You forgot to login again
Copy of thread in User_talk:126.96.36.199:
- Hi. Thanks for all the (re)categorisation and the categories you have created. From your editing speed and correctness, I very much suspect you are an experienced Commons editor wanting to remain anonymous. If you are using a bot for your edits (or AWB), please get yourself a bot account. Happy editing. Siebrand 15:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, no, you are right, I have a french account and haven't took the time to create a commons account.
- I will do it today!
- Cheers and thanks. fr:Utilisateur:Liné1
as I am not sure you read my answer to your post, i'll repeat it here: please stop. The categories your are adding are considered useless by many, and they soak up hours and hours of time of the normal participants of the ToL project.
A category which is an exact duplicate of a gallery has little or no use, except the existence ofr its own sake.
As you als moved images from the genus category to your new species categories, it took me hours instead of minutes to expand the acer galleries.
The extra navigational effort i mentioned before is minor in comparison. Worse are the extra hours you force us to spend, and the extra needless maintennance burden you place on our shoulders.
Your current activiteits frustrate a large group of people who have to work with your categories. I know you are active in the bio-sector yourself on the French wiki. But please await the outcome of the discussion on ToL before imposing these categories on others.
And I forgot: welcome to Commons!
TeunSpaans 06:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry but you don't really answer my questions:
- You don't like your photographies to be in bio categories?
- Answer: Correct, I dont like to have the individual photographs of Tree of Life in category.
- You prefer to have some, but not all photographies in genus or sometimes famillies categories?
- Answer: Yes. Partially identified photos remain in the family or genus category.
- The basic category scheme for ToL here on commons is:
- Families are categories. They are linked by categories such as Category:Fungus by family
- A genus will usually be a category. Frequently both a category and a gallery will exist. A genus category need not exists if the family has few species or if we have pictures of just a few species.
- Species have galleries, not categories. Species galleries are categorized in the genus or family, depending on the size of the family or genus.
- Photos which have been identified as belonging to a species, subspecies, cultivar or variety go into the species-gallery under separate headings. There should be no category on the species level.
- Family and genus categories may contain "left over" pictures, which can not be identified on the species level.
- The experienced contributors of Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life all work by this rule. New users sometimes add no category or gallery whatsoever, or add a family or genus category. When one of the more experienced contributors comes along, he sorts the pix nto one of the galleries.
- The system at the moment is under discussion on the talk page of the project (see above), after a heated debate in the village pump. Note that there are a couple of exemptions, as the system has developed over the past two years without any coordination as the most logical and effortless system.
- Your Adding categories on the species level, ruins this system in a number of ways:
- While the structure at the moment is fairly, but not entirely uniform, with the tremendous sped you are working with, chaos starts to reign, as others will no longer conform to the existing patterns.
- Most wikis link to the galleries. The categories offer nothing extra. By adding the categories on the species level, I had to compare all acer species galleries to all acer species categories this weekend to spot the new ones, which you had added to the categories, in order to update the galleries. If you had not doen your diligent work, I would have been ready in 5 minutes instead of 5 hours.
- The new categories must also be maintained. If the biologists decide that a species belongs to another genus, it gets a new name. The gallery can easily be moved, but the category is additional effort no one is wating for.
- Therefore I kindly asked you to stop making categories on the species level, at least until the project has decided on the course to take.
- Your other questions:
- some pictures are in no bio categories
- Answer: all identified pictures should be in a species gallery. Partially identified pictures should be in a family or genus category. For example, a picture of a rose without any indecation of the species, might go in a rose category.
- some pictures are in genus categories
- Correct, see the rose example in the previous question. The genus might also contain new pictures, which have not yet been added to a gallery but which should be.
- some pictures are in family categories
- Same as genus.
- some pictures are referenced in no article
- This is incorrect, they should be added to a gallery/article
- some pictures are referenced in species article
- Alle pictures should be referenced in species articles, with a few exceptions.
- some species article are in genus categories
- Species articles go into the genus category if there are (potentially) many species in the genus.
- some species article are in familly categories
- Species articles go into the family categories when there are few species articles.
- some pictures are in no bio categories
- These are guidelines. As this system developed itself, is wasnt written down anywhere, until general category proponents started to revert our edits, after which we had a lot of dicussion. :Things now seem to settle down a bit. The original description was at [
- Wikilove: I really appreciate that you do try to do a lot of work. ;-)
- 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)