Last modified on 22 October 2013, at 16:34

User talk:Dominic/2011

Return to the user page of "Dominic/2011".
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Tip: Categorizing images

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


Hello, Dominic!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

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

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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

BotMultichillT 11:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 5570b1cf082f7cdde92ddd3292ba78d4

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Dominic (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

NARA

Good to see this new project. I'll try to make a few change with {{Tl}} but I'll wait to see if the bug to {{artwork}} can be fixed beforehand. Just a little tip for now: date should use the YYYY-MM-DD format, both information use {{ISOdate}} to convert translate that into the user's language. Another thing, if you intend to upload a large number of files, without doing many file-specific edits, it may be simpler to request or make a batch upload.--Zolo (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll be using {{date}} from now on, as that seems to be a preferred method. We are actually working on a tool on Toolserver to grab the NARA metadata and plug it into the template, though there are still a few kinks to work out. I am planning on uploading as much material as I can, but I am still working out how to do it efficiently. The problem that I have on my end is that while I have access to many thousands of images, including TIFF master files from scans, the files are not currently organized in any coherent way. There aren't really any clues to identify them, except that they were often scanned in a particular order. Until we figure out a way to identify images without manual keyword searches to match them with scaled-down versions in the catalog, or until we find another cache of files that is well-described, there won't be a large batch upload. Hopefully I can work on getting a steady stream, at least. Dominic (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the info, good luck with your files. Most likely a naive question, but isn't there any software that could use the large version to find the scaled-down version ?
Actually It is better to use ISOdate format than {{date}} because it is built into information and artwork and is an ISO standard. I think the upload wizard uses it as well. The black box effect may be slightly confusing but at the same time, it is more readable than nesting templates.--Zolo (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Record Group 233/Petitions and Memorials, compiled 1813 - 1968 (Judiciary)

Good morning:

Can you please give me some guidance? On the face of it, this is mostly an article, not a gallery, and therefore is out-of-scope for Commons, so I almost deleted it on sight. I know, however, that Commons has some obscure corners that I am not aware of, so could you please give me some precedent, or similar pages that we have kept? Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I am really just experimenting right now, but I think that it could be a useful concept. I am uploading content from the National Archives, and hope to eventually undertake a large, systematic image donation. Their catalog records are organized hierarchically, with items in file units, file units in series, and series in record groups based on the originating agency (e.g., the House of Representatives). While we include this kind of information in the citation along with item-specific metadata, the series- and record group-level records have useful information on their own related to all of the child documents. They are also an important organizational structure. I intended for this to be a gallery of all the documents in this particular series in which I could also include the series metadata (like that "scope and content" note). You can see from {{NARA navbox}} where I was thinking of going with this idea (if you imagine more record groups and series, and with cells that actually line up!).

If you have any suggestions for how to do this better, I would be happy to hear them. Dominic (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think you need a careful reading of COM:SCOPE before you go any farther. The gallery I cited above seems to me to be far out of scope as it reads like an article, not a collection of images. I also think that this might be better done at WikiSource -- although I will admit that I don;t know that resource as well as I might.
Rather than simply delete the gallery, I'm going to hang a deletion request on it so that our colleagues can discuss the question. You can, of course, argue for it, but I will argue against.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I really have no idea what you are hoping to accomplish here. Do you have a reason for wanting this deleted other than because you have not seen something similar before? Have you actually tried thinking about it and how it might be valuable, which is the reaction I had expected? I don't really understand what makes you say that making a gallery of documents and including the descriptive metadata from their catalog record makes something an "article". Dominic (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

First, please don't remove notices from your talk page. They are an important part of the Commons record, particularly where there is an active DR one of whose requirements is that you have been notified.

Second, all Commons users are responsible for enforcing our policies. Our clear policy is that articles are not in the scope of our activity.

From the official guideline at Commons:Galleries: "A brief description of the subject (if necessary). Commons is not an encyclopedia. Our main purpose is not to educate readers through text. If they want to read more about a subject, Wikipedia exists solely for that purpose." (Italics in the original)

The article -- 15 paragraphs is certainly an article --which you wrote qualifies for speedy deletion -- instead of that, I have tagged it with a Deletion Request to give the community a chance to decide if it is a useful activity and, therefore, something that we should change policy to support.

It is not up to you or me to change policy, it is up to the community. That is the reason for the DR. I should point out that nominating a page for deletion does not necessarily mean that the nominator thinks it ought to be deleted. It is, most of all, a request for the community to comment on the question. My position on it is simple -- I think it might be a useful activity, but it clearly requires a change in policy for us to allow it.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I also have to take exception to your condescending attitude in your DR comment. I can read English reasonably well and can see exactly what you are trying to do. I just am not sure if Commons is the place to do it.
And a little condescending of my own -- as a Commons newbie -- you have 432 edits here over four years -- I might suggest that before you head off in a new direction that we have a wide variety of places where you might have asked if this was a good idea. A note on any of Commons:Village Pump, Commons talk:Galleries, or Commons talk:Project scope would have brought useful discussion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


You are being ridiculous now. I removed the template because it was unnecessary; your comment above already alerted me to the nomination. I have already commented at the nomination page. There is no question as to whether I have been notified.

Unfortunately, I don't think you have actually listened to anything I have said about the page. Perhaps you prefer acting as some kind of enforcer. The scope and contents note I included is not an article I wrote, as you seem to persist in believing. It is descriptive metadata from the National Archives' catalog record. It is certainly not encyclopedic content, as that is not the intention. I find this whole situation incredibly bizarre, as I am being treated like a rule-breaker for putting images and descriptions on a gallery page. Dominic (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

First, argument here won't do you as much good as argument on the DR page. Save your typing for there.
Let's not quibble over the word "article". It reads like an article and the fact that you did not write it is not relevant. It doesn't matter what we call it, 14 paragraphs is far beyond the "brief description" allowed on a gallery page.
You are not being treated as a rule-breaker, but you are certainly a rule-stretcher.
"I am really just experimenting right now, but I think that it could be a useful concept."
reads to me like a statement that you are trying something different. The best way to try different things in a structured community is to discuss them in advance. Since you didn't do that, the community will now discuss it in a DR, which is our best public Forum for such discussions. It has the particular advantage for you that it is carefully structured to allow reference, so that if this DR is closed as kept, it will be easy to refer to it if the subject ever comes up again.
It's inevitable that anyone who has run for Administrator must not hate the job -- we delete about 1,000 pages a day in an attempt to keep Commons within its stated scope. Eight of us do half of those. It would have been much easier for me to have simply deleted this page. If you recreated it, against policy, I would have deleted it a second time and warned you. A third time would cause you to be blocked from editing. Your alternative would have been to bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests.
Instead of that, I consulted you, warned you in advance, and have attempted to convince you that if you want to suceed with the DR, you must convince our colleagues that this is a good thing. Ranting about my behavior will probably make you less credible, but that's your choice.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, I am frustrated, because you seem intent on enforcing rules rather than providing assistance. I am also frustrated because this is time that could have been better spent helping to secure more donated content for Commons, or at least working on the organization of it, rather than having to defend myself. You'll notice that my first reply was rather cordial, and I asked for your suggestions; that is not condescension. I'm not sure why you are surprised that I did not appreciate a deletion request in response. If it is a stretch of the rules, then I would have appreciated some attempt to help me find a way to make the page a better fit. I don't need warning templates and I certainly don't need warnings about blocks in the event of some hypothetical misbehavior which I never entertained. I am more than a bit boggled that trying something different is something you frown upon, but I think you are in the minority. I am no Commons newbie, though it is not my home project as you recognize, and certainly no newbie to the Wikimedia projects or administratorship. I certainly have enough experience to know that your tone and approach is neither representative of the community as a whole nor particularly productive, so I'll wait for input. Dominic (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Dominic, I, too, am frustrated, and I am sorry that it shows in some of my comments here and on the DR. My apologies for that. I try very hard to be helpful to new users, but you seem unwilling to understand that a DR is not a condemnation, but simply a way for the community to discuss an issue with a particular page.
I think you will have to agree that the metadata included on this file is more than the "brief description" permitted for galleries. Given that, I don't see why you are surprised that I think it might be out of scope.
While doing New Page Patrol, Admins have three choices -- delete, mark as patrolled and keep, or tag with a DR. Around 90% of new pages get deleted. Almost 10% get kept. The balance, maybe one in a few hundred, are instances where I am unsure of which way to go, so I tag it with a DR, often with a comment that I would like the guidance of the community.
Please understand that I have to do one of the three -- there is no system for putting it on hold and bringing it up later. If I simply keep it, then it, and its issues, get lost in our more than 10,389,388 pages.
We could have discussed it further here, but it would likely have been a discussion between the two of us. Putting a DR on it brings it immediately to the attention of tens, if not hundreds, of Commons editors for discussion. It has been up less than 24 hours and already has three additional editors' comments.
Perhaps we should rename "Deletion Request" to something like "Request for Clarification of Status" or "Hey, Folks, Is This Really OK?". Maybe a quarter of all DRs are closed as kept.
So, please, stop worrying that I think you are a bad guy. I do think you failed to discuss your experimentation in advance, which would have been a good thing, but you are a relative newbie on Commons, despite four years of edits here (your Commons start date is earlier than mine), so I discount your unfamiliarity with our ways, particularly since they are poorly documented.
And, please, on the DR, start from scratch and present us with a good solid argument why this gallery (and others like it in the future), is an appropriate use of Commons resources -- in particular, why using the category system wouldn't bring users to the particular documents they need more quickly. From my point of view, galleries exist only to make visual selection from a large group easier. I would think it would be far more likely that a user would find one of these documents by drilling down the category tree than by looking at unreadable thumbnails.
Also, remember that categories are required, so that if you push ahead with galleries, you will have to maintain two more or less parallel sets of images and descriptions. Are you sure you want to take on that task for the many documents this project might encompass?
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It is very hard for me to square what you keep saying with what is actually in front of me on the computer screen. I have created a page in the ongoing process to devise a way to structure a National Archives image donation on Commons, and a big red banner screaming "This gallery has been nominated for deletion since 20 June 2011" has been slapped on a page I was developing after just an hour, declaring that it is out of scope. And it's not a nice template about a community discussion. The deletion process could take a month or more, and there are warnings about removing it. Nor does it appear to be about community discussion when you are make a point of repeatedly sticking a warning template on my talk page. Meanwhile, I get an admin coming on my talk page telling me that that was actually a favor, because he could have just deleted it outright as out of scope and then suggesting (without provocation) that he would have then blocked me if I recreated it.

