OK, I don't want to insist on this, but let me state my opinion. The way I see it, having a category full of unsorted images is of no use for anyone, except for the jury, which will use it *once*. I can't imagine why a "Commons user" would go to [[Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Portugal with known IDs]] to find any image - although I understand its usage-principle for "Commons operators", though.
Every other usage (like getting the images for a particular ID) can always be a join of: * All File: that has the ID * Plus: all File: in the categories that have the ID. Jane, about that categorization, I have always expected to be automatic, but got a bit surprised about the "no database access" news. In any case, they can always be categorized with a bot that does something like this: * Get all images by ID; For each image: create/get a category based on the object name, put all images in there, remove the ID and whatever is commons. And no, I'm not forgetting about disambiguations :-) Eventually, I'll make a bot for that, so I might help you with yours later if you want to follow this approach. -- Nuno Tavares Wikimedia Portugal http://www.wikimedia.pt Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer. Participe também: http://www.wikimedia.pt Em 03-08-2011 11:47, Jane Darnell escreveu: > I agree about keeping the ID's on the pictures - for the Netherlands, > whenever I sort a WLM picture into a category I copy the template to the > category for browsing convenience, but I certainly never remove it from > the picture. We *want* those tags on the picture so people can easily > look for pictures by ID number. And there are still a lot of pictures > from last year to put in categories by the way, in case anyone is > interested! > > > 2011/8/3 GoEthe.wiki <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Hi, Nuno. > I don't think removing the IGESPAR template from files makes sense > even if there is a category for the object. > Note that the template can be changed so that it shows a different > text and categorize it differently if it is included in different > domains. > I already did a few changes to the template so that it only includes > the [[Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Portugal with known > IDs]] in file pages. > > This makes sure that the same template can be used for your issue 1. > and the issue 2. It also means that we can change the {{IGESPAR}}, > {{SIPA}}, whatever, to have similar behaviour in file pages in order > to categorize in the same top-level category. I don't think there is > a problem to have a file both down the category tree and in a > over-arching category with all photos. > > Best, > Gonçalo > > > > > 2011/8/3 Nuno Tavares <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Hello all, > > I didn't quite get the beginning of this thread, but I have some > remarks > from what I understand. First of all, there seem to be two > issues here: > > 1. Organization issue: Having a category tree to allow browsing by > "ID-enabled" images (in WLM-PT we have linked commons categories > with > object ids whenever possible); > > 2. Convenience issue: Having a specific category for images of > country > objects to pass on to the jury, as a pool of candidates. > > Jane, the unfortunate part is that I've been removing the > {{IGESPAR}} > template from all images I've found whenever there is a category > for the > "objects" in question (or one that I have created for that purpose). > That's what makes sense to me, anyway, but doesn't invalidate having > whatever top-categories - in this case, "Cultural heritage > monuments in > Portugal with known IDs" (it would aggregate > {{IGESPAR}}+{{DRAC-RAM}}+{{DRAM-RAA}} then, although I'm > (lazily) using > Category:IGESPAR for that. > > Lodewijk, complementing, the country-specific category could be > fetched > from the parameters passed to the form, right? I believe we already > agreed on passing an ID and a Country. > > Susana, I actually believe we should categorize a lot! See: > - Images_from_Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011, for those who want to > dig into > *all* images from *all* contries - like Europeana's Art Noveau Juri; > - Images_from_Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011_Portugal, for Portuguese > Juri; > - Imóveis_de_Interesse_Público_in_Lisbon (replace "Imóveis de > Interesse > Público" and "Lisbon" accordingly) to keep up with the current > category > structure, which is IGESPAR related. > - Campo_Pequeno - which is the building category; > - IGESPAR - inherited from {{IGESPAR}} (and due to my laziness, > DRAC-RAM > and DRAC-RAA) which is used to tag an ID into the picture (or > category). > - Up to now, I'm expected that the categories get automatically > placed, > either from the form, or a post-bot-run. Eventually