User talk:MGA73/Archive 13

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.

Re:Commonist licenses

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Feel free to fix all of my outdated licenses as suggested above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This goes for me too, MGA. This is the first I've been made aware of the licenses.txt file. Frankly, I don't really have a good understanding of all the licensing stuff. I'm happy to have my own photos used in just about any way someone wants to use them as long as they're not making money off of them. And I seriously doubt that any photos I've taken will fetch much on the open market. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Every licence here needs to give permission for the image to be used commercially. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. But thank you for the permission. Normally I do not jump talk pages but answer where the comment is but I made a little note at User_talk:Sanfranman59#Commonist_licenses to tell why I will change license soon. --MGA73 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)--MGA73 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead as planned with updating the licensing information on the photos I've uploaded. I assume (hope?) you have some method of doing them all en masse? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea I use my bot to do the hard work... However it is a bit lazy today. It stops all the time. --MGA73 (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Apple images

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Comments? Ideas? I'd like to user their logo for credits but it can be uploaded on commons even with permission :| --Vituzzu (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. It has source, license and link to OTRS so I really do not think anything is missing. If permission is now ok and it is valid for the images we have on Commons and it-wiki then it should be added on the images. Perhaps we could put the new template on top of the old one.

Is the license on it:File:Logo All About Apple.jpg correct (CC-BY-SA-2.5-it)? If yes we could move it to Commons. If not the logo could only be used if we get a permission. --MGA73 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen a permission more precise and clear! No, the logo can be used only for credits: a logo cannot be released under a free license so how can we use it for credits even on commons? --Vituzzu (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Flickr review

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The flickr review bot is acting a bit erratic. It marks some images and then stops and there is a large backlog here I can only mark a few as it is night time here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just told the bot operator. Lets hope it works... --MGA73 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It did. All checked now. Some ended in category for human review. --MGA73 (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That's a relief. Seeing 100+ images to mark was a bit too much last night after I had marked some. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... Easier to get the bot running. I reviewed most of the images in human category also. --MGA73 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Flickr Images

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

you'd like to delete my picture (Morgan Lighthouse) imported from Flickr. I thought all of the images from that site were able to go on Wiki, or do I a mistake ?

QDK01 (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The license on flickr is "All rights reserved". We can only use images from Flickr if they are licensed freely. Look for images with the text "Some rights reserved" and then click the link and look if license is either:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en - "Attribution 2.0 Generic" or
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en - "Attribution-Share Alike 2.0" Generic

If you use a bot to upload the images from Flickr it helps you find out if image is ok to upload. For example http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload.

File:Moneron Island.jpg

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Dear MGA,

Do you agree that this image above can be passed with the "flickr unfree but" template given the flickrowner's reference to licensing the image on a CC license? He does Not even say it needs to be on wikipedia in his reply. Please see the flickr link message.

As an aside, it is strange that your account on flickr here has No images for people to see. Almost everyone you flickrmail on this site are strangers and some judge you by your photos. My own account here has only 78 but many are quality photos which are almost all licensed freely....so people may be willing to change a license after they see my small photostream.

Anyway, I hope you can answer my question. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know I have no images uploaded. That is also one of the reasons I let the captain send the mails. Uploading images is on my to-do-list. Sadly the list is very very long :-)

The image you mention does not have a perfect permission since it is a sort of "for Wikipedia-permission" and a "Creative Commons license" could also be nc or nd. But my guess is that the Flickr user has checked the image when it was uploaded and was not unhappy with the choise of license. So if you pass it I will not complaint. Since the Flickr user does not seem to be active anymore we can't ask to be sure. --MGA73 (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the pointer. I will pass it then. With best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This is the last image that I worked on to get licensed free and it has passed review. At least it is of an important person. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Great job :-) I noticed that the captain leaves a message like the one here Commons:Flickr files/reviewers to say thank you and let Flickr users know that can use their work if they choose the right license. Perhaps we should ask if the reviewbot could leave a message when it reviews a message? Then users would know we used their image. --MGA73 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is better to just let the bot review the images. The people like the captain who get a photo licensed freely can then tell a flickr reviewer where it is used. As for me, I send a confidential flickrmail showing where 1, 2 or 3 photos are used. I think the current system works fine and people will get confused by receiving messages from a bot. The flickr owner above was upset that I even contacted him since he said "he will Never understand wikipedia's rules since he thought he already gave permission." (I had to explain to him that some uploaders falsely claim to get a flickrowner's permission...so I must verify the permission) Luckily he changed the license as I suggested to him. But if a bot contacted him, he will be even more confused and upset. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Flickr licens ændret