I am out here in the real world, trying to build a collaboration with an important cultural institution, so this isn't a game to me. That is why your actions are particularly annoying to me. I am working with people who are unfamiliar with Wikimedia, and to whom we are trying to present ourselves in the best possible light. Can you imagine having to explain that banner to people outside the community? It is not in the best interest of Commons or Wikimedia in general, and especially not your attitude that I have to somehow prove myself here first because of my edit count. I only have a limited amount of time here, some of which has already been devoted to this fruitless discussion. And now you are trying to reassure me that it might not get deleted, but that is what I find most galling. If you had an issue with the page that did not require deletion, then we did not have to go through this whole process. You could have personally made suggestions and I would have valued them. You could have asked others to weigh in if we disagreed. What I really want is just for all the fuss of banners and nominations to go away so that I can get back to work. Dominic (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You say:

"You could have personally made suggestions and I would have valued them. You could have asked others to weigh in if we disagreed."

For the fourth time -- there is no better way on Commons to get others to weigh in than to use the DR process. Here on your talk page we are having an essentially a private discussion. There is no practical, neutral, way of asking others to weigh in here. The DR is a public discussion and will bring helpful comments from many voices.

Again, I urge you to stop complaining of process and construct a good reason why your Gallery idea should be used for these documents.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You are just wrong. I have had productive discussions with people before. I did not have to nominate my pages for deletion for that to happen. Your actions have been simply bizarre. You can't have a discussion with someone on their talk page because it would be "private"? I don't really see the problem. I don't want to make an argument to the community about some new gallery scheme. I don't want to argue or defend anything at all; I am not proposing anything. I just made a gallery using National Archives metadata that you found to be too long. Oh well. If you thought that was a bad idea, you could have discussed that with me. I actually really wanted suggestions about the best way to do what I was after, not to be berated or put through any kind of process at all. Dominic (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Record_Group_233/Petitions_and_Memorials,_compiled_1813_-_1968_(Judiciary)

-

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Record_Group_233/Petitions_and_Memorials,_compiled_1813_-_1968_(Judiciary) 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 <articlefeedback-table-heading-page>, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't find filename in metadata

Hi Dominic, I've searched around a bit but I see no trace of filenames in the NARA metadata you linked me. This is the essential metadata needed to link the metadata to the TIF files. Here's a typical FileUnit XML file:

<?xml version = '1.0'?>
<archival-description>
   <arc-id>10345</arc-id>
   <arc-id-desc>10345</arc-id-desc>
   <title>101ST U.S. CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, 1989, SENATE</title>
   <title-only>101ST U.S. CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, 1989, SENATE</title-only>
   <sound-type>Sound</sound-type>
   <sequence-number>2774</sequence-number>
   <local-identifier>46.8910131129</local-identifier>
   <local-identifier-desc>46.8910131129</local-identifier-desc>

<edited-timestamp>[g_x32_364, g_x2_5829, g_x8_1457, g_x128_91, g_x4_2914, g_x16_728, g_x64_182, b_x1_11659]</edited-timestamp><level-of-desc level-id="NAVI">
   <lod-display>Item</lod-display>
</level-of-desc><hierarchy>
   <hierarchy-item>375</hierarchy-item>
   <hierarchy-item>7571</hierarchy-item>
</hierarchy><parent parent-id="7571">
   <parent-lod>Series</parent-lod>
   <parent-title>Motion Picture Films and Video Recordings, compiled ca. 1983 - ca. 1998</parent-title>
</parent><parent-control-group parent-control-id="46">
   <parent-control-lod>Record Group</parent-control-lod>
   <parent-control-title>Records of the U.S. Senate, 1789 - 2006</parent-control-title>
</parent-control-group><general-notes>
   <general-note>Time, Fri.11:29-12:19.</general-note>
</general-notes><title-date>10/13/1989</title-date><production-dates>
   <production-date>10/13/1989</production-date>
</production-dates><creators>
   <creator num="1" creator-record-type="ORG" summary="true" creator-id="1130811" standard="Y">
      <creator-display>U.S. Senate.       (03/04/1789 - )</creator-display>
      <creator-type>Most Recent</creator-type>
   </creator>
</creators><variant-control-numbers>
   <variant-control-number num="1" mlr="false">
      <variant-number>NWDNM(m)-46.8910131129</variant-number>
      <variant-number-desc>NWDNM(m)-46.8910131129</variant-number-desc>
      <variant-type>NAIL Control Number</variant-type>
   </variant-control-number>
</variant-control-numbers><general-records-types>
   <general-records-type num="1">
      <general-records-type-id>4237049</general-records-type-id>
      <general-records-type-desc>Moving Images</general-records-type-desc>
   </general-records-type>
</general-records-types><subject-references>
   <subject-reference num="1" subject-id="4172830" subject-type="SRT" standard="Y">
      <display-name>video recordings</display-name>
   </subject-reference>
</subject-references><use-restriction>
   <use-status>Undetermined</use-status>
   <specific-use-restrictions/>
</use-restriction><physical-occurrences><physical-occurrence>
   <copy-status>Preservation</copy-status>
<reference-units>
   <reference-unit num="1" summary="true">
      <ref-id>30</ref-id>
      <name>Motion Picture, Sound, and Video Records Section, Special Media Archives Services Division</name>
      <address1>National Archives at College Park</address1>
      <address2>8601 Adelphi Road</address2>
      <city>College Park</city>
      <state>MD</state>
      <postcode>20740-6001</postcode>
      <mailcode>NWCS-M</mailcode>
      <phone>301-837-3540</phone>
      <fax>301-837-3620</fax>
      <email>mopix@nara.gov</email>
   </reference-unit>
</reference-units><media-occurrences>
   <media-occurrence num="1">
      <color>Color</color>
      <media-type>Video Cassette</media-type>
   </media-occurrence>
</media-occurrences></physical-occurrence></physical-occurrences><indexable-dates><date-range>[g_x64_30, g_x64_31, b_x8_248, b_x2_998, b_x4_498, b_x1_1983, g_x8_249, g_x128_15, g_x32_61, g_x4_495, g_x16_123, g_x2_991, g_x16_124, g_x32_62, g_x8_247, b_x1_1998, g_x2_999, g_x4_499]</date-range></indexable-dates></archival-description>

I think what's going on here is that the filename is derived from some combination of the above attributes. But I'm not sure which ones or how it's derived. The TIF files themselves contain no metadata except that NARA is the creator. Can you or your contacts shed any light on this? Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're not looking at an item-level description. Item (i.e., document) records are the only ones that have images. File units are just collections of item records (and series are collections of item and/or file unit records, while record groups are collections of series records). If you work backwards you'll see what I mean. [1] is the record for item with the ARC ID 3036633. If you look up the XML file for that record (they are named based on ARC IDs) you'll see the file name, with the operative part being the "25-2945", which matches the TIFF file we have on record. I've forgotten which batch I gave you, or I would have picked a more relevant example. Dominic (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mismatched images in ARC

Not sure this is the right place to ask, nor if you are really the person to fix this, but thought I'd put the info here ;-) When I was going through the NARA-image tags without an ID (and the PD-USGov-NARA tagged images), a few were part of the American Indian picture series. I did not go through all of those, just the errors that I noticed, but a number of them have mismatched images associated with them. I'm not sure if the ARC ID is more associated with the description, or the image... it makes giving a NARA-image source for some of those images a little more difficult, as the ARC id matching the description is different than the one holding the image (i.e. the source). So... having these fixed would help a little bit ;-) I think for the time being I usually linked the one corresponding to the description. Following is table of the American Indian Select List numbers, the ARC IDs, and notes on the image:

AISL # ARC Description Image issue
73 530919 Shoshoni at Fort Washakie, Wyoming. Last photograph of Chief Washakie, who is on the extreme left, standing and pointing, 1892. None, correct image
74 524407 Two Tlingit women with several children near the Kotsina River, Alaska Correct image, though reversed from American Indian Select List version, no idea which is right
75 530902 Apache rancheria with two men holding rifles None, correct image
76 Can't find Family of Bannocks in front of a grass tent, Idaho File:Bannock_tent.jpg; incorrectly associated with ARC 519163 (Select List #82)
77 531122 Summer skin tent with an old Eskimo woman in foreground, Point Barrow, Alaska None, correct image
78 520079 Supai Charlie standing in front of his ha-wa, Havasu Canyon ARC has image from Select List 79, ARC 542440
79 542440 Dancers' Rock, Walpi, Arizona, part of a Hopi pueblo; picturing three Hopi people, ladders, and utensils ARC has image from Select List 80, ARC 519144
80 519144 A Kickapoo wickiup, Sac and Fox Agency, Oklahoma, ca. 1880 ARC has image from Select List 81, ARC 521045
81 521045 Interior of a Navajo hogan on a New Mexico reservation ARC has image from Select List 82, ARC 519163
82 519163 Joseph Matthews, Osage council member, author, historian, and Rhodes scholar, seated at home in front of his fireplace, Oklahoma ARC has image from Select List 76, can't find in ARC
83 517726 None, correct image
84 Can't find Pawnee lodges at Loup, Nebraska, with a family standing in front of a lodge entrance
85 518929 Gabe Gobin, an Indian logger, in front of his home. Tulalip Reservation, Washington. Photographed by Lee Muck, 1916 ARC has image from Select List 86, ARC 518908 File:Tulalip reserc.jpg
86 518908 Little Big Mouth, a medicine man, seated in front of his lodge near Fort Sill, Oklahoma, with medicine bag visible from behind the tent ARC has image from Select List 87, ARC 531080
87 531080 Blackfoot Indians chasing buffalo, Three Buttes, Montana. Artwork by John M. Stanley, 1853-55 ARC has image from Select List 88, ARC 531123
88 531123 Eskimos harpooning a whale, Point Barrow, Alaska. ARC has image from Select List 89, ARC 517730
89 517730 An Uainuint Paiute aiming a rifle, southwestern Utah ARC has image from Select List 90, ARC 530916
90 530916 Big Foot (Sitanka), a Miniconjou Sioux of Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; half-length, seated, wearing white shirt Correct image. ARC 517730 has a different digitization of the same, but that is the Select List 89 record. File:Big_Foot.jpg
91 530975 Big Soldier (Wahktageli), a Dakota chief; full-length, standing. Artwork by Karl Bodmer, May 1833 None, correct image
Wow, thank you so much for all your work! I'll make sure we get someone from the National Archives to sort this out in the catalog records. Dominic (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

