. Unused code can stay if it has no real impact on performance. I do not see the concern.
Also you did not object when I introduced WMF elements to the said template which was initially more expensive than all the changes I made for the VI code.
I disagree that it is impossible to restructure and test new things and show integration in a sandbox template. Of course it is. You have done more than 30 edits to the live template the last two days. I do not agree unused code should stay in this template. Disabled code sections clutters the code and makes it harder to understand and maintain. A heavily used "production" template is not a testbed. --Slaunger (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might lessen the objections to significant changes of templates (eg recent examples {{PD-Afghanistan}} and {{Rename}}) if they are discussed first and other users are brought onboard. Otherwise each succesive endevour meets more and more resistance, it might take longer but this is a co-operative project. And of course one can make a seperate copy of the template to demonstrate proposed changes, in fact simple mock-ups of the results are probably quite sufficient for demonstating concept. If the sub-project (VI) does not want the changes and you do not have a concensus from the community as a whole to do it, then consider that you might just be spending the credits you get from all the good work that you do, by pursuing something that is ahead of its time :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-Afghanistan}} had relic text which is against policy after the establishment of copyright. This has been in discussion in early March. Some users are going as far as suggesting only professional legal advice counts and all volunteer work should be disregarded (paraphrasing). Commons consensus has been consistent in dealing with non-Berne signatory countries and I do not see any consensus that overrides this long-standing established consensus.
I have made a great effort to make the criteria transition at {{Rename}} as smooth as possible. I had discussion that never had a great amount of participation even after the modifications to the template. I do not see a problem there.
The QI and VI discussions are on going and it would be inappropriate for me to comment about them. I already initiated discussion at both projects before you commented on here (or before the modifications to the template).
I am merely trying to help, it is difficult to establish consensus when community ignores posted discussion until template is modified. I feel such remarks are more suitable to email form where it will not be intermingled in a different discussion.
Hi, the code was actually properly categorizing, just spitting the text outside of the box which is probably why I did not notice. This is a very good catch. :) I have corrected the problem. Let me know if you see any other problems. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear White Cat, would you please, please start to listen to the concerns of follow editors regarding restructuring of heavily used templates (see thread above). I would have understanding if you were making trivial fixes, but you are making a complete refactoring. It is like surgery without sedation. Making a refactoring and cleanup is fine and healthy, but it has to be done in sandbox space with a set of clearly defined test cases, which should check out before rollout to avoid these kinds of (unintentional) mishaps. I appreciate and understand that you are trying to help, and I know you are a talented template coder, who knows all the fancy commands, but I fear that your efforts will not be appreciated if they continue this way. Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sandboxed it before committing the edit actually. You can see how many hours of sandboxing by checking the layout (13:33) and en (15:06) sub-template before the simplification/rollout (16:25) attempt. If my math is right I spent 2 hours 52 minutes before making a single change that impacted anything. I spent an additional half an hour or so to make sure everything was operating properly.
I thought I considered every possibility but evidently I missed a bug. I actually made the modifications per your comment that the {{Assessments}} was difficult to follow which was true for me as well as the template got complicated quite a bit when I wasn't maintaining it. I was hoping this would make you happier in particular.
I did not follow your work so far that I understood you were actually trying to sandbox your efforts in subpages. But thanks for taking that advice on board. I just noticed a number of edits on the main template, which appeared to be major and risky wrt break of functionality (and apparently it unintentionally introduced at least one bug). I appreciate that you are trying to make the template more maintainable and easy to understand, and it has helped wrt to my critique with meaningless numbers. That is a bold and good initiative if done carefully. Maybe if there was a suite of test cases embedded as a subpage it would be easier to test prior to rollout? --Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True Sandbox testing (where all the code is copied elsewhere) isn't really that helpful in this case because I am not really changing the code all that much. I am just migrating it or merging templates so the code running is no different than before (code logic is retained). It is a matter of controlling how data flows from one template to another. I do preview-tests on the main template and try to break the code by considering all options before rolling it out. This tends to work better in catching bugs because even a single misplaced { or } can break the entire code causing all sorts of weirdness. I also do not have a compiler either so I cannot really see errors.
The main problem I see with the current template is that auto-translate makes it very difficult to actually translate when the template has a billion sub templates full of code. It may look like I am doing the opposite with what I am doing (I created a sub template for every wikipedia assesment) but this made it possible to losslessly remove the complication off of {{Assessments}} so I can actually figure out what this code salad did.
A lot of work remains to merge all non-commons assessments into one sub-super template. I would be pleased if you would help with this task. All that needs to be done is all the code from sub templates be copied to Template:Assessments/wikipedia. This template isn't used anywhere so it would have no impact on the site until the changes are rolled out on the main Assessments template. Once the copy paste is done I will try to generalize the template so that it is simplified even further.
I did make the changes already actually. I would not consider it complete enough to go live though. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I did make adjustments and went "live". As you may observe all changes so far made the code more compact and readable. I think the bulk of the modifications are complete. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it looks much better and more maintainable now. Thanks for doing that effort and for taking my concern on board. Unsurprisingly, I think it could be made even tidier without the VI (and QI) functionality. --Slaunger (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe VI/QI parameters would complicate code at all. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations, Dear Reviewer
If you use the helper-the scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-
importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR
importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.
All done except protected pages & rtl languages (as I cannot figure out how to make it work). -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Fast at archiving
Wow, you just wrote a post for me, and shortly thereafter you archive the thread, just after I had taken the time to write an appraisal of your latest endevours (whereafter I got an edit conflict). Why so eager to archive discussions which are still active? --Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have de-archived per your request. I am not eager to archive. I think I have highlighted too many sections. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not talking about a five year old bot request, but the current one that I linked to where you obtained a bot-bit. Most bots restrict their edit rate for non-urgent tasks to avoid unnecessary load see Commons:Bots#Bot_speed, you are running this bot at a speed more than ten times the speed you specified in the bot request. Sounds like a problem to me. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah the bit where I have all edits except one? Does the bots activity interfere with any of your activity? Do you normally regulate bot activity? In any case the bots find and replace task is complete. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 02:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
No I am not a bot herder, but when 19 consecutive edits by the same usercode appear on my watchlist (with nothing in between even) I am a little alarmed! --Tony Wills (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't have appeared on your watchlist. If that was the problem, you should have said so from the start. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you an admin?
The line on this talk page "adminwarn=If you are here about an administrative action that I have taken, please read this page before posting." appears to imply that you are. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the page that is on is protected by me. I am too lazy to fix it. I used to be an admin and I resigned on my own accord. Also people can object to my past admin actions so that message still has a point. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 03:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
There are some pages within my userspace I protected as an admin. I have not requested their unprotection and do not want to see this. I am not convinced that there is a problem at all. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
As your bot has not done any trouble (the template is/was broken, not the change made by the bot), I've unblocked it. Best regards --PierreSelim (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While trying to correct some typos, the abuse filter prevented me from saving my edits.
I reported that here. Are you able to allow anonymous editing of that subpage ? -- Anonymous German User 91.52.172.18620:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to do this directly, but I will ask for assistance. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Does this cover what you intended? I am unable to see why you would not be able to edit. :/ Page does not appear protected either. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 04:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Assessments template rtl support
I have removed rtl elements you have introduced and introduced rtl elements to the root template. I hope this is an improvement. Please let me know what you think.
Also are there other rtl languages aside from ar, he and fa? None comes to my mind. Please feel free to reply at Template talk:Assessments so everyone is inside the loop.
Hi. That`s much better than what I did. Thanks a lot. ar, he and fa are the main widely used rtl, in addition there is Urdu, N'Ko, Maldivian, and Syriac which I don`t see templates for them in the translation task. Please feel free to post this on the discussion page if necessary. --Ciphers (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RegEx
Regex for AWB: (\{\{Assessments[^\}]*?)([\|]\s*)quality(\s*=\s*[^\|\}]+)(?=\s*(\||}})) would pick up the quality parameter in the assessment template if the template exists. {{Assessments}} is typically single lined when used. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 11:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Is the regex understandable for you? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 08:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Pheeewww.... this would match the parameter (including the = sign) in $3 (the third brcket set). Why is there i need for the second bracket set? Is the whole expression a no-match if the assessments template does not exist (i.e. if the first bracket is a no-match!) ? Would I just replace the whole thing in case of a match with "$1$2quality=1$4"? Thanks --Dschwen (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a disclaimer-ish remark is necessary at this point. I am merely trying to discuss the technical aspects. You are a fellow bot operator and I will acknowledge that it more than sucks to be asked to change the code out of the blue. I am in no way trying to force you to change the code or anything the sort. I am merely discussing ideas in case you want to volunteer to change the code and if there is consensus for said change. I was merely trying to understand the problem and would like to apologize if I had sounded forceful.