there are > others: > manually inserted, like "Palaces in Portugal", and those related to > geolocalization that don't interfere with anything, I believe. > > In short, Jane and Susana, I wouldn't mix {{IGESPAR}} and > {{Images_from_Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011_Portugal}} purposes. The > former > is for keeping a link between the lists, and the second is for > the Juri. > > You can imagine how the bottom of the page will look, though :) > > > Béria, just a note regarding SIPA and IGESPAR: only IGESPAR's > objects > have some kind of protection; this means SIPA's shouldn't have > designations like "Monumento Nacional". In the end, roughly, all > SIPA > are "unprotected". > > This also means the everyone relying to IGESPAR id should be > clarified > by now: the monument ID is a specific WLM id. Its range will > dictate to > which it refers to: IGESPAR, Azores, Madeira or SIPA. > > > > -- > Nuno Tavares > Wikimedia Portugal > http://www.wikimedia.pt > > Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade > de ter > livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso > o que > estamos a fazer. > > Participe também: http://www.wikimedia.pt > > Em 03-08-2011 09:53, Lodewijk escreveu: > > There should be country specific subcategories there indeed - > you are > > correct :) I suggest putting this category /in/ your country > specific > > contest template. Not sure if someone already designed one > actually to > > be re-used. Besides that I believe there are some temporary > categories > > involved, like "needs to be included in the lists" etc which > involved > > more manual work but can be done by anyone who knows Wikipedia. > > > > Best, > > Lodewijk > > > > 2011/8/3 Susana Morais <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> > > > > Hello all, > > > > I have some questions. For the WLM competition we will ask the > > participant to upload the photo with the ID number (he has > > previously seen in that great list we have in our site > :)). Then the > > photo will be automatically (?) tagged under a specific > sub-cat in > > this > > category > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011, > > right? Do the categories need to be more specific for the > > competition (this doenst mean we shouldnt be thinking how to > > organize them better after the wlm)? I think that it is easier > > during the WLM to have all photos in the competition in > one simple > > category (easier for the jury). > > > > Susana > > > > > > 2011/8/3 Jane Darnell <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> > > > > Béria, > > The key here is the word "monument". In order for a WLM > > participant to upload a photo based on local > instructions, he > > needs an ID number. Presumeably he/she has found this > number > > from your wonderful Portuguese map with ID coordinates > on your > > WLM website, am I right? > > > > In the Netherlands, some (not ALL) Rijksmonuments have the > > number physically on a brown plaque on the building > itself. What > > do you call this number? I assume you do not call it > "Cultural > > heritage monument number". In order to match it to > either the > > IGESPAR or SIPA numbers you will need to have a key in > the ID > > number, won't you? > > > > I noticed the following situation: > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Campo_Pequeno_Lisboa > > is tagged with the template {{IGESPAR|74571|type=IIP}} > > I would therefore expect to see this category have photo's > > tagged with this same number, but for example, > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Campo_Pequeno_lisbon.JPG > > is not tagged. > > I would expect the category to be placed in a category > called > > "Category:IGESPAR objects in Lisbon (district)", but I > see the > > category "Category:Imóveis de Interesse Público in Lisbon > > (district)" instead. > > > > I suppose the template sub-tag "IIP" stands for > "Imóveis de > > Interesse Público", so I get that you have broken your > > designations down by type, but I am curious how you will > > instruct the jury to choose foto's if the photo's > themselves are > > not tagged. Though my Portuguese is pretty bad, I > think the > > (spectacular) pictures of the bulls themselves, which > are also > > in that category are not "Imóveis". > > > > Jane > > > > 2011/8/3 Béria Lima <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> > > > > We have lists outside IGESPAR. The IGESPAR one has 4K > > monuments, the SIPA one almost 40K. We are using both. > > _____ > > /Béria Lima/ > > Wikimedia Portugal <http://wikimedia.pt> > > (351) 963 953 042 > > > > /Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a > > possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de > todo o > > conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer./ > > > > > > On 3 August 2011 