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hej MGA73! Svampen her er netop blev ændret til CC-BY-SA 2.0 på Flickr. Den løbende OTRS-sag er derfor overflødig. Kan du ikke verificere dette og tilføje de nødvendige skabeloner? Mange tak. Nillerdk (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Super! Jeg har nu sat stempel på og fjernet henvisningen til OTRS. Håber du har haft en god jul i øvrigt :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tak, jeg har har haft en god jul (endda to gange) (-; Håber det samme gælder for dig! Kan du ikke lige rette til version 2.0 af CC-licensen? Jeg kunne gøre det selv, men jeg er vist ikke på listen over "trusted users". Nillerdk (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sørens også. Det er nu rettet. Du kunne sikkert sagtens blive trustet hvis du orker. --MGA73 (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Undelete Indy Sagu

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Jeg har modtaget en næsten færdig tilladelse til File:Indy Sagu 01.jpg. Gider du undelete og sætte {{OTRS received|2009111610049613}} på? Nillerdk (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Filen er nu gendannet og skabelonen er sat på :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tak (-; Jeg venter lige på et opfølgende svar fra ham. Nillerdk (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

help?

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

You may be able to help here. For copyright reasons, these images should not be at Commons, but I don't know the procedure to move them from Commons back to useful en:wiki space:

My computer will not even allow SVGs. Please help if you can. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it looks like you are right that they should be deleted. I suggest you start a deletion request for the files so we can hear if the community agrees that files should be deleted from Commons. Just make sure to mention that you would like to copy the files to enwiki before they are deleted. That should prevent admins from doing a speedy deletion.

I am not an admin on enwiki. The best would be to find an admin on enwiki and get him/her to restore the files on enwiki that came from enwiki. The rest should be possible to move back. I have not tried it so I would have to do some testing to see if it will work. --MGA73 (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a tag to mark them as improperly licensed? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We have {{Disputed}} but I think this should be used if there is a chance image could be kept. If you think images should be deleted a nomination for deletion is probably the best. Then others have a chance to comment. --MGA73 (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

this according to this.--Professional Assassin (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Yeah it was a typo that was easy to spot :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

hmm :-) --Professional Assassin (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If possible, please make a reply to my DR here. Unfortunately, Admin Maggs has been away from Commons since Sept. 2009. Please comment, as an experienced Admin here, if my interpretation of 2D and 3D art is correct. You can vote or abstain from voting if you wish. I feel certain it is 3 Dimension art because it is a carved stone/rock relief sadly. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Done --MGA73 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Emirr

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. Tha last version of my template was made by Martin H. I think GFDL template has to be added to my template. I will tell it to Martin H. Thanks for warning. Farvel.

The Emirr Disscussion 18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This DR

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can you comment on this DR. I have the message if it needs to be OTRS'ed but the uploader never mentioned a license. Is this permission OK or not? No license is mentioned but he is OK with the photo being here as long as he is attributed.

Done --MGA73 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: The uploader also sent me a separate message here but I am not an Admin here. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought he was saying it was copyrighted but you could contact the uploader if you want just to be sure. I don't know him or what he wants. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename request

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hej, kan du flytte File:William Brade.jpg til File:Christian IV dk.jpg? Kilden har forvekslet arbejdsgiver (Chr 4) og arbejdstager (Brade). Jeg har allerede ændret beskrivelsen (inkl. to eksempler på Chr4-portrætter der er næsten 100% identiske). Jeg fjerner nu billeder fra de 4-5 wikier, hvor der bruges i William Brade artikler. User:Kaitil opdagede dette. Takker Nillerdk (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Ok det er nu fixet. --MGA73 (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This photo

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can the outdated license template in this image file below be fixed or replaced by you:

File:Yarden 044PAN2.JPG

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We have a lot like this. I'm not sure there is anything to do about it. I'm not an admin on enwiki so I can't check the source. I'll ask some of the other admins and hear if they have any suggestions :-) --MGA73 (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Sometimes you have to be a lawyer to fix the license since it is very complex. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Bone Juggling Dog In Hula Skirt.jpg

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I added the permission for this file from the original on en.wikipedia, but I wonder why your bot there marked it as ineligible for relicensing. I think it fulfilled all the required criteria laid out under Commons:License Migration Task Force/Migration ever since its permission was approved in March 2009. Could you check and tell me whether I'm wrong, and could you, while you're at it, delete the local duplicate on the en-wiki? Thank you very much. Hekerui (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The permission only mention GFDL. Since the author is not uploader they have no chance to opt-out. That is why images with a OTRS generally has been marked as not eligible for migration. Maybe such images could be migrated. That depends on if it has been released as GFDL somewhere else before.