The regex will indeed not match at all if assessments template isn't present at all. The regex above is searching for a valid "quality" parameter. This can be used to check to see if someone has already put the value in manually. A simplified version can be used to check if assessments template is present at all. I try to break apart my regex queries to avoid unnecessary complexity. I found it much more easier to have multiple simpler regexes to run checks rather than have one massive one. I am unsure what you mean by the "second brackets" but if you mean the closing brackets, it is vital to only check within Assessments template so as not to interfere with other content which may legitimately use identical parameters somehow.
I used the regex ((\{\{Assessments[^\}]*?)([\|]\s*)com2(\s*=\s*[^\|\}]+)(?=\s*(\||}}))) and matched it with $1$2quality$3 to replace all instances of the parameter "com2" with "quality" on the assessments template. I did not add any new "quality" uses, just renamed the existing uses. There are currently 970 uses of the "quality" parameter and about 10,000 total uses of the assessments template.
If you wanted to change the value of the quality parameter from whatever it is to say 2, all you'd need to use is the regex posted on top of this section and match it with $1$2quality=2. I realize this is unimportant for quality images as there is only one type of them but it is meant to be an example.
If you wanted to add "quality=1" to the existing assessment template you would use the regex (\{\{Assessments[^\}]*?)(?=\s*(\||}})) with $1$2quality=1 to match.
If you wanted to remove "quality" parameter all together you'd use (\{\{Assessments[^\}]*?)([\|]\s*)quality(\s*=\s*[^\|\}]+)(?=\s*(\||}})) matched with $1. Not sure if we would ever want to do this for any parameter.
So this single regex is pretty robust in handling different situations with simplification. If I needed to change two parameters I would have used the regex multiple times as needed.
On a related note I am also trying to find a reliable regex to place Assessments template after the information template. I have not found a reliable regex so far for this as Information template often has templates passed to its parameters or even entire tables passed in so it is quite messy.
If you're going to change the assessments template on so many files, and specifically the enwiki part, why not use the simpler parameter "ennom=" instead of "enwiki-nom="? I often add the assessments template to files for English Wikipedia featured pictures, and always use the ennom shortened syntax. Julia\talk22:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I merely removed the resplendent references to "Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/" which is handled in the template end. Not all templates had this. In fact vast majority did not directly link to the enwiki FPC page.
"ennom" parameter was the secondary parameter for the value with primary parameter being "subpage" both were superseded by "enwiki-nom=". ennom is confusing because it doesn't explicitly specify the source. subpage links were like-wise confusing. This change happened last week or prior. Changes were part of the massive {{Assessments}} overhaul that repaired many of the broken aspects of it.
Thanks for explaining. I hadn't realised that enwiki-nom superseded ennom. Thought all this time that ennom was preferred. Oops. Julia\talk09:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are not at fault. The template was quite messy and documentation was far from being accurate. It should all be better now. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 09:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
To do this, we would possibly need to move all calls to the wikipedia and commons subtemplates into the layout subtemplate (and then maybe wrap the entire thing in a div with the layouttemplate class.
There are over 100 possible parameters. Why cannot the entire main outer div be warped in this code? All translations are under Template:Assessments/translate/xx range. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
As far as I understand, any content that is in this class will be replaced by the content generated from the API call to Template:Assessments/Translate/xx templates. This means that any styling or code that is common to all the translate/xx templates (and is hence kept out of them) should not be in this class. Basically, all the content in this class is replaced by the html parsed from the template call. Since we don't want all the styling (table, color, image on the side etc.) to dissapear on clicking, we need to place just the translatable content in this class.
That was intended. The second parameter should only be used for the number (corresponding to the rationale) and third parameter for the reason in words. While the use of the number system still remain optional, this would comply people to be using the number system.
I actually want to make the number system mandatory so as to make sure proposals come with the correct intent. Cryptic rationales of people are difficult to understand at times.
It's definitely a possibility. Especially now that the rename script exists (so people can't complain that they didn't know the numbers). I know a certain someone who would get mad, though. ;-) LoganTalkContributions14:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, should I revert your revert? I really want to avoid upsetting people. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure. Maybe bring the issue up at Commons talk:File renaming so some kind of consensus can be formed. Also, did you cause the issue with the stray apostrophes and random bolded text in rename summaries/universal replacement requests? That's something that should be fixed. LoganTalkContributions16:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right. I discussed it with a certain person to explain the change with him. I actually think the template should be redesigned a little so that the error isn't carried into the rationale and a drop down box of default reject reasons would be most helpful. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the →Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 16:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Assessments subpage parameter
Hi, I noticed you have been updating the assessements template. Another user pointed out that the subpage parameter does not exist anymore, so we are not sure what to use for the FPCBot anymore. You can see the discussion here. /Daniel78 (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just added the image-reviewer group to the bot to avoid complications. Recently you said that flickrripper.py is easier to use than tools:~magnus/flickr_mass.php (toolserver nightshade seems to be down currently) because it's only one command line. I never used one of the tools. What's the difficulty with flickr_mass? I thought one have just to enter the stream-URL? -- RE rillkequestions?17:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
flickrripper.py is easy to use but a bit of a challenge to setup. Once you install PIL (correctly) and flickr extensions to python and add the relevant code to user-config.py it is a simple matter of running the code. The problem is code completely crashes or does something weird if commons or flickr cuts communication mid-upload. Typically code stops running completely. This never happened during the New Zealand run but CTBTO run is being a pain for this reason. I made the but re-run itself in a batch file until I am satisfied all the uploads are correctly conducted. Bot avoids duplicate uploads so that is not a worry. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Do I need to file a new request? What do I need to do? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 08:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
If the files are unchanged from the Flickr version why not use the standard Flickrreview template? AFAIR a bot needs to have file reviewer rights to become an accepted review tag. A null-edit from your useraccount will probably not accepted, I suggest changing the tag to a standard flickrreview tag to have the review bot do its work. --Denniss (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the bot now has a reviewer flag please sign the added Flickrreview template with the robot signature and not your own. You are currently creating shedloads of work (for me) as your signature is detected as invalid. --Denniss (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem was due to a config file error I corrected today. The issue is already fixed through bot such as this. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you PLEASE stop nominating the files for deletion. People are deleting them which complicates my task significantly. Feel free to make a list of files that you think should be deleted and I can make the bot nominate them in bulk for you. I will let you know when the bot is done. The source has lots of files so it takes time to upload them all. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing. There are 940 files at source and we have 510 of them here. So 430 more to go. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
We are up to 911 images. So that's 29 more to go provided the 29 files are freely licensed. I am not sure which 29 were not uploaded. Code needs to crawl 911 files so it takes a very long time for it to do a single full run. Just letting you know. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 18:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I am going to stop the run since the bot seems to be unable to grab the remaining 29 files. These either are not freely licensed or are not valid for some other reason. Also some images (such as the pictures of atomic tests) they claim CC-BY-SA are probably PD as they were probably taken before CTBTO begun to exist. These need to be re-tagged. Also I can assist you with the renaming of files if you'd like me to do that. Just tag em and I will move em. :D
If you find any other stream like this one do let me know :)
What exactly is broken? I was not even asked to stop it. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Please look at its edits. It is archiving threads (not part of its supposed duties), and even more, ignoring the time constraints for old threads (using 24 hours), and worse, it's not archiving them but deleting them instead. MiszaBot already does this stuff, correctly -- why did your bot even attempt it? Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This wasn't intended. I have reverted all of bots edits and stopped the code. I sincerely apologize for this. It was supposed to archive only one page. I must have given it the wrong input by accident. Bot can be unblocked. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I do see that Template_talk:Assessments is still set to be archived by your bot... but I didn't see page archiving as one of the requested or approved features of the bot. Is there a reason why MiszaBot could not perform the task there? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to switch template for MiszaBot. I just wanted to knock out archives going back years as it was a pain for me to load the page. I could have manually archived of course but I want to rely on bot to do that. Though I am not sure if using the bot is a good idea anymore given the results of the code. I may run it on my own talk page only, I hope that's ok. :/ -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I was doing that actually. All pages should be fixed properly. I had to fix two other pages which had edits before I could revert. I have recovered missing content. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
ga.wikipedia - bureaucrat request
Hey there. I left a message on my talk page over there re. your rename. I'm not sure how you want to proceed on that. I can usurp your SUL account then rename the 'White Cat' one to this name, but it'll end up in detaching your account from the SUL system for that wiki. Is this the way you want it to be handled? It could get kinda messy :/ Either way, I can sort it out. I just want to do what's best for you here :) - Alison❤19:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - Done - take a look and let me know how that looks? I can always move them around again if needs be :) - Alison❤22:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try but the code for {{Assessments/translate/en}} is wicked. Also, I've never done any substantial translation nor any edits to templates so I will need a lot of help with that. I can of course give translations for sentences but using any template syntax/code is extremely difficult for me.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to assist. It typically is simple sentences. "Featured" part is complicated in particular but I can assist you with that. Also feel free to try and make mistakes, I can correct those for you. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 08:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Featured pictures(plural) is निर्वाचित तस्वीरें in Hindi, विशेष चित्रे in Marathi. Got it from the Highlights section on the main page for the respective languages.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to copy the code from {{Assessments/translate/en}} and translate it. If the code breaks I can fix it for you. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
I have likewise reverted additional closures of nominations that may have merit. Copyright concerns need to be addressed regardless of (perceived or real) ulterior motives underlying their nomination. Эlcobbolatalk18:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel such nominations should be speedy closed regardless of the merit. Fresh DRs can be filed independently. This may be a symbolic move but a necessary one. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
He is nominating more of them. I insist that this persons nominations be made invalid regardless of merit as
The user is blocked and is block evading.