NARA project

I set up the navigation templates for COM:NARA. Let me know if you run into any problems - this is the first time I have done this in Commons. - PKM (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

NARA Duplicates

Hello

Is there a guideline saying what to do with duplicates ? I found that File:Hauling guns by ox teams from Fort Ticonderoga for the siege of Boston, 1775 - NARA - 531113.tif matches File:Siegeofbostonartillery.jpg. If there are many, perhaps a bot could do the matching ? Teofilo (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably hard... NARA often does digital cleanup on the images they put on their web presentations, which are different than the raw scans of the original. Best thing to do is really just list them in the "other versions" section like you did. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, these are inferior copies, though; we want to replace them. In theory, we should be using the new TIFFs to convert from for the JPGs to display in articles, and replace any of the old ones like that with these new versions. Some of these might need cleanup on our part to bring them up to the original visual standard at higher resolution. Commons:National Archives and Records Administration/Restore‎ might be useful, if we can get volunteers for it. Carl is right that it will be hard to find the images to replace without human intervention. There might be several hundred such duplicates by the time we are done, too. We should be copying over the full metadata (without the "TIFF = yes" or {{NARA-cooperation}}) for old NARA images found, as well. Dominic (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Are we going to have an upload of the "tif" matches of File:Petrel1.jpg and File:USS Petrel in Hong Kong harbour before the Spanish-American War.jpg ? I found those two when trying to categorize newly uploaded File:Petrel (Gunboat 2). Port side, 1891 - NARA - 512897.tif (same ship but all 3 different pictures). Or is there a way to find if the tiffs have already been uploaded ? Teofilo (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no, as it looks like those two photos actually come from the U.S. Naval Historical Center, rather than the National Archives. Dominic (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thank you for the help. Teofilo (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we going to have the matches of the World War II pictures like File:Browning M2HB Normandy.jpg ? At present Category:PD-Archives Normandie contains 170 pictures, including a few non-NARA Canadian ones. There are many other Normandy pictures like File:Rangers-pointe-du-hoc.jpg coming from US ".mil" websites with NARA being mentioned as being the source. Teofilo (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This gets complicated. The Archives Normandie might be in the cache of files I am working with, but they may never be identified, because the Archives Normandie gives no citation information on any of the images it uses (which is a pretty terrible practice on their part). With millions of documents in the still pictures alone, it would be impossible to try to match them unless you can turn them up by keyword searching in the catalog. Many of the documents we have on Commons and Wikipedia from the National Archives have been culled from the web and are in a similar state, so it's a mess. It would be useful if you could tag any of these documents that are actually held by NARA with {{NARA-image}}, so that we can theoretically go back at some point in the future.

If a document gives an identifier like File:Rangers-pointe-du-hoc.jpg which isn't a six- or seven-digit number (an ARC ID), you can still search that identifier in the catalog, but if nothing comes up, it is likely that the image was digitized by some third party other than NARA, and I won't have the file.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of WWII, or even Battle of Normandy, files that I will be uploading, like [2], [3], and [4]. :-) Dominic (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong images

After going through only a few dozen images of Native Americans, I found:

File:Eskimo mother and child in furs, Nome, Alaska, bust-length, with child on back, 1915 - NARA - 532339.tif
File:Blackfoot Indians chasing buffalo, Three Buttes, Montana, 1853 - NARA - 531080.tif
File:Dancers' Rock, Walpi, Arizona, part of a Hopi pueblo, picturing three Hopi people, ladders, and utensils, 1879 - NARA - 542440.tif
File:Eskimos harpooning a whale, Point Barrow, Alaska, 1935 - NARA - 531123.tif

All of which are incorrect. Eskimos harpooning a whale, Point Barrow, Alaska, 1935 is presumably the image labeled Blackfoot Indians chasing buffalo. I haven't found the correct descriptions for the other three yet. Rmhermen (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like these are the same as User talk:Dominic#Mismatched images in ARC above. I have raised the issue with the catalogers at NARA, but it might take a few days to sort it out. In the meantime, we might need to do something so others don't mistakenly begin to categorize them Maybe just remove the "uncategorized" tag and add it back later when they are correct? Thank you so much for your vigilance, by the way. Dominic (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Indians in North Carolina fishing with traps, spears, and nets, 1885 - NARA - 535743.tif should be 1585, not 1885. Rmhermen (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Navajo weaver spinning wool into yarn, full-length, seated, with a loom behind her, Torreon, New Mexico - NARA - 519159.tif is a Navajo weaving facing a loom with no spinning at all, so I think it is another mislabeled one. Rmhermen (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This one is actually "Hopi man weaving a blanket; with back to cam- era and holding a wooden sley in both hands. Photographed by John K. Hillers, 1879. American Indian Select List number 186" Rmhermen (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to flag or categorise mislabeled images, such as File:Little Big Mouth, a medicine man, seated in front of his lodge near Fort Sill, Oklahoma, with medicine bag visible from - NARA - 518908.tif.
Template:Rename might be usable but I am not certain of the correct names for some of the images. Is there a better template? Rmhermen (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
More {{Fact disputed}} + insertion in "category:NARA disputed file data" or so. --Foroa (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah it looks like there were issues creating the ARC records for the photos in the American Indian picture series -- I wouldn't be surprised to see all of those images in there. You could look there to match descriptions, and see the image which was supposed to be here with that description. There are almost certainly more problems than just the ones found in the list above. Most of them were "off by one" errors -- i.e. the image was associated with the description in the *following* entry in the sequence of images in that picture series. Looks like I could expand that list a lot, and the entire picture series should be examined. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Download, Use this file toolbar is not showing on NARA pictures

I can't find the download, use this file etc. toolbar on File:Hauling guns by ox teams from Fort Ticonderoga for the siege of Boston, 1775 - NARA - 531113.tif, although I can find it on other tif files like File:Petardsketch2.tif. Is that a specific problem with the NARA uploads ? Teofilo (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that, but it has been reported before: MediaWiki talk:Stockphoto.js#No buttons on some pages. Generally speaking, I'm not much of a techie myself, and most of the template code was written by others, so I wouldn't even begin to know what is causing the issue. Dominic (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I am going to ask there. Teofilo (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:NARA-image-full layout

After filling the |description= field at File:Miner, Cpl. George, a Winnebago from Tomah, Wisconsin, standing, with rifle, on guard duty, Niederahren, Germany, 01-02- - NARA - 530786.tif, I think the |title= and |description= should be at the top of the template, like template:information is doing. Is there a specific reason why you chose to put the author name and record creator name on top ? Teofilo (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It was actually Jarekt who built the template and decided to arrange it that way. I'm not sure why he chose that order; it actually never occurred to me that it was different from other templates. Dominic (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually the template being used is Template:Artwork where the |description and |author field were switched as early as in 2007 diff. I have no idea what is best for paintings, but for photographs, I think in many cases the photograph is being watched for its documentary value, regardless of the artistic value, and the photographer's name is less important than what is actually shown on the picture. I think the Template:NARA-image-full layout should be much closer to the layout used for other photographic uploads like the Bundesarchiv upload. For example : File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1990-0309-027, Dresden, Volkskammerwahl, BFD-Wahlkundgebung.jpg. Also I do not expect the record creator's name to be located in a prominent location. Most users do not need to know the record creator's name. Teofilo (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest in the future to discuss template details on the template's talk page - It would be easier to find it for others. Since I am already hacking {{Artwork}} as to have "Author" instead of "Artist", I am not bound to Artwork's order of fields so I move them after "Description". --Jarekt (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In File:Faneuil Hall, Boston, 1789 - NARA - 535907.tif, "Illustration from a steel engraving from the Massachusetts Magazine" should be mentioned in the |source= field if we stick to our conventions of what is meant by "source". With the present template, I don't see how I can add this information into the "source" field. Teofilo (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This information is in "General notes" I do not think it would be wise to move all "General notes" to template's "source", since other notes might not fit there. I added {{{source}}} parameter which can overwrite default source. I think this kind of issues will need to be adjust on file by file basis. I altered this one. --Jarekt (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Bryant_Square,_1932.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Bryant_Square,_1932.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Teofilo (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Park_Street,_Boston,_1942.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Park_Street,_Boston,_1942.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Teofilo (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Sixth_Avenue_Elevated_at_Third_Avenue,_1928.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Sixth_Avenue_Elevated_at_Third_Avenue,_1928.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Teofilo (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Backyards,_Greenwich_Village,_1914.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Backyards,_Greenwich_Village,_1914.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Teofilo (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is another instance where the titles and the pictures have been inverted. The picture is showing "Sixth Avenue Elevated at Third Street", regardless what the file name is. Teofilo (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Report of the Joint Committee (Washington Monument)

Hi the first page seems to be missing (page 3 here)--Zolo (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot block request

