Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, N2e!

BotMultichillT 06:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Tip: Categorizing imagesEdit

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 | 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)‎ | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−

Hello, N2e!

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:

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]]

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").

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 06:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the bot-note. Looking at this page (above) was helpful to remember how one finds the category lists on Wikimedia. I did a search and have now categorized the image. N2e (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


File:Bigelow_BA-2100_expandable_space_module.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Huntster (t @ c) 02:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:SpaceX (Cape Canaveral, Florida)Edit

N2e, I've reverted your recent additions of Category:SpaceX (Cape Canaveral, Florida) to various Falcon 9 images. Each image was already part of a "Falcon 9 Flight #" category, which are subcategories of the Launch Complex 40 category, which is itself a subcategory of the "SpaceX (Cape Canaveral, Florida)" category. Images should not be included multiple times within the same branch of a given category tree. Huntster (t @ c) 06:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. That logic makes perfect sense, given those categories and their superclasses. I just couldn't find many images of the SpaceX facility at Cape Caneveral so did that to help out.
Now I do have a question for you. If all, say, Falcon 9 Flight 1 categorized images are also Launch Complex 40 category, then it seems that LC 40 would end up with an awful lot of photos from, say, two-week space missions that have nothing whatsoever to do with LC 40, but might have to do with low-Earth orbit, or with a particular space destination like ISS or a Bigelow station, or whatever. In other words, I understand that, given current category tree, the +cat I added to several CC LC 40 photos is unneccessary, but it seems that perhaps not all of the photos associated with a particular flight should be LC 40 categorized just because the rocket and payload spent a week or a month there getting ready to launch. What do you think? Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
In a way, I understand what your saying, but remember that the photos themselves are not directly in the LC-40 cat, just in the rocket category. Also note that for each specific rocket launch (and I'm doing this with other rocket types over time), I'm separating the rocket and the payload images. So, the "Falcon 9 Flight 4" category will only have photos relating to the rocket and its launch, and its sister-/sub-category "SpaceX CRS-1" will have images from the mission itself. The two are directly related, but entirely different in subject matter. Huntster (t @ c) 20:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Cool. That makes sense. As long as you (and other editors) are separating the rocket/rocket prep/rocket pad/rocket launch photos from the remainder of the mission, then that does seem to solve the problem of later-in-the-mission photos being categorized with the launch pad from whence the entire space transport mission originated. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Category questionEdit

================= following imported from Hunster's Talk page, to keep the entire thread together in one place ==============

Hi Huntster.

As you likely know, I'm a newbie at doing much on Wikimedia. So rather than do something silly, would prefer to ask for some guidance.

With the SpaceX en:Falcon 9 v1.1 so very different from the en:Falcon 9 v1.0, I think it might make sense to create a Wikimedia files category for each, and make them each a subcat of the current/existing Falcon 9 cat on WIkimedia. Then, the F9 Flight 1–F9 Flight 5 cats, would ostensibly go under the v1.0 cat, while F9 Flight 6 would go under the v1.1 cat. Pros? Cons? What do you think? N2e (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)



I honestly don't see a reason for creating separate sub-categories for these models. They are already well divided based on flight number, and a sentence can (and I'll do this momentarily) be added to the master category description stating which version numbers were used on which flights. Beyond that, it just seems like categorisation for the sake of categorising wouldn't really add anything. Now, that isn't to say that at some point in the future it wouldn't make sense to do so, but at this point in time I don't see it as needed, since there is only one generic photograph (at this time) of rockets not attachable to a particular mission. Huntster (t @ c) 10:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That works for me. And that is why I asked you before doing any categorization that I had an idea about. I certainly have the model distinction by flights in my head, and it sounds like you have an idea for adding a sentence somewhere to make it clearer to others who happen by here. N2e (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, take a look at the description at Category:Falcon 9 and make any changes you feel are needed. Huntster (t @ c) 23:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

File:DragonFlyRLV-earlyUSgovernmentView-from FAA regulatory doc-201408.jpgEdit

Hi N2e, on the description page for File:DragonFlyRLV-earlyUSgovernmentView-from FAA regulatory doc-201408.jpg, you mention this is a SpaceX photo provided to the FAA. If this is the case, then this image is copyright SpaceX, regardless of who published it, and should be removed. I didn't specifically see this attribution in the document, but you might want to have this speedy deleted. Huntster (t @ c) 05:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a very good point.
However, I must admit that that was merely as assertion on my part, and not based on anything I can find in the US government source. In other words, it is a (poor quality) photo in a US government source. That source document does not say where they got the photo. So I'm not sure what could/should be done with it. I should not have assumed it came from SpaceX, without seeing that explicitly.
I'll be happy with any outcome that is consistent with policy, but I'm a bit over my head. I uploaded it because there don't seem to be any other views/images of what the early versions/designs of Dragon V2, the RLV Dragon space capsule following the original one, in Wikipedia. This one seemed to fit within the license policy; so I uploaded it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  Fixed I have updated the text on the image page, so as not to say something that was only assumed on my part. N2e (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "N2e".