The user is preforming this as a means of harassment and not due to copyright concerns.
This is the conduct of the user that has gotten him blocked multiple times before.
しろ猫さん。Türkçe Vikipedi'nin köy çeşmesine atılan Alperen'in yazısını okudun mu ? Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-ND 3.0) ile mi yüklenmesi gerekirdi acaba ? O zaman yeniden formatlı izni istememiz gerekiyor mu ? Yoksa sadece dosya üzerindeki etikerleri değiştirmemiz yeterli mi ? User:Taysine bir mesajı attım da... kontrol edersen sevienceğim. Takabeg (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-ND 3.0) Wikimedia sitelerinde kullanılabilir bir lisans değil. Sadece CC-BY veya CC-BY-SA geçerli. Tr.Vikipedi köy çeşmesinde belirtim bunu aslında. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Ayrıca resimlerde watermark problemi var. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Certainly, should I revert all my current renames or just specific ones? I was looking at rename requests older than 50 days. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 12:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Most have been reverted by RussBot as you moved to a long standing redirect. The others are scheduled in the Delinker. Please don't insert speedy deletes in categories that are not empty as some admins speedy blindly. --Foroa (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean POTY ones? How were those problematic? Only -en was an issue for protected pages I believe.Fixed! Category:Commons:Poty (en) is empty now. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. You can decide to rename (without discussion)
Category:Commons:POTY (ar) to Category:Commons:Pictures of the Year (ar)
But I cannot rename (with past proposal)
Category:Commons:Poty (ar) to Category:Commons:POTY (ar)
Why is this? Have you considered discussing your renames with POTY people?
I do not necessarily object to your renames but I do not like your methodology. If I make erroneous edits with my bot, I should be given the opportunity to fix the issue. When you revert through RussBot or CommonsDelinker you create controversy that can be trivially avoided. You also risk creating a revert-war situation with the bots as bots do not know each others activity.
Also I immensely dislike your use of a revert tool for edits that are not vandalism. A manual revert is not that hard.
The most important Poty categories where tagged with a rename request to POTY. I contested them some while ago for the simple reasons of uniformity with "pictures of the day" naming and that POTY equals not "Pictures of the Year" and there was no second opinion. But you decided to move them anyway. We try to avoid and remove all the time acronyms as they tend to be country specific, and here, we keep adding them. When looking at the higher and lower level categories, it becomes clear that "pictures of the Year" is the most consistent solution.
And yes, I moved this year around 12000 categories, so it is not impossible that some of them are contested (moves to disambiguated categories are almost always contested anyway). --Foroa (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I am not contesting the actual rename. I dislike your methodology. You went ahead and reverted my renames without bothering to settle the issue on my talk page first. Had you merely asked here, I would have made the changes you are trying to reach. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I am the bot operator, it should be my job to clean any mess my bot creates. RussBot exists to revert my bot? I do not understand. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh! That is fine then. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Information template optional parameters
I do not see why you are opposing the addition of optional parameters (for location for example) to this template. Can we discuss this on talk pages as village pump is a bit cumbersome for me. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the village pump is a good place for such a widely used template as few will have the template page on their watchlist. If the community agrees that it is worth while modifying the template, then the details can be thrashed out on the templates talk page. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one will agree to that unless details are determined. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you understand that by modifying the template at all means that the page cache for every single image page that uses it will be invalidated? And this has nothing to do with the actual number of edits to pages containing {{Location}}, {{LargeImage}} etc (each of those edits will be on top of the load caused by just editing {{Information}}). --Tony Wills (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe this is a problem. As devs always say, let devs worry about performance. Code can be throughly tested on Template:Information/sandbox first, can be then proposed and rolled in if approved. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
As a user of this site I am concerned at the responsiveness of the system, its performance and efficiency. I am concerned with the idea it doesn't matter what we do, someone will buy more storage, or more computing power. Use our resources wisely, don't squander things even if they are abundant - unnecessary changes are a frivolous waste of donated resources.
At the moment I consider that the template only contains one non essential field "other versions", all other fields are important pieces of information that we should have about every image:
Description
Date
Source
Author
Permission
(there is also another field "other_fields" to easily add other non-standard information fields). Things like "location" are not required for every type of image, exact gps coordinates for stationary objects like buildings and landscape features are useful, but for most things this is not actually relevant and will probably never be provided. eg it is sometimes useful to know where an animal or person or plant was seen when photographed but this is the exception. There are many, many templates we could merge into the information template, but why? Your only argument appears to be a cosmetic one of putting things in some standardised order, when there is not a demand for such ordering, let alone agreement of what it should be. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the performance argument. It does not affect resources aside from a one time only backlog. It isn't an issue according to the devs so it is not an issue for me as well.
Point of CSS and templates is cosmetic issues. In a website having such uniformity is a good practice.
Location is essential information. You can use GPS location to assist in a wide variety of ways. For instance it can be used for automatic identification of species of plants as elevation data based on GPS coordinates can be used to determine the climate and if that is compatible with the animal or plant. Furthermore with location it is possible to take better quality photos of the said object. Where something geographically is matters just as much as when it was created.
Sorry, I can't agree with any of those three assertions. Especially "automatic identification" sounds rather bogus. That sort of concept may be useful on a statistical basis, but has zero value for individual pictures, especially if it is for instance a photo of a cultivated plant. I stand by my assertion that for our media bank GPS data is primarily useful for static objects, and only a subset of our images. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot likewise agree with your baseless claim either which cannot go beyond mere opinion. As you can see, I can be equally dismissive and this gets us nowhere.
What you call bogus and dismiss is what is being done.
GPS is among the meta data used to identify species. GPS alone would be inadequate but it is among many features that increase accuracy.
You can mow down the list of possibilities strictly by using the GPS info particularly if you have a database where each plant can survive.
You can also use a machine learning algorithm to learn about where plants typically live by cross referencing GPS coordinates with climate data for the said coordinates. Even if the algorithm cannot be 100% sure what the plant actually is, it can shortlist likely candidates to a botanist.
GPS data is more relevant than the date of the files creation (since only a small subset is old enough for date to be remotely useful) and should be integrated into the template.
The proposer of change needs to provide argument and evidence to support the need for the change, not just assertions.
Thanks for that link, an interesting initiative. If they come up with something that reliably classifies plants from pictures of leaves, even just down to the family level it will be useful, a tentative species identification would be wonderful. I would be interested to know exactly what weight they give to location info. I suppose it depends on whether they are cultivated plants or growing in the wild. Mankind has a habit of taking plants and animals with him where-ever we go, so a lot of things are grown well outside their normal range, often we grow plants in places where they wouldn't survive or reproduce successfully by themselves. So I will concede that camera location info of good photos of plant leaves, taken in-situ could be useful :-).
I have just done a quick survey of 30 images (selected with the "random file" link)
My preference would be for all files to have a standard information template (description, author etc), then other templates dependant upon the type of thing depicted (artwork, museum specimen, plant/animal, building, panorama ...). Some things might have say both a artwork and plant/animal template (painting of an animal/plant).