I am asking that the bot is blocked until this bug is solved : Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#User:US_National_Archives_bot . Teofilo (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:FUhrer_und_Duce_in_Munchen._Hitler_and_Mussolini_in_Munich,_Germany,_circa_June_1940._Eva_Braun_Collection.,_ca._1946..._-_NARA_-_540153.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:FUhrer_und_Duce_in_Munchen._Hitler_and_Mussolini_in_Munich,_Germany,_circa_June_1940._Eva_Braun_Collection.,_ca._1946..._-_NARA_-_540153.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rosenzweig τ 05:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DOUCUMERICA images

Thanks for you work copying images from NARA to Commons! I noticed in the DOCUMERICA images your bot has uploaded here that the original NARA description page has information on the location, but the bot upload does not include this. If possible, might the script be modified so that the information can be included when the files are uploaded? Otherwise, we will have lots of images with mystery locations needing people to get that info from the NARA page one at a time and add it to the image description before the images can be properly categorized. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point. We were ignoring the subject field because it's often things like "Women" or other over-broad terms that don't map well to Commons categories. However, the geographical information could definitely be included. I'll see what I can do. Dominic (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

User:US National Archives bot

Congratulations! It has bot status now. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Scan category

Should the scans from yesterday be tagged with the Category:August 2011 NARA Backstage Pass. GcSwRhIc (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I have added a little follow-up section on the meetup page with some more information. I can't wait to see the results of our efforts. :-) Dominic (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I've uploaded two so far but having the thumbnail generation problem. GcSwRhIc (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It's actually fine. What you're hitting isn't the thumbnail problem mentioned in the sitenotice, but a longstanding problem with handling high-quality TIFF files. I think it is because the files exceed the megapixel limit for files on Wikimedia projects. Basically, we want to upload the TIFFs so that anyone can download the master file, but we'll be converting the files to JPG for use ont he projects. Dominic (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Enrollment_for_Cherokee_Census_Card_D1_-_NARA_-_251749.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Enrollment_for_Cherokee_Census_Card_D1_-_NARA_-_251749.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--  Docu  at 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Gold Star for the US National Archives Content

Dominic, you get a gold star for the good work with the US National Archives content. Star*.svg --Mattwj2002 (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt. Now you have to transcribe it all! :-) Dominic (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:National Archives and Records Administration/Error reporting

Any progress on fixing these errors we are reporting? Rmhermen (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is unfortunately a case of the real world getting in the way of our plans, but not any reluctance on the part of the National Archives staff (who were quite stunned and appreciative of the work people have done to identify and report errors). My contact on the staff involved in working with the catalog was unexpectedly called away to deal with a pressing matter. It's too bad, because, I was hoping to be able to show editors the fruits of their efforts right away, to spur more of it. This is actually only one part of the work we want to do with NARA's catalog. We are going to begin adding links to transcriptions done on Wikisource soon (possibly as soon as Monday) and the documents that Wikimedians scanned at the NARA Backstage Pass scanathon are going to be described at the item-level in the catalog using the Wikimedians' scans. Both of those projects are happening right now, so I am hopeful we can get responses to the error reports from other staff soon. I'll be asking around next week. Dominic (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I am hoping that we have verified that these error are NARA database errors and not uploading errors on our part. Rmhermen (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Most of the reports do look useful to me. I know people at the National Archives were quite pleased to see them. Dominic (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

NARA file usage

Is there a tool which could show how often these files are utilized in other Wikiprojects? I know each image page shows its usage but was wondering if we could generate a report to show "We downloaded x number of images from NARA during this project and they are currently being used in y articles." Besides an interesting fact to us, it might be encouraging feedback to our museum partners. Rmhermen (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There is actually a tool that does just that, but it seems to be broken at the moment. http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php doesn't load for me. Of course, we've yet to systematicaly convert all of our uploads to JPG, which is a barrier to use on the projects, and we've also yet to undertake an organized attempt to add images to the projects and replace older low-res versions with new uploads. Dominic (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:"A_Frenchman_weeps_as_German_soldiers_march_into_the_French_capital,_Paris,_on_June_14,_1940,_after_the_Allied_armies_ha_-_NARA_-_535892.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:"A_Frenchman_weeps_as_German_soldiers_march_into_the_French_capital,_Paris,_on_June_14,_1940,_after_the_Allied_armies_ha_-_NARA_-_535892.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 12:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Freiherr_Rittmeister_von_Richtofen._Baron_Captain_Manfred_von_Richtofen,_circa_1917.,_ca._1946_-_ca._1946_-_NARA_-_540163.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Freiherr_Rittmeister_von_Richtofen._Baron_Captain_Manfred_von_Richtofen,_circa_1917.,_ca._1946_-_ca._1946_-_NARA_-_540163.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Lupo 11:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

U. S. Policy Toward Cuba - NARA - 306721.tif

Gone.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Dominic (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Park Street, Boston, 1942.tif

Hi, I keep closed the DR, but some maintenance to the file description seems to be necessary, see the comment of Carl Lindberg in the DR. Could you have a look at it? Jcb (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

NABot

Personally, I am a bit of a snob and try not to import modules. I have made some exceptions: "sys", "time", "os.path" and occasionally "os". I only mention this because my scripts have done everything that yours has without using "re". I have a piece that another person wrote that uses the string module; it might be helpful to you as it probably manages all unix-necessary character replacements for filenames:

   import string
   rmspace = string.maketrans(" ","_")
   unlame_name = string.translate(name, rmspace,'()#,\'\\\"!&$=@%/?')

This is what I was talking about at the pump, added onto your bot code it looks a little funny:

   title = title.title() # my case handling suggestion
   title = title.replace(u" ", u"_") #your line

If you use the case handling after the *nix filename sanitizer, you will not run into the problem I had with it making a string like this "it's your life" into "It'S Your Life".

It was my understanding that the regular expression module is available so for C and perl coders not to have to clean up their act so much to get a python script to run. Is this the case with you?

Finding the first few words from a description should not be that difficult.

   words = description.split(' ')
   title = 
   for i in range(0,2):
       title = title + words[i] + '_'
       # do the *nix string sanitizer here
   title = title.title() + '-' + str(identifier) + '.tif'

That assumes that the description is more than three words long.

It also seems like you could convert your strings to unicode just once and then they are all unicode until told differently, but I have been making strings for libflac which converts them for me and am no expert on this. -- Queeg (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The script may do odd things if it hits galleries outside other_versions

Be very careful with the script: I have a nasty feeling the "gallery" tag (which uses "|" as delimiters, same as templates) will interact badly with the template parameter detection if you run the program over an image which already has a gallery (however, the galleries in the other_version will probably be OK due to how the script aborts if it detects a gallery already, so it's probably fine for the moment). I think I need to build a proper lexer/parser for the template code, as I am increasing seeing gaps in the current parser's logic. However, that will take some time, as I need to learn how to write that kind of program first. I think you can probably continue, as long as you are careful for the first several uploads to make sure it doesn't interact strangely. Sorry about that, and I'm already working on it. Inductiveload (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

File:"Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam"_(Mickey_Mouse)"_-_NARA_-_513869.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:"Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam"_(Mickey_Mouse)"_-_NARA_-_513869.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

AzaToth 19:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:"Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam"_(Mickey_Mouse)"_-_NARA_-_513869.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:"Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam"_(Mickey_Mouse)"_-_NARA_-_513869.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Anthony (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

JPEG uploads

Hi, I actually do not think that it is a good idea to load every tif-file now up as jpeg. I thought, the tifs are a often a very good basis to make "better" jpegs, like cutting off frames, adjusting levels File:F6F goes down deck for take-off of USS Lexington (CV-16) - NARA - 520898.jpg or cleaning/repairing them File:Puget Sound Naval Shipyard aerial photo 1940.jpg. Especially, as not every photo is that useful File:Making ready the flight deck of USS Lexington (CV-16) for a strike in the Pacific. - NARA - 520798.tif. What do you think? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not really an option, at least until MediaWiki handles TIFs better. We should essentially always be using a JPG version when an image is used on the projects, but I think it is too much to ask everyone who ever wants to use an image to know how to work with TIF files and be willing to create their own files before they can use something they find on Commons. The idea is to have a usable file ready for them, so it's as painless as possible. Dominic (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:"Appreciate_America._I_Get_Exasperated_at_People_Who_Squawk"_(Donald_Duck)_-_NARA_-_513868.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:"Appreciate_America._I_Get_Exasperated_at_People_Who_Squawk"_(Donald_Duck)_-_NARA_-_513868.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

LX (talk, contribs) 18:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives bot

Categorize this files, please:

Thank you very much, --Svajcr (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Please inform me after the images upload form US National Archives is finished. Thank you very much, --Svajcr (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:ROCKEFELLER_CENTER-6TH_AVENUE_SIDE_-_NARA_-_551645.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:ROCKEFELLER_CENTER-6TH_AVENUE_SIDE_-_NARA_-_551645.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Saibo (Δ) 22:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:CVA-14 11May1964.jpg

Hi, your bot loads up zillions of nice files, but I cannot find the above one. Do you know why? Thanks and Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The batch of files I am uploading is not the entire NARA digital archive, at least not yet. I have a particular set of over 100,000 files from a specific digitization project. That image you're asking about happens not to be in the batch. Once this batch is complete, I will seek out other batches that I can obtain the high-res versions for. I don't have any specific knowledge about that document, but hopefully I'll get my hands on it in the next few months. Dominic (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, so let's just wait. Maybe the Library of Congress photo archive is next on your list... :-) Cobatfor (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:THERE_IS_SOME_LOCAL_OPPOSITION_TO_STRIPPING_THE_LAND_IN_SOUTHEASTERN_OHIO._MOST_PEOPLE,_HOWEVER,_ARE_EMPLOYED_BY_THE..._-_NARA_-_554793.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:THERE_IS_SOME_LOCAL_OPPOSITION_TO_STRIPPING_THE_LAND_IN_SOUTHEASTERN_OHIO._MOST_PEOPLE,_HOWEVER,_ARE_EMPLOYED_BY_THE..._-_NARA_-_554793.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--  Docu  at 07:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


Please remain calm and collegial

Català | Čeština | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Svenska | +/−


Dialog-warning.svg It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

--  Docu  at 08:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Old gifs & new tifs

Thanks for your work, and the message on my user talk page which I just replied to there. Another issue came to my mind, regarding the gifs that have long been on line of many DOCUMERICA photos and the new high res tifs: Are the tifs from the same scans as the gifs (just not previously accessible to the public), or from fresh scans? If the gifs were from scans made, say, a dozen or more years before the tif scans, I was wondering if they might on occasion be useful in showing some aspect of the original photos what might have degraded in the years between scans? Just pondering, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Hitler_at_Nazi_party_rally,_Nuremberg,_Germany,_circa_1928._Heinrich_Hoffman_Collection._-_NARA_-_540160.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Hitler_at_Nazi_party_rally,_Nuremberg,_Germany,_circa_1928._Heinrich_Hoffman_Collection._-_NARA_-_540160.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Martin H. (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Come Up Sometime

When "Adding other versions to the description" of US National Archives files, I note that your bot also includes the file itself as "other versions", e.g.