I'm not an admin on enwiki but I can find one. --MGA73 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. As long as the bot opted out all OTRS media this makes perfect sense. I see it was already deleted on en.wikipedia. Thanks again Hekerui (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't guarantee no images with OTRS has been migrated. But we tried. --MGA73 (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Walter McClintock papers

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, please have a look at the talk page, because of that. Thanks --Catfisheye (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Done --MGA73 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb, but who's gonna take the deletion requests out? (I've never been in this situation before, just had once uploaded a pic, for which I requested deletion.) Thank you for fixing some links. :) --Catfisheye (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

An other admin will fix it. Normally a deletion request is open for 7 days but it can be closed before if it is a clear case. --MGA73 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Filtering categories

Latest comment: 14 years ago25 comments3 people in discussion

Hi! I've just seen that MGA73bot2 has been making some edits, under the summary of "Filtering categories". However, on the bus front, these are less than helpful. See this edit, where the category Category:Buses in the United Kingdom was removed. This is not good, as while the image is in another category, it still needs to be sorted, for which it needs to stay in the Buses in the United Kingdom category. The file should be in about seven cats if sorted properly, not one.

Is there a way to stop this before the bot removes the other 1000 images out of the main cat, as then we will "loose" loads of images which have only been half categorised. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was a testrun to see if it would do good. I stoped the bot after only a few images. Normally an image should not be in a category if it is in a subcategory. It seems that the category is used as some sort of storage for unplaced images and that the category is a mix of different categories.

If buses are sorted in 5 different ways have you thought of adding the five "top categories"? Or perhaps make an "Unknown" for each category? Example Category:Buses in the United Kingdom by manufacturer - unknown, Category:Buses in the United Kingdom by operator - unknown etc.? That way it is easy to see what is missing and perhaps more users could help finding the right category. --MGA73 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not "unknown" but "unidentified". --MGA73 (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, there is no point putting them into individual unknown categories. The majority of files can easily be put into each of the correct cats, but through laziness and other user's lesser knowledge of buses (and my inability to sort hundreds of images a day), the backlog has occurred. If we put them into individual unknown cats, they'd still all ideally be sorted, but just they wouldn't be all in the same place and it would be more complicated. It's only time that we're fighting against, rather than not knowing where to put images. i.e. this one I've just done. Easy to know what type of bus it is, but to do it for over 1,000 images will take ages.

Also, it would be silly to create "unknowns" or "unidentified" cats for some of the main categories. For example, Category:Buses in the United Kingdom by use would be daft having them as the types "double-deck", "single-deck", "midibus", "articulated bus" etc are all really obvious.

As well as this, the problem is with users uploading images. It's easy for a member of Joe Public to take a photo of a bus, and upload it here - but not very easy to know what type it is. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, files should not generally be in cat and subcat; however, the bus subcats seem confusing and I expect a bus could be in several of these subcats. Perhaps this change can be postponed while the files are sorted. How long is needed to sort them. Is there a way to view one example of all the files in the subcats at once? I have uploaded a few of my own photographs of buses, but I did not know exactly what they were at the time and I am grateful for knowledgeable editors that identified them and sorted them out. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

When properly sorted, the files shouldn't be in the main cat and a sub cat, just lots of individual sub-cats, categorising them on different things. They should indeed be in several different sub cats, as there are lots of things you can file them under, like bus type, bus operator, what the bus is used for etc. It may be a bit confusing having them in lots of different sub cats, but really to make a decent category system they have to be.

As for how long it will take to sort them, well ages. Even if I did 10 a day it would take 100 days to sort them, and I am busy with other things. I have my own images to upload too! I do try and sort some every so often though - hence it is important they are all in the main cat, so they are easy to find. Yes it doesn't quite fit the rules, but it's the best option to avoid loosing files when only half categorised. Apart from that, I don't really know what to do. The editor who set up the scheme and sorted the first lot of files has now uploaded loads of images but not sorted them - oh the joys of Commonist! I have come across Snowmanradio's bus images, and very nice they are too :-) ! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciated your work sorting out my bus photographs. Perhaps six months longer with the category structure that you prefer would help you with your specialized task, and longer if you needed it. I would not want to see your sorting hindered or jeopardised. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

@Arriva436 Not beeing from the UK and not knowing anythings about buses I would not be able to categorize images fully. But I could probably manage to put it in "Buses in England (or London)" and see if it is a double-deck. You did notice the images my bot messed up but unless you have all images in the category on your watch page you can probably not tell if images is re categorized wrongly. Or if I upload an image I have taken myself and put it in "Buses in London". So it would probably be impossible for you to know if every image is in the right category.