Your comment about the "Date" field brings up a point that has never really been resolved - what is the date field for? For copyright purposes the date of first publication might be useful (= the date uploaded here for many images), but it is also used for the date a photo was taken, or just the date uploaded (whether or not this is the first publication). Which leads to a similar question about what location information we want - at the moment it is primarily "camera location" information, I created an "object location" variation, and if it doesn't already exist a "place depicted" template might be useful with for example landscape paintings. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition to edits also needs valid claims. :) This is a wiki, edits should not require prior approval. On that note... You kind of proven my point. At least one of the files you randomly found while I was browsing randomly had the problem I was talking about: File:Luitré - église.jpg. It was problematic since upload in this case. If the two templates are merged this problem will never happen.
That initiative is among the things I would have presented at Wikimania 2012 had my application gotten the support, it hasn't which is why I have not had a good median to discuss availability of such tools of Artificial Intelligence. The plant identification task uses leaf shape and size as well as other criteria into account mind you so GPS is just one of the many criteria.
Copyright can be very dependent on the location the file is taken. GPS information could be deterministic in establishing which countries FOP applies for example. If a file falls within the coordinates of a country where there is no FOP whatsoever and that image is also in a statue category, you have a FOP violation candidate with fairly high confidence to be brought to DR. A human can verify these and nominate for deletion.
Furthermore there are various tools that can exploit GPS data to express commons images in a different manner. For instance Google earth can use the GPS coordinates to place images and video onto a map where user can click to see the view from those coordinates. Heck, there is an interactive map feature linked from GPS coordinates already!
My point with my examples is that GPS information is important enough to be included in the main template. GPS information will not be usable for every file but same can be said about some of the other parameters of {{Information}}. If GPS information isn't provided the template would simply hide that field.
Camera location, depicted image location & etc can be overloaded to a single template. My point currently is GPS coordinates for camera locations which can be machine generated in bulk.
Going on a tangent here but, date field is more useful to establish copyright of PD-Old files and is not very useful for more recent files as buildings and other stationary objects do not change that much. It is interesting never the less but not as critical. There already is a "Date and time of data generation" filed for meta data so the date field is redundant for an important percentage of the files it appears on. That said the "Date and time of data generation" meta data could be wrong as it could be the scan date.
1 ) I don't have any problem with how File:Luitré - église.jpg looks, in fact I think it looks quite good, it highlights and draws attention to that additional block of information. It's easy enough to have a bot reorder templates if that's what you want.
3 ) You certainly come up with new uses for GPS data. The location/FOP idea would be marginaly useful, you must bring together information about the subject of the photo (some human construction), whether it is new enough to be still covered by copyright, the details of the countries copyright lengths etc. The last thing we need is dozens of false positives. But, yes a tool for a very small subset of images, doesn't get us very much closer to saying that location is essential information for every image.
4 ) That GPS data can be used by third parties using our images still doesn't go anywhere to saying this is an essential field in the info box, as shown above location is only relevant to about 50% of our images.
5 ) I don't think that your examples have demonstarted importance, only usefulness. Nothing yet to dispute the fact that location is irrelevant to about 50% of our files. I agree that location information is useful that isn't what I'm disputing :-)
6 ) Having a single location field in information means it only allows for it's use as either "camera location" or "object location", what if you want both? :-)
7 ) Date Tangent: Out of the various uses for the date field that I listed, I have always supposed it is primarily for publication date (as this relates to source,author,permission). But as regards just dating photographs I disagree entirely, there are often huge changes even just to the exterior of building (let alone streets, landscapes and anything else) in just a few years. I am digitising someones holiday snaps (35mm slide film) of an Australian holiday in the 70's very interesting to compare with today. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that part of the rationale for including the location as a standard part of {{Information}} is that it will somehow increase the addition of this information? I'm not sure that can occur very readily. If GPS info is in EXIF data, that is already being added as a {{Location}} by a bot. So that leaves people adding the info probably by looking at googlemaps etc, something that isn't going to happen on a large scale considering all the other things that need doing around here. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about this, comparisons of how a place was in the past and today is uninteresting to me and can be used by third parties. What is more interesting to me is location based browsing. You cannot expect everyone to have the exact same reason to look for information on commons as you.
I do not see any reason why you are objecting beyond "it isn't necessary to merge". I am sorry but that fails to convince me that how addition of optional fields to {{Information}} would cause problems to the project. The only issue you tell that is worth some further investigation is the performance impact as the template is transcluded in over 10 million pages - which devs I have talked to do not consider it too big of a problem. But I intend to come up with numbers for that too.
I trust that is just a rhetorical argument, and that you really do value the educational value of the history things depicted by images. Please note that I am not arguing against associating location info with images, to the contrary I wish to see such info about all images where it is relevant. Your proposal has nothing to do with the inclusion or exclusion of location info, and you have not demonstrated or even argued how the arbitrary placement of this information in one particular place, within the standard {{Information}} template, improves the provision of that information or the useability of that information via things like google maps, to browse by location.
The precendant of adding fields only relevant to a subset of images to the information template will just mean that the addition of everyone else's favourite field can be argued on the same basis. Maybe, for some reason, that is what you envision?
To the contray you have demonstrated no advantage to the project of your proposed addition. Where is the call for the location info to be in a particular place within the {{Information}} template, or even the consensus for its placement relative to that template? --Tony Wills (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I really do not care about the date filed all that much unless image is historic and that info is needed to determine the age of the file. Like you I am not suggesting this information should be removed, it may be useful to others, just not to me. I am not suggesting we should break the template but all of the individual fields on the template would not survive the "demonstrate why it should be merged" ad hominem argument. This is a wiki, edits of one user could be viewed as unnecessary as others. If the edits to not disrupt the site, they are fine.
There is no current precedent banning expansion of information template, why would there be a precedent if template is edited?
I do not need to demonstrate the advantage to make edits... I gave a few examples of advantages such a merge would have which you have dismissed. There is no consensus against it either. It is additional optional fields. Template functionality can be increased, this isn't banned.
You seem to want to dismiss anything and everything I say. If you do not have a real reason to object beyond performance concerns, what are we discussing?
Could I ask you to add something like 51 more images to this? :) I think more randomness would be nicer. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Accelerating history, originally there was no image on the VP page then in 2004 User:Bdk added a picture of a hot pool in Iceland, that sort of looks like a well [7]December 2004 (It looks as though it was originally a slightly larger image on the Icelandic wiki and was cropped slightly, the author was given as "Jón Jónsson" which google translates as "John Doe" ... but the only versions of the original file that I've found on the internet are smaller and later than our original upload, eg [8]).
Then in 2009 I finally found a good image on Commons of an actual village pump that also looks like a meeting place [9]March 2009.
That started something and we got
July 2010
December 2010
January 2011
April 2012
Then you gave us 6 images that can change every minute (I think it can only change if the VP has been edited and the template reloaded), now you want 60! ;-). This is a very steep expotential curve, where will it end!
The idea is I want to have more than 6 "random" images which will get old quickly. The thing is if we have more than 24 of them they would rotate over time slowly so that they do not become boring again.
The files (should) update every hour (I just fixed this) even if the village pump isn't edited much like the main page & POTD. I do like the concept of "village pump" as a gathering place rather than a display of rusty relics. That said it could be nice to have one machine pump if we decide to have a lot of images. I like Balga, February 2010, Women around the water pump.jpg better since it has people but do not really object to any of the pumps presented here.
"Gathering place" or rather "meeting and chatting place" is the whole idea behind calling it "Village pump" (ie people lined up to collect their daily supply of water run into other people in a slightly random way and chat while waiting their turn), but I think that metaphor is somewhat lost, and most people don't know why it's called village pump. Someone started a Commons:Beer parlour at about the same time as VP, but they were quickly merged.
The purpose of the picture is not just to decorate the page, but to illustrate the page's purpose so I would actually be quite happy with a single good image, but a variety is nice :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
new version - emphasise conversation & pump, now we just need 59 more ;-)
Human brain ignores repetition after a while. This is why a new image would remind people of the purpose of village pump. The image is inherently decorative as the page would function without it. But that is fine! We are an image repository, demonstrating our images is what we do best. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 08:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Would you mind subst:ing all usages so we can start to autotranslate this template (just if you already have a bot-code for this). Thank you. -- RE rillkequestions?09:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Re:mr and hi translation
I translated valued and quality but there's a problem.
They appear translated only in some examples(last two sample usages) but not in the main ones(sample usages ten and eleven).
Another unrelated problem with the current english translation. In the sample usages about only quality and valued(10 and 11), "If you think this file should be featured on Wikimedia Commons as well, feel free to nominate it.".
I don't think that as well should be there for we are talking about assessments on commons only. That's for pictures featured on other wikis but not on commons.
I suppose that should be "If you think this file should also be featured on Wikimedia Commons, feel free to nominate it." but changing it would require some template-code editing.