File:"Come_Up_Sometime" - NARA - 559075.tif is now showing the other versions to be

Are you able to correct self-referencing links to other versions? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't done accidentally; I didn't think this was problematic, actually. It's a little redundant, but it serves to show all options. It also means it is easier to duplicate the two pages, since I can actually copy the TIF page as is when creating the JPG version. Dominic (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
It is redundant, which is why it should be easy for a bot to recognise, avoid or rectify with an "If...then..." statement. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand that it seems simple to fix. What harm does the redundancy do, though? It seems like simply a cosmetic preference, and I actually prefer it the way it is. Does it matter? Dominic (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The links in "Other versions" are intended to be an aid to navigation, rather than a hindrance. It took me ages to understand why I was clicking on self-referencing links, so personally I found it confusing, and now just irritating.I would be grateful if you fix your bot so it does not create any more. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it does matter. I lost already some time on clicking related files to check category consistency. We spend a big part of our life maintaining and cleaning up redundant information, so a bot should not add to that, rather remove it. --Foroa (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, this wasn't the user behavior I expected, since it's not as if the versions aren't marked. I thought it was more likely that someone, if they don't know which version they were on, would still be clicking on the version they wanted based on the file format, and would end up in the right place even if it's the same as where they started. I didn't really account for the possibility that people might simply click on the first "other version" listed just attempting to get any version different from the current one. I guess that makes sense from the perspective of Commons editors, though. Maybe something as simple as adding "(current page)" or similar to the thumbnail caption would solve the issue, though? Dominic (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Alas, changing the label does not solve the problem. Put it this way, there is not a single navigational page or navigational template that should contain a self-referencing link, but one of the least-useful places you could put such a link is in as the "Other versions" field, since, by any logic, a navigational field to an entirely file should not contain a self-referencing link in it at all. I hope you are coming around to agreeing with us that fixing your bot is the best way forward. Fixing your bot so as not to create any more self-referencing links (or asking another editor to fix the code for you) is really the only way to resolve this issue. Can you agree to do this? If not, do say, and we can leave it at that. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Problem indeed is that self referencing file and category links are blackened, bad luck as this is not the case for gallery displays. --Foroa (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Alas, self-referencing links are not blackened in all cases. If you look at a file with a self-referencing gallery, you will also see a second self-referencing link under the section "File usage on Commons". So for every self-referencing link that the bot creates, an extra one is automatically gernerated on the file page, and another self-referencing link is also created in "What links here" as well (3 in all). So the questions still stands, can Dominic agree to fix the problem? --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, Gavin, you are being a bit bossy. You're acting like every passing moment that I don't capitulate to your demands is part of some crisis that I am willfully committing. I will agree (and am responsible for) fixing all problems that the bot causes, but please stop speaking as if this is some clear error that just needs "fixing". On the village pump, Rillke seemed to disagree with you, so the real question is what am I supposed to do that most people won't object to? Most people aren't aware that the format is being discussed, just like you weren't aware of the current format before it appeared in thousands of pages, but they will quickly become aware when I start editing tens of thousands of pages to make the change, and they might not like it. So, I'd like to have more certainty about what is the best solution. I don't think that is unreasonable. Dominic (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is fair. Rillke is clearly on the side of bot operators, we are on the side of user that have to exploit the results. I for one lost already significant time with it for checking category consistency, so already adding (current version) would be an improvement. I must admit that Gavin could maybe be a bit more patient, Dominic could use a bit more empathy. --Foroa (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
How am I not being empathetic? I literally don't know what is expected of me. I am beyond caring about the format, but that doesn't mean that if I make thousands of changes on the say-so of a couple of people that I won't end up with just as many or more complaints about the change. I never was arguing about the format or being unsympathetic; I was trying to figure out the issue was and how critical it is. Dominic (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
You have made it clear that you don't consider this to be a significant problem, but thank you for taking time out to respond to my request and discuss the issues in any case. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Handling various formats with {{NARA-image-full}}

Dominic, Sorry for the delays with new version of {{NARA-image-full}}, but I am on travel lately and have very little time for work on Commons, other than running bots. As we discussed on my talk page I created a new version of {{NARA-image-full}} called {{NARA-description}}. Can you look through it and let me know if it works as expected, or should I add things to it. --Jarekt (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#User:US_National_Archives_bot

FYI. --  Docu  at 17:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Gaufre biscuit.jpg This is actually for NARA bot, so please pass them along to the bot and make sure you bring some home to the bot after Amsterdam!! Missvain (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:"Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam"_(Mickey_Mouse)"_-_NARA_-_513869.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:"Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam"_(Mickey_Mouse)"_-_NARA_-_513869.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Trycatch (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:transcribe

Hi, the {{transcribe}} template is undocumented and uncategorised (which is how I found it, from Special:UncategorizedTemplates). Can you do something about that? Also, I've found at least one weird case of inclusion of the template via {{NARA-image-full}} when it's not a TIFF file - File:New-Jersey-barbette.gif. Rd232 (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The template is essentially only used by inclusion via {{NARA-image-full}} for non-TIFFs. (It should probably be restricted to only JPGs, but the template isn't that smart yet.) This is because Wikisource's transcription extension doesn't handle TIFFs properly. I'll see about categorizing and documenting, but right now it's more of a proof of concept, which is why I hadn't really bothered. Dominic (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Ha, I misread the if statement, it's for nonTIFFs. Now it makes sense. Why only JPGs though? And shouldn't it be an optional parameter in NARA-image-full, rather than an automatic inclusion? After all, once an image is transcribed, the button's no longer needed. And is there provision in NARA-image-full for a link to Wikisource once the transcription is done? Rd232 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, all of the images from NARA are being uploaded in both TIFF and JPGs, with the JPG versions being the only ones suitable for transcription (unless someone uses the template on a self-made PDF or DjVu, but the {{transcribe}} code won't work properly for that, since it's multiple pages in one file, so {{PAGENAME}} doesn't function right). You're asking good questions. Ideally, right, the button should appear only on textual or spoken documents (we have no way to tell these apart from graphic materials automatically), then it should change from an invitation to transcribe to an invitation to proofread once an initial text is transcribed, then it should go away entirely once a transcription is validates, and be replaced by a link to the text, or even transclude the text into the image's metadata.

That's beginning to sound more like a MediaWiki extension or some kind of complex bot/JavaScript than a simple template, especially since Commons and Wikisource aren't integrated enough for a crosswiki #ifexist to detect if a transcription has been started, or for crosswiki transclusion. I'm mostly just guessing here, though, as I'm not much of a coder, even a template coder. If you have any ideas for how to make this idea work better, I'd be happy to hear them. Dominic (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Well an extension might be able to do cool things like cross-wiki ifexist and transclusion (I'm not sure, just guessing), but that's really overkill for the task. I think all it really needs

  1. a |transcribe parameter in {{NARA-image-full}}. Parameter absent or =no -> don't include {{transcribe}}. Otherwise, pass any parameter given to {{transcribe}}
  2. in {{transcribe}} add some status keywords, eg
    1. |requested (default) -> current behaviour
    2. |incomplete -> message that transcription begun but not finished; provide link
    3. |proofing -> message that proofreading required; provide link
    4. |validated -> message that transcription is available; provide link.

I can implement this if you like, and also internationalise it so terms can be translated. As a bridge from the status quo, TIFF=no can produce transcribe|requested if there is no transcribe parameter present.

There's also the issue of different language versions; does Wikisource include translations of documents, or just transcriptions? Currently the link goes to en.wikisource regardless of user's language settings. That's easy to fix, but I do wonder if there are content differences between en.wikisource and de.wikisource etc. I'm not really familiar with it. Finally, I've long had the idea that a sort of "poor man's crosswiki transclusion" could be done by a bot automatically copying text. This might be worth investigating for this application, because it might be relatively straightforward to manage for this purpose. Rd232 (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciate the thought you've put into this. The plan for the future is actually to scrap the TIFF yes/no parameter for one that actually specifies the file format. See here. I like the concept you have, but my main concern is how to keep it in sync. Would there be a bot that would update the image pages whenever the Wikisource page statuses are changed? (And how would that work?) Unless the parameter is actually kept in sync somehow, all this work to make the template flexible wouldn't really be worthwhile. Did you have any ideas about that?