That is why I got the idea to put images in some sort of maintanance categories. It should be possible to get a bot to find all images in "Buses in the United Kingdom" that is NOT in main subcategory X and then put all these images in main subcategory X and then the same with main subcategory Y etc. When that is done from all relevant main subcats then there should be no images left in "Buses in the United Kingdom".

Of course that would mean that you have to look in all the main subcats to find the images but I think you would know where to look. --MGA73 (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

←I don't know about bot's capabilities, but if it were possible to sort into a maintenance category for each of the main sub cats then it would probably be a good idea. However, how does a bot know what is single-deck and what is double-deck etc etc? Also, it would have to put them into maintenance cats for each sub-cat, otherwise either some categorising potential would be lost, or the files would have to be left in the main cat - which would kind of defeat the object of the exercise.

Would bots be able to go through each image one by one, and sort into each sub cat separately. i.e. go through them all separating into type (double deck, single deck...). Then go through again and do use (public transport, tours...) and then year of registration (P prefix, 04, 54 etc), until it's all done? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Advertising bus -Glasthule, Ireland-19Sept2008.jpg. I stumbled upon a bus on flickr, and I have uploaded it - this one is not one of my own photographs. I thought it was an unusual bus with adverts all over its windows. I really can not identify it other than a bus from Ireland, so I have put it in the "Buses in Ireland" cat. I really find these "more generic" cover-all categories useful as a starting point for me to upload to and from which I think specialists can do further sorting. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What if you had a category for unidentified buses like the category "Unidentified birds" and so on? Something like Category "Buses in the United Kingdom" could be replaced with "Buses in the United Kingdom (unidentified)" for the files under discussion. The unidentified buses would be under a different category root, so there would not be a problem about a file being in a category and a subcategory under the same category root. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bots can't "see" what is on an image. So we can't ask it if bus has one or two decks. But we can make some lists and select all images in "Buses in UK" and remove the ones that is sorted in a specific category. The images that is left should then be images where there is no category telling if there is one or two decks. Then a bot can but them in whatever category we choose. That could for example be Category:Buses in the United Kingdom by type or a category for unidentified types (a maintenance category). But it that makes it worse it might be better to let the images stay. --MGA73 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I made an example of a list here [1] (click "Do it!") of images in UK where no type is selected. List gave 3,418 images. I have not checked category tree to see if everyhing is as it should be (we should probably also remove images in "Bus stops in the United Kingdom". That should be done before any sorting takes place. --MGA73 (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If I'm honest, I don't quite understand what the list is! I think that is all the images under the main Cat:Buses in the UK tree (including all the subcats), except the ones that are categorised under Cat:Buses in UK by type. If I'm right, then, yes, there's others like the bus stop cat etc which shouldn't be under "Buses by type". I think I see what you're trying to do, create a list of which images need to be sorted where? I quite like Snowmanradio's idea of moving all the unsorted images into a maintenance cat. This means they can sit and gradually be sorted, while any new images that get put in Buses in the UK cat (in more reasonable numbers) can be sorted quickly as soon as they are uploaded. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is it what the list should show (when made correct). If all excisting images were placed in maintenance categories for each subcategory (region, type, operator etc.) then the "UK-category" should be empty. An image could have perhaps five maintenance categories (one for each subcategory) and if someone know the right category they can change one, two or all categories.

If everyone agrees it is a good idea we need to find out 1) which subcategories should always be used, 2) what the name of the maintenence category for each subcategory should be and 3) make some lists with only the relevant images. I can look a little further on #3. Perhaps you can look at the category tree and fix any errors? --MGA73 (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So the bot would then sort all the images selected into a maintenance category by itself? 1) Which categories should always be used? Well, we would need a maintenance category for each of the main sub cats:

However, I wouldn't bother with region as most of that is covered by the bus' operator cat already being a sub-cat of the correct region.

2) Something like "Category:~name of main category~ (maintenance category)", or "Category: ~name of main category~ (for sorting)", or something like that? I don't know really. 3) I've just checked and the main cat tree, from Category:Buses in the United Kingdom downwards, and it seems fine, with subcats where you would expect. It does get a bit complicated at the bottom though, with categories cross tied with others from other main schemes like Category:Bus stops by country etc. I don't realy know how to create those lists though. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh I missed the latest message... Sorry. I will have a look at it. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at Category:Bus transport by country then I think that we should use Category:Bus transport in the United Kingdom for categories for bus depots and bus stops. A bus stop is not a bus and should therefor not be in the category for buses.