--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I have fixed the issue. Not sure why it happened but it is fixed now. :)
"As well" here refers to files that have an assessment of some sort that are not featured on commons - that said the language can be adjusted to "also".
Thanks for that. Now I've prepared a rough translation of the main Featured part but since that's the wickedest part, I'm gonna need a lot of help. From what I understand, that part works as follows.
This {switch1|is/formerly was} a featured {switch2|sound/picture} on {project name} and {switch3|is/was} considered one of the finest {switch4|sound files/images}.
where switch selects one of the options and switch1,3 and switch2,4 are related.
Based on that, I found a translation which would perfectly fit in with just a little rearrangement.
यह {project name} पर एक निर्वाचित {switch2|ध्वनि/तस्वीर} {switch1|है/थी} और सर्वोत्तम {switch4|ध्वनि संचिकाओं/छवियों} में से एक [[मानी गई {switch3|है/थी}.]]
with squared brackets denoting the link from 'considered'.
I can't figure out which part of the code controls switch3,4 so could you rearrange the code as explained?
switch1 is {{#switch:{{{num|{{{3|}}}}}}|1|3=is|2|4=formerly was}}
switch2 is {{#switch:{{{num|{{{3|}}}}}}|3|4=sound|1|2=picture}}
switch3 is {{#switch:{{{num|{{{3|}}}}}}|1|3=is|2|4=was}}
switch4 is {{#switch:{{{num|{{{3|}}}}}}|3|4=sound files|1|2=images}}
I've numbered them 1-4 for convenience. I have to rearrange them but I don't know if any part of
([[{{#ifeq:{{{project|{{{2|}}}}}}|com||{{{project|{{{2|}}}}}}:{{{lang|{{{1|}}}}}}:}}{{{namespace|{{{4|}}}}}}:{{{name|{{{5|}}}}}}|{{{name|{{{5|}}}}}}]]) and {{#switch:{{{num|{{{3|}}}}}}|1|3=is|2|4=was}} [[{{#ifeq:{{{project|{{{2|}}}}}}|com||{{{project|{{{2|}}}}}}:{{{lang|{{{1|}}}}}}:}}{{#if:{{{nomination|{{{7|}}}}}}|{{{nomination|{{{7}}}}}}|{{{namespace|{{{4|}}}}}}:{{{candidacy|{{{6|}}}}}}}}|considered]] one of the finest {{#switch:{{{num|{{{3|}}}}}}|3|4=sound files|1|2=images}}
where the asterisks denote text to be entered. I want the entire text in single square brackets at the end to link to the nomination page(the link from "considered" in english) meaning the last switch should be a part of the link.
Could you please rearrange the code so I'll just substitute parts of it in Hindi.
I do not quite understand your request, you already rearranged it as above. :) You can move the switch code around they are each independent of each other. I don't know Hindi grammar so I cannot understand what you want me to do. Do not worry about breaking the code, I will fix any problems that may arise. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 07:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. It sort of works except for examples 6, 7, 8 & 9 i.e. for former featured. The wiki-text of the link is shown like "[[Commons:|मानी गई]]". I haven't yet translated the names of all the other projects. Also, I guess you need to translate COM:Featured pictures into Hindi for the link to (Featured Pictures) to appear in Hindi. I'm not going to translate that any time soon so I guess it's okay if it's in English.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the translations so far. The "featured pictures" text is dependent on the project except commons which is multilingual. The translation for that is here but there doesn't appear to be a Hindi translation for Commons:Featured pictures.
यह चेक विकिपीडिया पर एक निर्वाचित तस्वीर (Obrázek týdne) है और सर्वोत्तम छवियों में से एक मानी गई है.
यह ज़र्मन विकिपीडिया पर एक निर्वाचित तस्वीर (Exzellente Bilder) थी और सर्वोत्तम छवियों में से एक मानी गई थी.
यह अंग्रेजी विकिपीडिया पर एक निर्वाचित ध्वनि (Featured sounds) है और सर्वोत्तम ध्वनि संचिकाओं में से एक मानी गई है.
यह स्पेनिश विकिपीडिया पर एक निर्वाचित ध्वनि (Recursos destacados) थी और सर्वोत्तम ध्वनि संचिकाओं में से एक मानी गई थी.
Do these four read correctly? These are the visible in the last item on the page.
Yup, they are fine but the last entry in the last sample usage, the 'Cantonese' doesn't get translated(rather transliterated). Also, see the 6,7,8,9 usages. The link from considered (to the nomination page) is broken and shows as [[Commons:|मानी गई]].--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cantonese is an issue I am aware of, it has to do with MediaWiki localization.
I fixed the broken "considered" link for former featured pictures just now. It was a mistake on my end not yours. :)
Let me know when you have time to translate remaining lines. :)
To everyone who may be mad at とある白い猫: I've always received very good help from とある白い猫 at IRC - very good indeed. Please just tell とある白い猫 not to do anything that the whole community doesn't like or else you'll boot him out.
とある白い猫: Please don't do anything that the whole community doesn't like because then you'll get booted out. Please just do only things that the whole community likes.
I want to improve this template and a few users are constantly interrupting this. I can either disregard them or cease working on the template entirely. I do not like either option.
Users demand I gather consensus prior to making changes to the template without stating any clear reason why they are opposing to the improvements (in general). One of them even stated their opposition is over procedural reasons and that they do not really have a preference on which template is used (in the case of Wallpaper). User's interest in the template dissipates when I cease editing it.
Whenever this issue ({{Assessments}}) is brought up to the attention of the general community, it is promptly ignored. Few people care which template is used. Fewer people care if one or the other is deprecated. The community-wide vote in 2008 had fewer votes than what would be required for a single featured picture to pass. My conduct back then was less than perfect but some of the current opposition to the template is from back then.
My improvements to assessments template has a point. I want to classify featured pictures in particular as a preparation for Commons:Picture of the Decade and for Commons:Picture of the Year/2012 (POTY 2012). Keeping track of which files are considered wallpaper, featured, as well as other criteria... which files have not been considered for a POTY are important to this end. This would require no toolserver queries for these tasks and would save everyone a significant amount of time.
I do not want to bring something as unimportant as the wallpaper template to a community-wide general vote. I do not want to be the person that interrupts the entire community over issues that do not require the opinion of everyone. The people opposing deprecation (of wallpaper template) should at least provide a reason why such a vote is even needed, especially when they bring people other than me to User Disputes for using Assessment template to tag wallpapers. I do not believe any of the users opposing the merge have ever used {{Wallpaper}}.
How would you recommend I deal with this dilemma I am having?
Sorry for beeing so late in answering, and sorry in advance for my poor english.
I think you understand now very well where the issue is.
The issue is not about your template or your improvements (btw, never forget that "you think" they are improvements...), but about the way you tried to implement them in the structure.
"Wikimedia" in general, (and "Commons" in this case) is something very special, and unique in the world. As it is built since the beginning, IT CANNOT WORK !!
But the miracle is that IT WORKS !!
Why ? Because of the "consensus".
Everything new here must be accepted by the "community", or the majority of users.
So you have a double job to do.
First, you must make your idea interesting for the more of users possible, and it is very hard. Mobilize ! "I want YOU for US Army my new template" !
Second, you must be followed by a significant vote, with enough "pro" opinions.
Both are very difficult, because it is easier and more "charming" and "sexy" to discuss hardly or vote for a ban in COM:AN/U, or assess with only one vote for a Quality Image, or for the FP page...etc etc... And not easy to make people "move" about "difficult" stuffs.
But what is sure (and you are experimenting this today), is that the "community" (I dislike this word very much, because it is an american concept, wrong for the ensemble of "Commons" users, well, no matter...) will strongly react against, if you try to change something important alone. Be careful: because men are men, the reaction against your idea may possibly change in a reaction against you... Even if I "personally" have nothing to say against you as person or user !
You think your new assessment template is better than the older one ? OK, why not ? Maybe you are right !
Try to convince me, Slaunger, Alvesgaspar, and many other users "first" !
What I write here is almost the same as said by Slaunger just above (in better english...)
The thing is, I still do not believe anyone cares about the template itself ({{Wallpaper}}) which is why I am not inclined to mass revert the bot.
The change of {{Wallpaper}} -> {{Assessments}} happened naturally in the past 3 years. My deprecation had a three year delay. Opposition to such a slow transition should come with logical reasons and I am not seeing this.
When I created an idea (now discussed category feature) in sandboxed form (it is not used anywhere), people still complained. Consensus cannot be established when I am expected to avoid demonstrating it.
It is very hard to convince someone whom presents no logical reason for the opposition, offers or takes no compromise.