Regarding languages, Wikisource does host translations (though I'm not positive all do), but I don't know if we want to bother with that, since translation of original works is a lot of work and seldom done. It may be that we'd get, for example, more Germans who are willing/able to transcribe a document in English than we would get if we were asking them by default to translate on de.ws instead. Dominic (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, well on the file format, that makes sense. On keeping transcribe status in sync: well looking at (randomly) [5] the page has a template with a |Progress parameter, and you can see the codes in the source of the template here. So there's already a standard classification on WikiSource which a bot can transfer across to Commons. As for language - OK, best stick to en.wikisource then for now. There may be (or ought to be) some standard way different language versions of a document on WikiSource are linked, and once the English is set up, that could be integrated somehow. So... changing the template isn't hard, but finding someone to write and maintain a bot a bit more so. Well that's what Commons:Bots/Work requests is for - hopefully someone will volunteer if we ask there. Rd232 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Ping! Did you miss my reply? It's been a week, and you've been active... Rd232 (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I've got a lot going on at the same time. I've been thinking through these Wikisource issues, as we may try to take people to these transcription pages to help out from an archives.gov landing page, too. I'll post something soon, but I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. :-) Dominic (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Corrections to Indian or Inuit image descriptions

Some of the mixed up images are getting categorized according to the incorrect descriptions. I took the categories back off File:Eskimos harpooning a whale, Point Barrow, Alaska, 1935 - NARA - 531123.tif and added back the uncategorized template with a note to look at the image before categorizing. Is there a plan how these should be dealt with? Dankarl (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: I have been holding off making ad-hoc corrections to these descriptions. Should we instead be correcting descriptions as we find errors, or possibly simply deleting the incorrect NARA text? Should we be moving these to more appropriate titles? I do not think they should remain up indefinitely with incorrect titles and descriptions, nor do I think they should be categorized according to incorrect descriptions. Dankarl (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Since there's no response, I'll just wing it. Dankarl (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC) See for instance File:Blackfoot Indians chasing buffalo, Three Buttes, Montana, 1853 - NARA - 531080.tif. I did not attempt to maintain the NARA template. I did retain a note with the original filename. I proposed a rename to the correct name, still with NARA in the title but without the number so it is a distinct name. I also changed File:Eskimos harpooning a whale, Point Barrow, Alaska, 1935 - NARA - 531123.tif and the two jpgs. Dankarl (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Dominic/2011#Mismatched_images_in_ARC -- I suspect these are some of the same. A large number of the American Indian Select List images on NARA got attached to the wrong ARC record. So we often have a complete record but with the wrong image. It looks as though the images and records were often shifted by one when they were processed -- i.e. the select list image for 85 really should have been for 86, and the image associated with 86 should have been for 87, etc. There are more problems with that series than I uncovered before -- there are problems in other number ranges too. I suspect the correct thing to do is to find the upload with the correct title, and upload the image on top of that one, and repeat the process as we find all the mismatches (presumably all the indian records will be uploaded at some point if they have not already). NARA would have to do something similar on their end (and possibly the bot could be re-run somehow if they do). But renaming the files ourselves may not be a good approach, as we should have uploads with the correct names already but just the wrong image. I don't think NARA has fixed their records yet though. You can generally search on the archives.gov Indian pictures page to find the correct descriptions and images (they are associated correctly there), and do searches in ARC and/or Commons to find the correct upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Carl - I have seen and used the talk-page section you cite. One reason I'm not following the approach you suggest is that I do not know whether, when NARA gets their end sorted out, the number will follow the description or the image. The other reason is that the images are already here (moving big TIFs around is cumbersome; the file descriptions are several orders of magnitude smaller). I am leaving a note with the original NARA number as uploaded so a search for NARA and that number will return the renamed image. The original description can then be recovered from the file history and pasted where needed. My filenames end - NARA without a number so they are distinguishable from the original series. Dankarl (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Dominic -- do you have any idea how these would be fixed at NARA? I would guess that the ARC record is all correct other than the image, and the images would be switched at NARA -- which would mean we could just either switch images here (though that is pretty punishing with the size of these images), or could just completely swap descriptions/filenames on the uploaded images, so that we still point to the ARC record with the right description (if not the right image). Would that be the preferred approach to fixing these? Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm so sorry for being unresponsive. I've got a lot of things going on here, some of which are more time sensitive than others. At the same time, I've been trying to find a good answer to this myself. I didn't originally start that page until several weeks into the upload, after I received assurances that NARA would respond to such reports, but since then the staff assigned to this hasn't yet had the time for it. I am hopeful that at least some of the reports will be looked at today, after some renewed nagging on my part, but I am wary of making promises at this point. (It takes several days to a week for the changes to be pushed to the live catalog anyway, though.)

My feeling is that we ought to leave these alone, and then when NARA updates the records, I will copy those updates to Commons. That way, we can ensure the Commons metadata matches the record with minimal effort. Of course, the reason behind that was to avoid creating extra work for ourselves, and that is still the case, but it's also unfortunate that having these sitting around has caused editors to waste time categorizing erroneously. The titles represent the name from the catalog records, and they follow a standard scheme, so I would say please don't move any of them, since that might just cause more confusion. For the American Indian Select List, or any large groups, I can simply repair them in a systematic way with the bot once the catalog records are updated. (Though, incidentally, I do agree that it's likely that the images are all that is likely to be switched in the NARA catalog, with descriptive metadata and ARC IDs remaining the same). Maybe we need to put a notice on the file pages to alert people to the error so they don't make mistakes when using or categorizing them. I could put a {{warning}} on all the pages with text to that effect. Dominic (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the size of the images, I think Dankarl (quite reasonably) was trying to avoid any solution which would involve re-uploading, though that is one way to do it. If your bot could completely switch image names and descriptions (normally only an admin could do that; you really need to delete one filename to be able to re-use the name for another) that may work. It's definitely tough. Perhaps we could re-upload and find a way to really delete the old versions from disk; that is probably beyond what even an admin can do though. The best would be to not upload images with these issues (maybe hold off on any more American Indian Select List images until they are fixed), but that may be hard too. Understood that the NARA folks are probably quite busy on other stuff, but even knowing how they would be fixed could help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that all the images from the series have been uploaded long ago. In fact, at this point, I've uploaded all photographic documents from the batch of 123,000 files I have, (though I am also going back and doing JPGs now). I'm not worried about file size. I've uploaded these all once before, and this is a quite small fraction of the total amount I've uploaded overall. The bot has file mover privileges if needed—though, as you say, you'd need an administrator if there is already a file at the desired name—but it does seem like reuploading images is the best move. It is also certainly possible delete older versions of files using revision deletion, and we can explore that option if we want. Dominic (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Deletion (even revision deletion) really just hides things, I'm pretty sure. They still take up the disk space. But, re-uploading may be easiest -- and that is something we could do ourselves. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Right, really, deletion would just be to make the pages cleaner and allay any confusion (since old thumbnails are still shown in the file history section of the page). It's not our job to worry about Wikimedia's disk space, and I don't think that is we should be concerned about. Dominic (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Dominick and Carl - I don't really think that having the images sitting around with a DO NOT USE banner on them is going to solve anything. Nor do I really favor deleting such good images. There will be some admin work to clean these up when NARA gets their end worked out, regardless of what interim solution we arrive at here. I have tried to find a simple approach that does not do anything that makes recovery too difficult and I think I have found such an approach. Take a look at what I have done. The path to getting these back to the full titles is:
1. Recover the original file description from the page history of the image it was (incorrectly) associated with and copy it to the page of the correct image. This can be done as soon as we know that the NARA numbers will remain associated with the description. It will not require an admin and I am willing to do it pending time availability.
2. Delete the pages (now redirects) with the original titles. (The images are on separate pages with correct, but incomplete titles). This requires an admin but we can provide a succinct list.
3. Rename the pages to the correct titles - usually just the shortened title plus the NARA number. Requires admin or file mover.
4. If desired, clean up page history and old versions. Requires admin and should only be done when we know the pages and their doppelgangers are fixed correctly.
Also (sorry) I did depart from the convention of just dropping the NARA number from the title for one pair of files File:Womens Dance, Orabi -Hillers - NARA.jpg and used the photographer's original title with his name. Dankarl (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Or:
1. Find the correct image and upload it to the existing description/filename. Done.
No recovery necessary (fixes the problem right away), and no admin access necessary. No file moves. Easy to revert if mistakes are made. If desired we could do revision deletion (which would require an admin, but we could also that in a single list later on). This frankly seems much simpler than your approach -- no offense ;-) I cannot fathom that the numbers would not stay with their descriptions on NARA; the NAIL number and descriptions and select # references etc. in the records all match up, and I have seen no indication any of them are inconsistent -- the only problem on NARA's side is the associated digital file. We can fix that here in parallel with what they do there, as I agree that we shouldn't just be waiting for them to fix it, as nice as that would be. Perhaps just fixing one to prove the ARC ID stays with the descriptive record and not the image may help, but I would be surprised if that was not the case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Carl - That's great if you or someone can and will do it with the bot or a very fast connection. I can't in any practical way, and my working assumption has been that Dominick is swamped. I've been trying to find a way do get something done without punting it to someone else. Dankarl (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll give it a try later today. If you could remove any pending renames and list them on my talk page... that may help. We should get a list together of the ones to switch images, and keep track. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
We've actually gotten a lot of these error reports done yesterday and today. :-) Once the catalog updates on Friday, I am going to go through them all, make changes, and see where we are. I have confirmed that mismatched images will be switched back without the original descriptions' IDs changing. I'm not so swamped that this isn't a something I planned to do, or, indeed, a priority. My plan, though, was to always wait until they are all updated in the catalog and then spend some time correcting them all at once. In general, I think the reason we have had a different perspective here because I'm looking at a batch upload of 100,000+ files with a couple hundred errors—which is a relatively minuscule amount that I am fine putting on the back-burner—while you're looking at a couple hundred flawed images sitting around, which is a lot in non-relative terms. I don't mean to be dismissive of your concerns. Dominic (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:How_The_Roman_Catholic_Church_Would_Change_the_Constitution_-_NARA_-_193129.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:How_The_Roman_Catholic_Church_Would_Change_the_Constitution_-_NARA_-_193129.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rmhermen (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:How_The_Roman_Catholic_Church_Would_Change_the_Constitution_-_NARA_-_193129.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:How_The_Roman_Catholic_Church_Would_Change_the_Constitution_-_NARA_-_193129.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rmhermen (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Duplicate

