User:Fabartus/interwiki categorization tagging

Innaugeration

At this moment, a temporary 'safety page' for email post ups is being turned into a thread of emails for those not (yet) directly responding via direct emails while thrashing out the details of what to do with this interwiki categorization scheme in the way of a project. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion it probably needs to be cast as a wikiProject proposal from Meta. In the meantime, in the interests of communication, this is going to get the email thread in the iterim as a courtesy for those contacted indirectly by wiki-email. // FrankB 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Note

All 'email' addy's have '@' stricken and replaced as ' --AT-- ' string. (Dang web-spammers!) FrankB 01:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A better introduction

For those trying to catch up, this is 'a better' first message.

Email/co-post to User talk:Duesentrieb

Long response follows
     below as 'Synchronizing categories 06/07/15' or some such section name.

Posts to Duesentrieb (on his talk) [Second email, I suggested reading first in the introduction to the first email.] -- FrankB

Looking for input

Copied from Commons:user talk:Duesentrieb

re: Actually - I suggest you just ask for advice/feedback from User:Duesentrieb. He is extremely experienced with the category system and general Commons organisation. He will listen to you fairly. --pfctdayelise 13:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Brianna says to get your input, and that's exactly a right thing to my mind at this stage. We've got a lengthy dialog going on my talk (for two days) which has some false starts... but I think is clear enough in counter point for you to take in and digest. I'm inviting a few others to join in as well as it's 'past time' this is either evolved into a formal wikiProject, or abandoned without further effort, which I think would be a mistake of large magnitude.

In a brief overview, I hooked up with some people hard at work over here revising your Maps categories, and signed on to help them a bit over a month ago. But running into the same 'history related' categories and parents on both sisters, and the recurring need to interwiki navigate to check this or that datum made me think of interconnecting the en.wp and the commons, so I devised a set of templates on both sister projects to accomplish that and concurrently to adiminister the category reconciliation of maps on both sisters.

The system is very general though, and I think should be utilized whenever and wherever the categories match on the sisters, and one template in the two complimentary families (The templates used on e.wp have different names, equivilent functions—one links to commons from en.wp, the other from en.wp to the commons. Logical.) is designed be used to tag a non-match.

The overall sets provide three levels of administrative auto-categorization:   (A) 'Category Done-- or 'equalized' (parents and sub-categories of both have same members and same names)';   (B) 'Category needs more work-- or 'matching by name' but not adjusted or not fully vetted (parents and sub-categories need some adjustments, image contents need moved, etc. Essentially a backlog 'To-Do' list of sorts).   (C) 'Category has no match'--which can be used to navigate to each for diverse rechecks, reconsiderations, and other maintenance tasks. More to the point, having each cat tagged appropiately means a visible signal is present that it's been incorporated into the system. Note, this outlined usage will eventually then include all 'working' categories as a mutually exclusive set. A non-adminsitrative category will be in one of the three sets, and none of the others.

Be warned that Brianna focused much too much in our early dialog about a picyune technicality--the names I chose for my draft efforts of putting together the templates, which were trial efforts... in short, the names made sense to me at the time. Towards the end of the second round of dialog answers and comments, I put together a table with somewhat better names. So do avoid that triviality. Do key in on the fact that the system is a Work in Progress that has passed initial testing and is essentially debugged. It has also been reviewed by a large number of en.wp admins on the Cfd/Tfd defense of some of it's pieces (Ahhhh, WikiPolitics and WikiEfficiency!), and was also posted in an notice on the Wikipedia Notice to Administrators page (Some categories were successfully showing images from here, but showing 'zero pages' there, which qualifies as a speedy-delete criteria. Four needed resurected. so the notice on en.wp Adminstrators Noticeboard (June 26th) where any one active would have seen it.) final form all these things take on is as is common on Wiki's that of consensus choice.

Lastly, I believe strongly that this interconnection will help recruit talent pool to this sister project, as the complimentary set of templates on the en.wp has survived both a Cfd and Tfd formal process, so there will be no issue over there placing them to connect to categories here. The templates are modeled on what I believe is a Metawiki standard interwiki connection box. The whole pantheon is viewable here with annotations. Like much of the above, that's redundant to what you can read on: User_talk:Fabartus#Templates_and_Wikipedia.

Thanks! // FrankB 06:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi! Brianna, aka pfctdayelise suggested I write you. I've already posted a summary on your commons talk page, which I regretfully suggest you read before tackling the below. It's more cohesive at least.

This is a 'concurrent' email message going out to about eight wikipedians directly, and a couple of others by this same indirect means. This adds to the overview message left on your commons talk page a few moments ago as Part I. Part II is the message being sent momentarily to the others duplicated below as a courtesy so you'll have all information.

Send me a return email directly to fabartus --AT-- comcast.net and I'll add you to any email exhanges you might miss when and if anyone replys to us all there.

Thanks, FrankB 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC) aka Fra nk Bar tus

Snip... same as next section: ==Part II, Direct to some others==

First interWiki email invitation

TO: various

I'm going to cut in an email just finishing... so you'll be 'joining in the middle' as it were. We need some more informed heads opining in this.

(Hope this works... email HTML cut into wiki, which doesn't allow a preview!) (Alas, I haven't the time to make it any prettier. email me direct at fabartus --AT-- comcast.net and I'll zap a more legible version back to you ASAP.)

---

On 15/07/06, Brianna Laugher <<A href="mailto:brianna.laugher --AT-- gmail.com">brianna.laugher --AT-- gmail.com</A>> wrote:
> -Commons attitudes favour minimal bureacracy. Therefore: don't
> over-develop methods beyond your situation requirements. As a general
> principle, don't create a category if there's nothing to put in

it.
> Don't create a template unless you can help it.