Just FYI, I have raised a question, which relates to when bots can be approved to edit at higher than normal edit rates. Since I have used your latest bot approval as a specific example in the question, I thought I would inform you as a courtesy. --Slaunger (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me, I have remarked on the page. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi White Cat, regarding your thought whether this thread is dependent or not on the COM:AN/U thread, I can say that the COM:AN/U thread has certainly triggered it. Once I realized your bot has been approved to run at x10 faster edit rates than policy, I redacted my claims that you had edited faster than you were allowed to and said "sorry". If you feel I have overlooked something in my redaction concerning edit rates, do tell me and I will consider that. I was very surprised that the bot was approved to edit so fast as it was in conflict with written policy. My objective for opening the bot thread was and is only to gauge my understanding of the written guideline, as either the guideline was wrong, the approval was wrong, I misunderstood something, or something in between. So, if the policy is outdated, it should be updated, to avoid future confusion. I have tried to do my best not to mix that with the COM:AN/U case. I had to link to the bot though as it was the only example I knew of where a bot had been approved to edit at such high rates. I was surprised everyone started commenting on the operations of your bot instead of addressing this discepency between practise and guideline. I state very clearly in my replies in that thread, that your edit rates are within the limits of what it has been approved to, I am just questioning/gauging if a much higher edit rate is sensible. I am not trying to corner you in that thread. I try my upmost to be fair and factual in that thread. Try and read again word by word what I write there. I am not attacking you there. I do not have some sneaky agenda with it either. Oh, and please do not copy this thread to my talk page, I am watching yours. Cheers --Slaunger (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is an old habit of mine to copy the thread to both places. I remember now you asked me not to do this before. I apologize. I'll try to remember but old habits die hard. :(
I am aware you are NOT acting with ill intent and are NOT trying something sneaky (you even notified me). But I also feel under pressure from multiple threads about me/my bot going on at the same time. If I am being overly defensive, I apologize. Under similar circumstances I suppose anyone would be acting in a similar manner though.
I am trying very hard to convince enough people already that I should be spared an indefinite block. When you advertise the AN/UD thread in more places I feel under even greater pressure even if this isn't your intention. Issues can be discussed one at a time perhaps?
Well, yes I could have waited to intiate that thread, and maybe I should considering that you do seem to get very defensive in these situations. My apologies for putting you under further distress albeit that was not the intention. But I am happy about what you write about my intentions. I am glad you see it that way. You know, on the bot thread, you are actually the only one who has linked to the COM:AN/U case.... Concerning the link I gave on Rocket000s page, this was just a normal courtesy link to tell him I had quoted him. It had nothing to do with advertising.
Do you think it was inappropriate to quote him? I mean, he came fresh back after three months away, had not been involved (probably did not know about the COM:AN/U case), and he is not on anyones side. Furthermore he knows what he is talking about as an extremely proficient template coder. He gave you some feedback on what he thought about the template as it is right now. He mentioned good things (I also agree the internationalization has improved), and he mentioned things he would advice not to do such as the content categorization and giving it too much responsibility. And he did so in a mellow way.
Now, I see that Rd232 has editprotected the template. Trust me, I do not perceive the editrpotection as some personal victory, on the contrary. We have all lost in our failure to reach consensus without the need of admin brute force interference. I had so hoped that you would suggest yourself to always await for consensus prior to making new major changes to the template considering it is transcluded on +10k pages. Anyway, this is just a wiki. Enjoy real life and the summer in Brussels. Best wishes from Denmark --Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard not to be defensive when you are placed in AN/UD where one user proposes your block or demotion and taunts you to obey him or else. I increasingly feel that user cannot be reasoned with.
Unless used as evidence, I think it is best to ask people to comment rather than copy paste their remark because you may not grab the essence of their comment that they intended for the reader. That way people can trim or reword their comment as they feel is needed.
I feel you are spending too much time on the categorization thing. It's sandboxed. It is unusable in the main template. Adding it in would require modification to multiple nested templates at a minimum. Among other people I too do not necessarily feel it is a good idea to be added in - particularly in it's current form. It can be discussed (much) later or completely scraped. That piece of code was meant for me to blow off some steam by distracting me from everything else I am doing (in the process being productive without bothering anybody else). In that regard it was a complete failure.
To be honest, I haven't made any major functional changes to the template in the last month plus. I am not trying to be dense but please consider the following:
Featured picture status on commons, wallpaper, quality images, POTY, POTD, valued images, featured picture status from wikipedias, and etc was always part of the code. POTD, valued images isn't meant to be used and the code they run does not function properly. In the code I want to keep place holders for features that have a potential to be implemented in in the near or distant future.
I have moved code around as it was an utter and complete mess due to the auto-translate templates I have not added in. Even I, a seasoned template coder was unable to read them.
Since 2008 the only "new" feature in the code is the WMF blog thing. Any other change is aesthetic or superficial in nature. I realize aesthetics matter and I do care about it, but I care more about the functionality (how it handles categories, how being in one assessment influences other). Aesthetic changes like hiding text and logos such as the case of pure candidate POTY is well within what I would consider acceptable - though I may raise reservations (doesn't mean I will try to enforce said reservations). But no aside from me suggested this. Everyone was complaining about the parameters which can be hidden but it seems like people are more concerned about the templates appearance.
In the past month+ the only thing I suppose modified that affected functionality was the category structure of POTY as I renamed the category scheme of POTY a little to organize it. No one objected to it so I suppose it is an improvement everyone likes.
I honestly do not see templates existing code to be too problematic. Am I wrong? Should the code really be completely reverted?
I think the complaint arises more from my bot use. I used my bot to handle {{Assessments}} coding three times.
Rename the parameter names.
com1,com2,com3,com4 was confusing even to me. I do not believe anyone opposes this
Deprecation of Wallpaper template
To be honest I do not understand why people oppose to this shift. {{Wallpaper}} isn't exactly that important and hardly anyone (if anyone at all) uses it anymore. It isn't like Valued Images, Featured Pictures or Quality images that have votes and/or detailed criteria for the selection. I did not expect the immense opposition few users put on the issue. That said files tagged by this maybe be important for Commons:Picture of the Decade. Something I think of implementing (by just adding invisible code) is to have a generated list of candidates (for example files that are featured on commons, tagged with wallpaper that are used in other wikipedias) using assessments template. I did not made any coding effort or even begun a discussion on that end because it is still very early to tell how Commons:Picture of the Decade will turn out. This is why I want to have "wallpaper" tagging ready. There only is 1.5 years to the event and that is a deadline I would want to meet.
Tagging of POTY candidates from previous years.
I honestly thought no one would object to this since over a month no one objected to the idea (or even remarked on it) in the mailing list. IRC discussions suggested no one opposed either. The thread on the talk page of POTY game the the final reinforcement for me to run my bot. I was again not expecting opposition. Tagging of POTY candidates as I mentioned before would allow the generation of POTY 2012 candidates through a process of elimination.
In all cases I ceased bot run after complaints as I noticed them.
I am explaining rationale behind my actions in detail not to patronize you and I hope you do not interpret my remarks as such. Since you have been sincere and open to me, I want to be sincere and open to you. I hope I didn't labeled anything incorrectly, feel free to correct me. I realize this is a borderline novel right now :(
I have renamed, updated and propagated {{Attribution-TRGov-Military-Navy}}. I have not yet started a TSK one since I am waiting for OTRS confirmation and scope. I want to know if it extends to all branches of the military or just the TGS website. I just want to verify all info to avoid possible future problems. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Taysin ile Kediciğe: Selam arkadaşlar. Yukarıdaki şablon için teşekkürler, fakat Sahil Güvenlik fotoğrafları için bunları kullanamayız sanırım. Zira Sahil Güvenlik bir kuvvet komutanlığı değil, İçişleri Bakanlığı'na bağlı. Onun için ayrı bir şablon oluşturmakta fayda var. Sevgilerimle. --Bermanya (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am on vacation (see note above) and right now using an expensive, time limited connection. Will get back on this in a week or so. -Slaunger (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With only two edits per minute your recent bot edits are certainly not putting any noticeable strain on the servers, so I have no concerns regarding that at all. In fact I am currently uncertain which edit rates are of concern. I plan to do a bit more analysis and look for time periods where several bots have been editing concurrently, to check if there are periods, where the user edit rate seems to been coordinated with bursts of bot activities. If such trends can be seen it could indicative of what kind of bot edit rate are acceptable. --Slaunger (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. The issue I always have with the entire edit rate thing is I ideally do not want to spend more time than necessary waiting. A timer complicates the code as well. Also for some scripts I use, a 30 second wait would be problematic. Like for instance flickrripper, that uploads about 1 image per minute which is the amount of time for it to read the information, process it and upload it. My point here is that the actual time difference between bot edits aren't easy to determine as some tasks (like double redirects) can be handle faster than others. In the process I of course do not want to break commons either. I am looking forward to your analysis. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I have come further with the analysis scripts. So far it indicates that the user productivity is not affected by a single bot running at 60 edits/minute, but need to see more data to get a comlete picture. Working on it right now. --Slaunger (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be most fascinating if we know exactly how many edits is too many for the site. If it is a very high number we can rest easier. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 05:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
まぢで ? It's clear that permission were given, and it's very different from fair-use. Because in the case of "non-free fair-use", we use images without knowing the will of copyright holders. Which copyright tag is appropriate to this situation ? Maybe we'd (Bermanya) sent this tag to the copyright holder and ask whether they approve or not. Is this good idea ? Takabeg (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The safest route is to ask Turkish Military to accept creative commons license (cc-by or cc-by-sa) similar to New Zealand Defence Force or release the works to the public domain (kamu malı) similar to US Military/US Federal Government. "Attribution" admittedly is a difficult license to work with. Russavia got Kremlin to release content with a free license so it can be done. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 10:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure I can, as long as the actual move itself meets one of the criteria. I will not quote the exact rationale each time as this is not required and I cannot be bothered to type a long reason or remember what the numbers meant. Had the move screen offer me a drop down box, that would be helpful. I do not have this. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 08:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
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!