Hi,

Please only use {{duplicate}} when it is an exact (or scaled down) copy of the other file. For instance, File:Adams Church Taos Pueblo.jpg is not an exact dupe of File:Ansel Adams - National Archives 79-AA-Q01 restored.jpg. The contrast of the two files is slightly different (compare [6] to [7]). Sure they are very similar, but they are two different restorations of the same original by Ansel Adams. Its better to send such requests to COM:DEL and let the community decide if there is a significant difference (and so both should be kept) or a trivial one (allowing deletion). As that's a subjective call, its not one for speedy deletion.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the point to doing that? The first one is not a restoration; it's an old, scaled-down version in the form that it came to us from the NARA catalog. The new one is from a better, high-resolution copy that we now have access to. That's the difference, and I don't think that is subjective. There is no conceivable reason the one shouldn't replace the other. I'm not trying to sound irritable here, it's just that you've reverted me a few times like that and it just seems to be a waste of time. Isn't the point of the policy to prevent the deletion of people's work when they have created a version that is different in some appreciable way? It seems to me that the only result of your action is that you're preserving smaller copies of files just because two people restored the same file from different-sized masters but incidentally used slightly different color levels. I notice that others who deal with duplicates, like Túrelio, don't share your point of view and have never raised any objections. Dominic (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
No, the first one is from one of NARA's online exhibits. They typically did a bunch of restoration work on those, removing scratches, etc., making them more presentable and that kind of thing. Obviously, something similar was done with the other restored image, but they aren't necessarily identical -- it may be instructive to see each one side-by-side perhaps. It's also interesting to see the version that NARA has on their website. Just because one person did a restoration does not mean that someone else can't do another, and we'd want to keep all of them really, and not try to decide on a "best" restoration. There would be no issue replacing the usages on the wikipedias, of course, but trying to get other restorations deleted is not the way to go about that -- it's a job for editors on the individual wikis, not CommonsDelinker. The idea is that Commons provides as many versions as possible, so that projects can choose what is most appropriate for their particular usage -- we don't make that choice for them. It may be those particular restorations are so close there's no additional value, but I don't see the harm in having both available. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Yep I do take a rather strict line on the duplicate thing. I have no objection to near-duplicates being deleted, however, that is a matter best done by community discussion, not unilateral admin action. I'd also suggest re-nominating something for speedy when someone has objected is really not right.
As another example consider File:Ledo Burma Roads Assam-Burma-China.gif and File:Ledo ^amp, Burma Roads. Assam, Burma, China. 1944-45 - NARA - 292561.jpg. One is higher resolution than the other, but compare [8] to [9]. There is a very noticeable difference in sharpness there (and personally I prefer the sharp version: I'd vote to keep in a deletion discussion on it, just as I'd vote to keep the other as its higher resolution). Keeping both is logical.
There's no harm to just sending this type of deletion to a full Commons:Deletion request after all. And like Carl I see no harm in having multiple versions available - encouraging projects to use the "good" version (via CommonsDelinker and use of {{superseded}}) is enough.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that there are minute differences, but I don't think anyone here is answering my "What's the point?" question. The sorts of abstract ideas you are talking about—that it's okay to have multiple versions and that we let the projects decide—aren't very relevant or helpful here. There are over 20,000 low-quality NARA images that are being duplicated by new high-resolution uploads. They are used in thousands of pages on Wikimedia projects and are viewed tens of millions of times each month. It is critical that we replace these inferior copies; indeed, that's a major purpose of this whole project. What you are suggesting is that I manually go to thousands of pages to replace a low-resolution image with a high-resolution version, even though I think everyone will concede that they should be replaced in every case. I haven't tagged any images that differed in any appreciable way, or had more than any minor edits done to them at all, and, indeed, they are all or nearly all ones that Wikimedians didn't deliberately edit at all. We're talking about things like:
WWII, Europe, Wetzlar, Germany, "Sgt. Edward Hill, Manchester, England, captured five years ago at Dunkerque was... - NARA - 195466.jpg
WWII, Europe, Wetzlar, Germany, "Sgt. Edward Hill, Manchester, England, captured five years ago at Dunkerque was... - NARA - 195466.jpg
These look essentially identical. One of these files is a mere 488 × 600 pixels and used in an article, while the other is a new 2,439 × 3,000 version. I think it is blindingly obvious to anyone that that original version doesn't still exist because someone has an aesthetic preference for it and would choose the 82 KB file over the 3.5 MB one. It's not a case of competing restorations; there is an extremely small chance that someone is going to raise an objection over such a replacement. And yet, it seems you expect me to choose between wasting many hours of time that could be better spent just to change these links or, if I don't, wasting my time doing a large upload that won't be used as much as it should because we'll just use all the inferior copies on our projects for the sake of some imperceptible variations in color levels that no one asked for in the first place. This is why repeated dismissals in the form of "there is no harm in X" is frustrating, where X is things like filing a deletion request for each one, maintaining inferior versions, or manually changing thousands of links myself on dozens of projects, which I think actually are harmful and time-wasting. Dominic (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind that usage on Wikipedia articles is not the only criteria for usage here. Yes, they may look identical online, but it may be different if someone wants to use them on a larger print, or something like that. If I wanted to be snide, I could mention that if they look identical, there is no reason to replace them on articles anyways ;-) As was mentioned at one of the NARA events, people want the high resolution stuff, where they can look over every detail. That may well be true of separate restored versions as well. You may be right that all usages on Wikipedia should be replaced, but that is still not a reason for *deletion* which will prevent any other use being made of the other one. Please don't use deletion as a shortcut to that; if you want to do the mass replacement, simply add the request to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. That will get all usages replaced without deleting the existing one. Deletion is a much more extreme step and should not be done casually. I don't see why you see the need to delete other versions and remove images which were historically in use on Wikipedia articles just to get the replacement done. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I feel like we are talking past each other. Clearly, my point was that the images look the same when they are displayed at the same size, the only difference is that one has non-standard naming and metadata and is smaller when viewed at full size. Again, you are talking in the abstract here, and it has very little resemblance to the reality I am trying to deal with. I understand why, in theory people might sometimes want different versions for different things, but, to take your example, no one is going to want the 82 KB file to make a print out of, rather than the 3.5 MB one. We went through a lot of trouble to secure high-resolution copies that aren't available publicly. Your comment above that "As was mentioned at one of the NARA events, people want the high resolution stuff, where they can look over every detail. That may well be true of separate restored versions as well." suggests to me that that maybe you aren't clear what we are talking about. I was simply trying to tag as duplicates the old, scaled-down images people had gotten from the catalog in years past, not any restorations done by Wikimedians or anything that is simply an alternative version of a high-resolution image. I'm also a little confused by all your talk about deletion. I'm not harping on deletion; I don't think I really even mentioned it. I'm mainly concerned about replacement. So, originally you explicitly said not to use CommonsDelinker, because it's the job of the projects and now you are saying that that's the way to go. Of course, listing something on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands doesn't actually do anything besides put in a request that won't get looked at for weeks, judging by the current state of the page, so even that is not all that useful. This is why I was tagging duplicates. My point is simply this: we are talking about changes that almost no one will realistically object to, and which are unambiguously beneficial, and which will either cost a lot of time or never get done otherwise. Dominic (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
And my point is that they are not duplicate. They are not simple scaled-down versions. Deletion is not required for what you want to do ;-) The {{duplicate}} template is a speedy-deletion template which deletes one version and replaces it with another; there is not even community discussion over it. The other file will be completely removed and become inaccessible to anyone but admins. Correct that I should not have said not to use CommonsDelinker originally; I really should have said the {{duplicate}} tag to get files deleted which causes CommonsDelinker replacement as a side-effect -- that should be done directly without anything else being done. Usually, replacements are done on local projects yes, but in this case a global replacement is probably warranted (though always a small chance of angering another Wikimedian that their restoration work is now getting ignored ;-) but they can change it back as long as we don't delete the other versions). And yes, the CommonsDelinker requests page does get processed. It may take a few days but that is hardly urgent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Please don't confuse "appears identical as 100px wide thumbnails" with "identical". "Identical" means identical at all resolutions not just one or two. Compare these two images: [10] and [11] (linking not direct display to avoid having excessively big images here).
Are there differences between the two? Yes, one is clearly sharper than the other. Which of the two is better? That depends on your context, is a softer or sharper image more appropriate for the intended use? That is clearly a subjective call. For instance, a website about Dalug Luft might actually find the "wrong" image more useful.
Deletion is without discussion (ie speedy deletion) is inappropriate as "Is the difference large enough to justify keeping both?" is a question for the community.
Replacement can be done without deletion, putting a request for a Delinker action is reasonable. But unless deletion is required don't ask for deletion. For what its worth, if you ping me I'll be happy to order the bots about. If the description of one of the two is inadequate, just copy over the pertinent info from the other one.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
My concern is that if you use speedys, or really if you have any program of fast deletion, you will lose useful data in the descriptions and categorization of the older versions. Even just the titles - the NARA title for the Adams work is not descriptive. If you want to merge to a common version without losing good information, someone IS going to have to look at each case and use some judgement. Dankarl (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Uncategorized

Hi Dominic, Category:Media from the National Archives and Records Administration needing categories as of 19 September 2011 is getting rather full. You seem to be putting all recent uploads in that category. Multichill (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There were a few days of uploads at one point where I had accidentally hard-coded that date into the categories, so several thousand more were uploaded to it than normal. That's fixed, but now that I am uploading JPG versions of TIFFs, the number in the category will eventually double, since it's copying the text from the TIFF versions to preserve any categories or edits made to metadata, and that includes putting them in the same dated category. I'd be willing to split it up, but I'm not sure how to do that other than picking random dates to resort them into. Dominic (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
That sounds ok. As long as you're aware of it Smile
Keep up the good work! Multichill (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Photograph of Sioux Indian Long Fox-To-Can-Has-Ka - NARA - 519037.tif.