08:39, Jane Darnell > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > Béria, > > Maybe I am just too unfamiliar with the > technicalities, > > but my feeling would be yes, stuff all 4 > categories into > > "IGESPAR objects in Portugal with known IDs". > Under this > > toplevel, there should be for example, a > category called > > "Monumentos Nacionais with known IDs". > > > > Is there a problem with the WLM database that > you can't > > have subcategories for the top-level ones? Or > do you > > mean that you have lists outside of IGESPAR? > > > > Jane > > > > > > 2011/8/2 Béria Lima <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> > > > > Portugal can't use a single name. We have > 4 types of > > monuments ( see here: > > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011_in_Portugal > > ). > > > > We can create 4 "main categories", but > they would > > still need to be under a "Cultural Heritage in > > Portugal" category. > > _____ > > /Béria Lima/ > > Wikimedia Portugal <http://wikimedia.pt> > > (351) 963 953 042 > > > > /Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer > pessoa a > > possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao > somatório de > > todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que > estamos a > > fazer./ > > > > > > > > On 2 August 2011 11:11, Kilian Kluge > > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > Hi Jane, > > > > in Germany the trouble is that in > every state > > there are different names for > essentially the > > same thing. Some just have > "Kulturdenkmale" > > (cultural heritage monuments), some have > > "Baudenkmale" ("building heritage > monuments"), > > some have both, some differentiate > between three > > or four categories... It's already a bit > > confusing on de-wp, where as a result > the lists > > for each state have different naming > schemes, > > and I doubt that it'd be helpful to > carry this > > to Commons. > > > > Kilian > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Jane > Darnell > > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> > > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > I am sending out a new message, > since I feel > > this issue is pretty important and > impacts a > > lot of Wikipedia projects. The > other issues > > that Bas addressed also need > follow up, but > > let's tackle these categories first. > > > > This is the list of categories as > they stand > > today on Commons in the top level > category > > (see the email from Bas): > > Category:Cultural heritage > monuments in > > Andorra with known IDs > > Category:Cultural heritage > monuments in > > Austria with known IDs > > Category:Onroerend erfgoed with > known IDs > > Category:Cultural heritage > monuments in > > Brussels with known IDs > > Category:Cultural heritage > monuments in > > Estonia (with known IDs) > > Category:Cultural heritage > monuments in > > Hesse with known ID > > Category:Rijksmonumenten with > known IDs > > Category:Cultural heritage > monuments in > > Portugal with known IDs > > Category:Cultural heritage > monuments in > > Romania with known IDs > > Category:Cultural heritage > monuments in > > Spain with known IDs > > Category:Cultural heritage > monuments in > > Wallonia with known IDs > > > > I think only the Belgians and the > Dutch have > > chosen their names well, because > they are > > using the terms that are covered > by law in > > their country. The other > categories should > > be renamed to reflect the legal > term in > > those countries. My reasons are as > follows: > > 1) The term "Cultural heritage > monument" is > > not defined anywhere, in any country's > > wikipedia. > > 2) We are using a formal > designation that > > has been assigned by a government > agency and > > is covered by the European Council's > > international law on cultural > property. In > > order to refer to the proper > designation, we > > need the formal name of the > designation. > > 3) The sub categories are going to > have > > native names anyway, so why have a > strangely > > named top-level category that no one > > understands (including > English-speakers)? > > 4) When we make interwiki links to > these > > things we should be consistent > across all > > countries. > > > > I noticed a confusing situation > has already > > occurred in the German Wikipedia, > where the > > top level category for the Austrian > > monuments is "Kategorie:Liste > > (Kulturdenkmale in Österreich)", > when I > > fully expected it to be > > "Kategorie:Denkmalgeschütztes > Objekte". On > > Commons I would expect > > "Category:Denkmalgeschütztes > Objekte with > > known IDs", and in the English > Wikipedia, I > > named it > "Category:Denkmalgeschütztes Objekte". > > > > Jane > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > > > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