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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
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!
Hello! There seems to be a problem with Template:Assessments. It doesn't seem to support arwiki? And I noticed that the preview is not working properly. It only shows some html tags in red. Maybe it boils down to the same problem? Could you have a look, pretty please with sugar on top? :)) Thanks for your time! --Hedwig in Washington(Woof?)00:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha again! :) Hey, there's the html problem again with the template and it seems your bot doesn't run on arwiki? I just added the template to File:Amman Night Down Town.JPG by hand. Works. :-) Please let me know what to I can do, if anything. I'll let the guys on arwiki know as soon as you have an answer for me. No pressure! ;-)) Thank you for your time! --Hedwig in Washington(Woof?)03:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My bot does not actually tag files. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, my bot doesn't tag individual images. Something as non-controversial as deprecating an unused template has been quite a problem so I do not think this is a good idea at this point. If however you can convince people that this is indeed an improvement for commons, I can order my bot to tag the images regularly. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Why is it controversial? It is just a tag that shows that an image is reconized as valuable on a local wiki. That's my understanding. Ppl. from arwiki would like to set the tag automatically, so there's no need for handy work. :) If you could let the bot run over arwiki, too? If you don't want to take the heat :) I would do it, but I'd have to make a bot first. :) --Hedwig in Washington(Woof?)01:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly do not know why it is controversial, I was not told this. I'd be willing to help and I don't mind the heat should that be the case.
I can handle the task of tagging featured images on ar.wikipedia on commons. My bot currently does not handle this. We can file a case at Commons:Bots/Requests and the issue if approved there would cause little friction. Would you be willing to help me with that?
Selam, 白猫さん. Zazaca Wikide botunu çalıştırabilir misin ? Mesela oradaki bütün [[Category:XXXXX]]leri [[Kategoriye:XXXXX]] şeklinde düzeltmen mümkün mü ? Birde Zazaca Wikide çalışan botlar Zazaca Wikideki başlıklara bakarak değil diğer Wikilerdeki Zazaca intterwikilerinin ne olduklarına göre hareket etmektedir. Zazaca Wikideki maddelere eklenmekte olan interwikilere göre hareket eden interwiki botunu oluşturman mümkün mü ? Takabeg (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Memnuniyetle! Bunun icin yerel olarak izin istemem gerekiyor cunku global flag sadece interwiki ve double redirectleri kapsiyor. Interwiki icin ise botun duzgun calismasi icin sayfalarda en az bir interwiki linkinin bulunmasi gerekmekte. Ben genede bota butun wikiyi kontrolden gecirmesi icin simdi calistirdim. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 11:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
diq:ایران sayfasi sorun cikarmakta. diq:Iran ile ayni icerigi var sanirim. Iki sayfayada baglanti var ve bot kararsiz kaliyor. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Soruyu sorduktan sonra ufak araştırma yaptım. Category:Barack Obama playing sports kategorisini gördüm. 1, 2 ve 3 örnekleri var mesela. Benim sorum da aslında pek açık değil. Duş alırken kapı çaldı cümlesi için while kullanılıyor, haklısın; ancak benim sorduğumda durum farklı. Ben duş alırken gibi bir cümle benim sorduğum. Aslında sonradan farkettim ki bu bir cümle değil. Çünkü fiillere gelen -en, -an ekleri bu fiili zarflaştırıyor, fiil olmuyor artık bunlar. İngilizceye geçersek buradan, I like playing... gibi basit bir örnek üzerinden gidersek like fiil, -ing eki alan play fiili ise zarf (zarflaşmış fiil yani). Dolayısıyla Atatürk swimming derken buradaki swimming fiil değil, zarf. Yanlış mı düşünüyorum acaba?--Rapsar (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dosyalara Turkce isimde verebilirsiniz :) Dedigim gibi. grammerini aciklamam zor. Dilbilgim her iki liasndada zayif. :p -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
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!
I should be able to quickly fix the issue after this. I'd rather not sandbox or {{Editprotected}} it as a single missing } would break everything everywhere.
I think I spotted the problem in Template:FPC/. It automatically added File: or Image: at the start. I gave the other two documented functions. Now to purge all the necessary pages and see if it works. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that is part if the issue. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Please let me fix it for you :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but set nominations aren't as standardised as your fix presumes they are. If you want all sets to begin predictably, you'll actually need to get consensus on what the beginning should be first (and fix the documentation so it doesn't give false statements about possible formats) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations do not have to comply, however winners do. This used to work without problems before, I am just adding functionality. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
There is literally not even a template for Set nominations at FPC. They're done completely ad hoc. Now, if we add a template for sets, and, while doing so, standardise them to begin "Set: NOMINATION NAME" (with "Set:NOMINATION NAME" accepted to get around problems), that'd be a relatively simple fix. But there isn't even instructions on how to set up a set at COM:FPC at the moment. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, one problem at a time :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the issue was fixed for the actual images. As you can see in the code all you need to do is link to the part after the first : after "Set". I have to ask one question though. Why do you want to tag the nomination page? It is customary to only tag the actual images I believe. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The bot cannot handle sets. The bot actually added the tag there, as it doesn't know how to find images in a set nomination. See below where I explain. Sorry! Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
xxx.wikipedia nominations
There's one other issue, though:
From Template:Assessments/doc: "For com and all XXwiki parameters there is an additional parameter com-nom or XXwiki-nom that can provide the nomination page (if it doesn't follow the standard scheme. For instance, enwiki-nom=Wikipedia:Feature picture candidates/Nomination name"
We cannot change that for other wikis without breaking EVERYTHING, but com-nom does not work the same way, the way you've set it up. That needs clearly mentioned.
I actually consider that the most important problem. If the software does not match the documentation, and requires things the user cannot find out without going into the code, or knowing it already, then the software is useless. So, either the Template has to match the documentation, or the documentation has to change.
I have taken the liberty to break this into a separate section. Yes, this is an issue I am aware of and did not quite had the chance to tackle it yet. Ideally we want bots to handle all the tagging not people which is why I haven't spent too much time with it but feel free to improve the documentation. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, Commons cannot affect any wiki other than itself. But, well, quite simply, that says that "com-nom=Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set nomination: NOMNAME" should work.
A situation where the instructions and only specific example given in the documentation does not actually work for the parameter named is something that should never, ever be allowed in coding. com-nom does not work that way - but if the documentation says it does, it should behave that way.
Commons featured pictures are on commons, other wikis are not concerned. Commons can affect other wikis through dialogue. As I said, that is a work in progress that I will work on once I have the time, there is no emergency to implement it right away. Documentation is provided for your convenience, it is not meant to be the basis of your talking point. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You get me completely backwards: I'm not saying you can't change the documentation, but if you're not updating the documentation when you change basic functionality, then you're making broken code, because noone but you can use it now.
Basically, I'm arguing from usability. I don't really care how the code works, but we need to think through what the users of the code expect, and especially what they'd expect after reading the instructions we give them. If you want to ban a space after Set:, fine! But that causes usability problems, because, unless we recode the FPC interface, the way people start a new set nomination is by typing whatever they want after "Commons:Featured Picture candidates/Set:". Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, unlike proper code, Wikipedia has string manipulation functions turned off [10]. So I'm not quite sure how we can do anything useful with a set nomination page name. And if we can't do something useful, we shouldn't harm usability. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replied below. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh. Crap. I forgot to mention something important.