Hey there, no worries re over-writing it -- I may still have the edited image and if not, welp, stuff happens.

I am a little concerned about your comments on names, though. Usually I upload repaired/improved images under the same name with "edited" or "repaired" appended, (ie File:Photograph of Sioux Indian Long Fox-To-Can-Has-Ka - NARA - 519037edited.tif) using the "upload another version of this image" link.

I am not quite certain whether you are saying that this is not a good practice, and since I have done quite a few, this concerns me. If this is the proper procedure but I did not do it in this instance, my apologies. I agree that there should be an untouched original in the system.

Clarification appreciated at your convenience. I came in here to upload a restored image but will hold off pending your reply. Elinruby (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussions about NARA

Hello Dominic,

There are two questions about the categorization of the NARA pictures on this page. Your point of view would be appreciated! Regards, --Pethrus (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I chipped in with some thoughts about the first one, but I don't have an answer about the second. I'll have to ask the bot operator. Dominic (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! --Pethrus (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Templates on NARA images - filling in the blanks

The Template display states "...additional descriptive text may be added by Wikimedians to the template below with the "Description=" parameter, but please do not modify the other fields."

I don't see a "Description" parameter - do you mean we should add a line so labeled? or is there an available field labelled otherwise. Are the "Scope and content" and "General notes" fields reserved? What about obvious omissions like "Author", "Place", and "Date" where fields are provided? Should those data be added to the page separately from the template if ARC left them out, or entered in the template fields? Can we link the "Select list" within the template? Thanks, Dankarl (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You're actually supposed to just add "Description=XXX" where needed. The intention behind the notice is that all of the information in the image on upload comes directly from the descriptive metadata in the online catalog, and is represented as such, so we shouldn't make changes to the fields that map directly onto the fields from the catalog because then we're not faithfully representing our source. Of course, it's not a suicide pact, which is why the template can also take the optional "description" parameter for when we need it. Hopefully there is never anything you need to add outside the template, though, since we are trying to maintain a structure to the pages; "description" can be a catch-all if needed. Missing authors and dates should be reported at the errors page so that NARA can add them; places are a little different, since NARA doesn't generally include them outside the DOCUMERICA series, so I would say that it should just be added without reporting them. The select list should be listed already for any images that belong to it. I can use a simple find-and-replace script to add links to all of them at once, if you want (or maybe we want to make a Commons gallery for them, instead of just external links?). Dominic (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll have to mildly disagree -- these images are on Commons, and we should not persist incorrect or missing information just because NARA either hasn't updated it or does not agree. Commons is not part of NARA's storage, and we should not be subject to NARA's work schedule. If we have more correct author or date information, we should be replacing that field. Absolutely report the problem on the Error Reporting page as well, so NARA can also be notified to make a similar change, but anyone can follow the link to see what is on the NARA page currently so no real need to have an unchangeable copy here. We should have the most accurate and complete information we can, IMHO. The "Title" field is a hard one -- that is the title from the institution, which normally you'd want to leave, but NARA does have descriptive titles which sometimes contain incorrect info. However, that is the title you'll find when searching at NARA, so my preference is to leave those alone, but update the Description field to describe the work more accurately. "General notes" and "Scope and content" are specific items from the NARA record; I'd leave those alone as well. Most stuff can be corrected in the Description (also needed for translated descriptions anyways), but Date and Author fields should be updated. The other_versions field can be added if not present, and yeah we should be linking to the Select List page on archives.gov in that area (as that page may have information not present in the ARC record, as Dankarl showed in at least one instance). We could certainly make a gallery as well, but we should link to the select list pages too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure we're disagreeing. NARA has mistakes and omissions in its metadata, but none that are intentional or that they refuse to correct once they are notified, as far as I am aware. I don't think there is any cause for concern about NARA refusing to fix things, but if that were the case, then certainly we'd have to resort to having our metadata out of syn with theirs. So, I am not trying to preserve errors; I am trying to harness the power of Wikimedia to help correct the source (which is a Good Thing for all involved), and keep our copy of the metadata in sync with NARA's. Maybe that second part sounds like I am saying I want to keep the errors around, but all I am trying to say is there is only upside to letting the institution that actually maintains and catalogs these vet our reported errors before we change things, and, in the interest of structure, it'll be far easier to make updates automatically (there's a tool for that) rather than haphazardly. I don't see this as a problematic approach; it's just like having a cleanup-type backlog of a couple hundred items, which is quite normal around here. And I think you'll be pleased to see how many of these we've gone through already this week, once the updates go live next week. Dominic (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
My main suggestion is on the Date and Author fields -- if we get a correction, fix it here immediately, and notify NARA. If they update their record, great. Having records in sync is nice but is a secondary concern, to me. Most of the other fields it really wouldn't be possible to do any better than the NARA record anyways (though I have added extra box and identifier information on some of the records I scanned at the NARA events). Yes, I'm holding off doing the uploading of correct images while I see what goes live (that and my regular life has gotten kinda busy). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Another approach: If you really want to keep things in sync, create a proposed-corrections/error reporting template with an empty field for users to fill in with their reports/suggesteions and put it in EACH description page. Make it so you can get a report of all pages with filled-in entries in the template. This creates a work list for you/NARA, avoids duplicate reporting, makes the corrected information immediately available to users while also making it obvious the correction has not been vetted by NARA, and makes things easy and obvious for the casual catagorizer. If you add complication or a lot of learning curve, users will either go off and find something else to work on, or insert ad-hoc corrections in an unsystematic way. Dankarl (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

File:"BAT'_radar_guided_bomb_development._1943-45._Philadelphia_Ordnance_District._-_NARA_-_292147.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:"BAT'_radar_guided_bomb_development._1943-45._Philadelphia_Ordnance_District._-_NARA_-_292147.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Catsmeat (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding duplication in categories

How about a Category:NARA TIF images with catagorized JPGs ? And as a further suggestion leave this as an unhidden category, since casual users often ignore hidden categories. Put a note on the category page requesting all additional categories be put on the JPG only. Or do you already have a solution underway and I missed it? Dankarl (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC) If I hear no strong objection I will start on this. Dankarl (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the suggestion. How would that improve the workflow? Someone's still going to have to add that category somehow, and it doesn't seem very useful to the end user. The only real solution I can think of is to use a bot to continuously keep both versions of a file in sync. This is something I have put thought into, but there is already a backlog of coding requests for the upload bot, the category tracker, and the Toolserver tool, and not a lot of coding helpers to go around, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to get it. Dominic (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
If we have both the TIF and the JPG uploaded, I don't see why they shouldn't both be in the relevant categories. I'm sure the JPGs will be categorized more, since they are ones more in use, but I don't think we should be discouraging the categorization of the TIFs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This is not particularly a workflow issue tho it might save a little time. It has more to do with usability of the categories. Duplicate images take up display space on the screen and require categories to be subdivided more often to keep them managable. Only a few end users need the TIFS and they can access them through the link on the description page. Another possibility would be parallel subcats for the TIFS but that's more work. Right now I'm simply skipping the TIFs pending Dominick's automated solution but eventually they will come to dominate the "uncatogorized" lists. Dankarl (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
In terms of finding things, it is true that there will be a lot of confusing visual duplication for the person navigating the categories. I think this is a software issue, unfortunately, not something we can really solve. After all, we do still want all these to be categorized. I understand where you re coming from, but, as Carl points out, I think you'd have a hard time convincing the rest of the Commons community that categorizing TIFFs is somehow counterproductive; and, more importantly, there is no practical way to make sure people actually follow that system when categorizing, since it's not common practice. What we really need is not to have duplicates at all. MediaWiki should be able to handle TIFFs correctly and I should be able to just upload my one master file without needing to create a JPG version, with an option for the user to download the file in the version they require. Dominic (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Alaska, Holtz Bay, Attu Island - NARA - 195640.jpg

TIF does not match JPG Dankarl (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The NARA record has both images actually (sometimes there are multiple images with one ARC record). Little bit odd, and it would be good to get the TIF/JPG of both images, and pair them correctly, quite true. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks guys. There are indeed some oddities like this floating around, though this is the first mismatch I have seen. The issue here is that the bot can't actually handle documents with multiple associated files yet (usually, this is multi-page textual documents), because it wants to upload them all with the same file name and metadata. In this case, it seems that it got to one of the document's files first while doing the TIFF uploads, and then the other file first while doing the JPGs. In theory, it was supposed to have been ignoring such documents altogether for now. These will get sorted out when we get multi-page handling, as the bot will move each to the correct file name (i.e. "File: Name - NARA - ID, page 1.tif"). Dominic (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

File:"Appreciate_America._I_Get_Exasperated_at_People_Who_Squawk"_(Donald_Duck)_-_NARA_-_513868.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:"Appreciate_America._I_Get_Exasperated_at_People_Who_Squawk"_(Donald_Duck)_-_NARA_-_513868.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ajbp (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

File:"Bear_poster"_(Disney)_-_NARA_-_513938.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:"Bear_poster"_(Disney)_-_NARA_-_513938.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ajbp (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

File:"Get_in_the_Scrap"_-_NARA_-_514359.tif

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:"Get_in_the_Scrap"_-_NARA_-_514359.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ajbp (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

File:"Come_On_Fellows^_The_U.S.O's_for_the_U.S.A."_-_NARA_-_514069.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:"Come_On_Fellows^_The_U.S.O's_for_the_U.S.A."_-_NARA_-_514069.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ajbp (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sizes of originals

Hi Dominick - Do we have information on the sizes of the originals? Everything seems to have been standardized to a maximum of 3000 pixels in the greater dimension so I do not think we can deduce the size from the pixel count even within one set scanned at one location. This can be relevant to dating images or to identifying members of a set. Dankarl (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)