The "buses" cat had been used under the general theme of "buses" being a form of public transport, and so everything that was related to bus travel came under the cat. However, I agree, I think a move to bus transport in the United Kingdom would be a good idea. Though I'm worried about the Buses in the UK cat, which is currently the central hub cat for all the sub-cats, could get entangled if people try and make country (i.e England, Northern Ireland etc) cats, and put them somewhere terrible which would cause chaos. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good. Moving these categories away from "Buses" sould make the job much easier. And if someone decides to make "Bus transport in England", "Bus transport in Scotland" etc. it should not replace "Buses in the United Kingdom". It should be easy to catch any images that are not put in the "Buses of the United Kingdom". Either because there would be images of Buses directly in "Bus transport in xxx" or via some lists explained above. --MGA73 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you fixed "the problem" but I found some other problems like Category:Southern Vectis. The category is a subcat of Buses and it contains images and categories that is not buses. So I probably have to limit the search to Category:Buses in the United Kingdom and maybe a few subcategories. --MGA73 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Ok now first test is ready. I made a list of images to put in Category:Buses in the United Kingdom by manufacturer (maintenance category) - maybe you can do a quick check to see if it looks ok (User:MGA73/Buses in the United Kingdom by manufacturer (maintenance category)) --MGA73 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Southern Vectis cat had to be further split up as there was so many images in there (and I've got tonnes more to upload). The sub cats under "Cat:Southern Vectis", such as "Southern Vectis bus stops", are under relevant sub cats (i.e. bus stops is under "Bus stops in England", which is under "Bus transport in England", which now brings it under "Bus transport in the United Kingdom". However, the S.V. bus stops cat is obviously a sub cat of "Cat:Southern Vectis", which is a sub cat of "Cat:Buses in the UK by operator" - which then obviously brings it under "Category:Buses in the United Kingdom". So this will be a bit of a problem. It does highlight though the delicate balance of categorising this scheme, by putting them in sensible categories for each other, but still avoiding over-categorisation. It also illustrates how easy it would be for someone to completely mess up the Buses in England/Scotland etc side of things without realising!

I have checked the list, and sadly there are quite a few problems:

Everything in Category:Preserved Buses in the United Kingdom is included - though this is quite good actually as they should be sorted eventually.
File:Commander Wright.jpg is there, because after the debacle with the Category:Buses built in the United Kingdom cat, that is under "Category:Buses in the UK", even though the buses aren't actually in service in the UK. This is the same with the other images in that cat.
The main problem I foresee is everything in Category:Bus depots in the United Kingdom. This cat eventually comes under "Cat:Bus transport in the UK". However, each of the individual images is in the operator cat it relates to. For example, File:Arriva Guildford & West Surrey depot.JPG is also in "Category:Arriva Guildford & West Surrey". These operator categories are obviously under "Cat:Buses in the UK by operator" - and then "Buses in the UK" - so they have been collected by the list.
The same problem with the depots is repeated with bus stops and on a small scale with the tickets category.

As I've already said, I have no idea with bots, so hopefully you can futher fine-tune the list to sort the problem? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

First step is to make the lists. When a list is ok then the bot will be used to add categories.

We could skip Category:Preserved Buses in the United Kingdom to start with so the images will not be put in the different categories.
The problem with Category:Buses built in the United Kingdom is a bit tricky. We could choose to move the category away from Buses in the United Kingdom and use a "See also" instead.
I agree that it will be hard to keep Category:Bus depots in the United Kingdom away because of the relations to the different operators. We could avoid that by only looking at the images in the main category. But then we will not find images that is categorized wrongly in some subcategory. --MGA73 (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry for the delayed reply). I think the preserved buses should be added - they may as well be as it will help sort them later. The trouble is with using bots and everything, is that it has become really complicated to get right, with all the types of problems we have come across. Now the problem with the images at Category:Geograph images of buses not having proper license info has been solved, I can focus my attention on sorting the buses in the UK cat. Another Editor is helping out too. The number of images in Category:Buses in the United Kingdom has dropped by 100 recently, and we are now below 1,000 images. I am beginning to wonder how big the merits of using bots will be - and whether we should just slowly sort through the images and get it all done.

One definite use for a bot, where it would be very handy, would be to find images that are only half categorised under some of the sub cats. I think this would be best left until the main backlog is cleared first though! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. If proces is fast then we probably should let the images stay and try to make some lists over semicategorized images. --MGA73 (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)