I'm really sorry about this. I forgot to mention something that explains why I'm being so pedantic on this issue, for which I apologise.
I don't know why it does that. It seems to think the nomination page is the page it's supposed to promote. However, because it is completely broken for set nominations, everything has to be done by hand. That's why it's important to get this right, and fully documented. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oh, it seems like User:FPCBot is having issues. We do not get that many set nominations to be honest. I'll leave a note to the bot operator.
The reason why we really want the nominations standardized is to allow various automatic checks to make sure everything works. Having no standards unnecessarily complicates code over very few cases that can be avoided with little effort.
I made a small tweak to Template:FPC/. Basically, since {{Assessments|com-nom=Name}} and {{Assessments|com-nom= Name}} are parsed the same, it's a good idea to code checking a space after Set: into the Assessments template.</no-wiki> Otherwise, the bot needs to be a LOT cleverer. We could add an ambiguity check as well, if you think it worth it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with this change, I'd suggest reverting. We want to avoid more template complexity whenever possible. Nomination names should not have a trailing space after the : as it looks weird for starters. Also with a space you make linking impossible. With a few tweaks to the code the set name could link to the relevant gallery sharing the same name. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 01:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, rules of English say it SHOULD have a space. Also, I'd be surprised if more than half of set noms had their own category. Anyway, have a look at COM:FPC - I've sorted out the templates, and they're ready to use. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thinking about it: No, we can't link to the category from the Set nomination page. {{PAGENAME}} only removes namespaces, and Set: isn't actually a namespace, it just has a colon. Media wiki does have some text to abridge strings, but I'm pretty sure they aren't installed, and if they are, since leading spaces are removed from parameters, it shouldn't matter. Just pass it on.
I'll have a look and see whether the string manipulation tools are installed, anyway.
If you want to link the category on the Assessments template, that's doable, but whether we allow "Set: Nomname" as well as "Set:Nomname" won't matter. The whole reason for the extra code allowing both options is that the space after Set: won't be sent to the Assessments template anyway.
For people who may not speak English well, or at all. We cannot enforce much besides it starting Set:
And if we don't allow a space after Set:, well, we're not going to be here forever. Having code that behaves to expectations is more important than any theory we can come up with, because most people cannot read code. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't English Wikipedia. It is difficult enough to enforce the most basic of all rules please do not add to the complication. I do not see the benefit of complicating the template code for an extra space after the colon.
Galleries for sets would need to follow a naming scheme somehow and I want to keep the name void of trailing spaces. For instance if the gallery page has a name such as Set/nomname/Set/ nomname it would not properly link. Furthermore, category sorting would not work well.
Again, we can't do anything about that, because Set: is not a namespace. Given only that the code is running in a page entitled Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set:Nomname how would you extract Nomname from that? If you can answer that, I'll concede the point. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I just do not want to hit the parser limits that cause templates to stop working if over-complicated not to mention the other problems I have mentioned. Could you point me to the exact page on FPC documentation that creates this problem? I can try to correct it there. I was hoping you would do that to be honest. :)
Yeah, it is quite a challenge to get anything working without string functions. Mediawiki string functions themselves are very inefficient anyways so a lack of them isn't exactly a loss per above reason. Hopefully this will be fixed whenever Lua is implemented.
The parameter does not extract the "Nomname" part. It links to "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set:Nomname" but also uses Nomname in other means for example such as category sorting. Trailing space would put all sets before all other content as space comes before all else. The same value is also used for different purposes such as POTY category sorting I believe.
Let's see. Honestly, it's not so much a page of FPC documentation, it's the nature of the edit box itself. It just lets people type in whatever, so we can't really monitor content that well. And we don't want to have too distracting of warnings, or we end up with people's eyes being drawn to the Set nomination option for single image nominations.
Yeah, my philosophy of making interfaces is that I presume people are dumb. It usually pays off. =)
Hmm. There's an idea, though. what if the edit box looked something like:
Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set:
[Space to type in your nomination name]
It'd depend on how hard-coded the edit box was, but it's doable, and, best of all, since parameters drop leading and trailing spaces, it automatically formats them in our preferred way.
There is a second possibility, of course. Have the input be "com-nom=Set:Nomname". Downsides are obvious of course: "Com-nom=Picture of a cat" linking to "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Picture of a cat" would then be a possibility. But that's less likely, and it'd help cover for any unusual situations, like if en-wiki's "delist and replace" nominations migrated to our delisting pages. ("com-nom=delist/File:foo.jpg") although, again, not pretty.
A third possibility is just to have set nominations be handled by a slightly different bit of code in assessments. the other forms of #if are much less server-heavy than #ifexist, so it'd be easy enough to just give Template:Assessments a flag that you can raise to note a set nomination. As long as it's documented, it's not much of a problem.
As for the other issue, FPC/ adding the space doesn't cause the parameter to behave any differently anywhere else, which is why I prefer handling the possibility of it having a space as an option in Template:FPC/. Otherwise someone's going to hit on com-nom=_Nomname, which breaks everything else. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I absolutely agree. As a programmer (outside of templates that is) I always assume the user will find new ways to input information so I code in line after line to properly parse it. However I had to abandon this with templates due to the reasons I mentioned above. So unfortunately it can't be done. I would more than support the change in nomination code. Bear in mind if someone posts the page with _ the template would flag it as it would not be able to find the nomination page and we can manually correct it.
I wanted to use assessments template to merge various types of assessments into one template, as image description pages were getting stuffed with templates making them difficult to follow on some cases. It is a delicate and slow process though which is why I want to do things slowly.
What I would like to really do is convert uses of "Image:" to "File:" reducing the template complexity but I am guessing people may not see it as something necessary.
cough* Actually, I know that I myself have, in at least one case, nominated something as File:Filename.jpg, then successfully nominated it as Image:Filename.jpg, as there's no actual guidelines on how to renominate. That caused the obvious problems later.
Also, com-nom= _Nomname would actually work for "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set: Nommane": Wikipedia (and #ifexist) treat _ and space as exact equivalents.
Honestly, I think the best option might be to just go with having a "com-fp-set" parameter for the assessments template, which, when set, allowed other uses of com-nom. It'd at least flag sets up for special handling at POTY and the like.
Solution?
Hmm. Actually, we're not really looking at every option here. What if, instead of Set:, we used Set/ ? that makes {{SUBPAGENAME}} work again, and it's much less likely anyone would add a space after it. I think that'd solve both our issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem as I stated before, even the slightest new complication creates all sorts of problems which are entirely avoidable. Thius is why I want to avid additional parameters as much as possible. The idea is to make the set name match the nomination name so that two values aren't floating about which would make things REALLY confusing.
It is possible to use Set/ in place of Set: where the com-nom value is the text after the / or :. It makes no difference in terms of code. However / is a sub page so you'd be having a "Set" subspace which may not be a bad idea but needs further consensus. Indeed it would eliminate all the problems so far discussed and I think it would further distinguish Set nominations from other nominations in a more clear manner.
True. Let's skip the parameter, and just get consensus for Set/ - what do you think, Commons_talk/Featured picture candidates on a one week discussion?
On a different note, one of the reasons I'm interested in using Set/ is that we could then check for things like Set/Category:Blah in the templates I made, which would, if used, be something useful to link the header of the nom to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disagreeing with you with this, its just that I am quite busy with other matters. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
MPF, White Chat has uploaded the Lip Kee stream at my request, and I am taking responsibility for it. The unidentified birds category has been automatically added by flickrripper.py by way of looking at image tags. Having said that, I am responsible for the cleaning up of these files. If you refer to Category:Photos by Lip Kee, all uploads have been placed into that category. Once I have cleaned up files (including categories), they are being moved to Category:Photos by Lip Kee (checked). At the end of the day there are still going to be birds that are not able to be identified, and they will go into that category, but if the file has Category:Photos by Lip Kee as part of its categorisation, it hasn't been checked/cleaned up. Please direct any further questions on these uploads to me. russavia (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:A_Scallop_Fragment_and_Precipitates_on_its_Edge_inisde_One_of_Screw_Hub_Holes_seq-05_(DSC_6520).jpg&oldid=67811977){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFormer_Terash%C5%8D_Station.jpg&diff=67811982&oldid=67810139){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_V1_278.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://www.vestfirdir.is/resources/photographs/580-gvendarlaug.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