 

Sorry, just realised that was quite a stupid

thing to say. What I
should have said: don't create a template unless you're sure the
benefits of not having to repeatedly type its contents will outweigh
the costs of having to remember its name and sytnax + possible
confusion to other editors (again remembering our users

don't
necessarily speak English).

 

For those joining in the middle... 'here' means

on Wikimedia Commons 'there' means en.wikipedia, aka 'wikiP' aka 'wp'.

• I'm adding a few folks to a discussion we just began the last two days on world wide

time (Brianna's in Australia, I'm in Boston... that pretty much spans two hemispheres <g>)

• At issue is need for guidance and brainstorming on

scope of what was an unofficial project to re-categorize maps on the commons into a systematic well organized heirarchy of predictable names. This was under taken about 2-3 months back by Dave Kernow and user:Flammerude, and joined by myself one month ago now.

• I started cross-connecting wp categories to commons

categories, normalizing both, including pertinent images, articles updates, et al and tagging so the category was either listed on a 'Done' list of categories or 'Work still needed' list when cross-linked. Note one half of each is possible to be complete when the other sister project is not complete.
Flammerude has diminished his assistance (Health? Other real life needs?), Dave Kernow has asked me to write an official project (are there even interwiki projects?) and since my inter-wiki template 'names' drew attention, admins like Brianna on the commons have been looking in.

• Two weeks or so ago, Dave Kernow and I agreed

in principle that there is a need for some sort of project.

• The last two days

talks with Brianna have afirmed same conclusion.

• I'm CCing sundry category

savvy people to brainstorm... this will be cut and pasted into a few wiki-emails as well, so I'll try and put together a 'retrospective'.

• I don't see a lot of

distance, despite Brianna's concerns on creating 'new cats' on the commons.

 

I wouldn't call it 'Stupid'... Have to deal with real life today (I'm 'just' having my second Cup) so I'll see what I can do in 'your' tomarrow for the longer email. It appears we need to interwiki category strategies overall before progressing much further. That is a proto-WikiProject guidline Flammerude and Kernow and Company put off--perhaps because of such 'clashes' as this minor matter? 

 

My POV on categories is you have to have an overall heirarchial structure (Years, Centuries, History, Science, Maps, etc.) and the galleries should go into those as other categories do. (The skelaton is best developed on en.wp, but much of it is from META, so is totally compatible and NOT creating anything on the commons. (excepting the total overhaul of Maps category names, and the few odds and ends around the project tracking and template tracking the commons didn't have.

 

One word 'template names' requiring 'no arguments' are hardly complicated... however injudicious the original name choice. And when I'm talking about templates ported into the commons, I'm mainly talking about one's in wide use on en.wp that already include translation names.

 

So save for this double handful of 'This Unofficial Psuedo-Project' templates, the translations are already 'there on most other language projects, including various glyphs and idiographs based 'alphabets' (sic). If they're not, that project either hasn't caught up with the articles such are used on, or the language is using a work around already.

 

Examples:

[[bn:Template:মূল নিবন্ধ]]
[[eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa]]
[[fr:Modèle:Détails]]
[[pl:Szablon:Main]]

My underlying point there is if the tools are the same, some of that talent that wanders in will tend to become more comfortable 'culturally' and do more in the commons and diminish the long term load on the commons regulars.
Ya'll really need to greet people immediately though... not after some threshold of activity says "OK, you've fumbled around enough and gotten discouraged, now we'll give you a welcome template with some information." YOUR current practice is cutting your talent search off at the knees. Even Dave Kernow didn't know how to find your admin list forsooth!
Synching and linking the commons and en-wp cats will have similar benefit--comfort level increases and productivity across sister-projects rises. IMHO, Things will get filed properly initially far more often. All the party needs do is follow the article categorization at en-wp as a guide when uploading. I also intuit that uploading by more experienced editors to en.wp will diminish and more will take the plunge to upload legal images to the commons, instead of the now bedamned system where one group of image focused editors is porting things to the commons that others should have uploaded there in the first place.
We need a talk page to discuss this intercategorization matter your group and the xx-wp group can all get together at the table to put together a quicky guideline of do's and don'ts of interconnection. The attractiveness to me is that the Maps category on the commons and various other categories on en-wp have been well structured, and those ought to be the models, not the confusing 'obsolescent' and somewhat confusing category names like 'Historical maps of _____' (Is it a map showing history or a really old map? That's where Flammerude and Kernow and others began two months back, if I have it straight.)
I'll take the blame for the interconnection scheme. The Commons map project hadn't progressed that far, but it makes much sense to me to do such concurrently to create the same Navigation links skelaton on both sisters, and make adjustments in each as images are relocated, old cats are obsoleted and emptied, and such detail work.
The templates, however they're named make cross-checking sub and parent categories 'one click easy' and will concurrently draw talent into the commons or at least knowledge of a parallel category structure. The major nodes or skelaton-frame, I do believe (can't cite where I read it, tho') have been pretty much developed at Meta for all the wikis... hence I don't believe we're looking at much new category creation overall. Just working off and inteconnecting what's already extant.
That's my experience so far as the (probably) sole emplacer of the interwiki templates. (Usage of {{commonscat4}} deliniates the wp templates,  template:WikiPcatM deliniates the commons templates... both are works in progress, and the later name set has been criticized politerly  by Dave Kernow and Brianna.  They're debugged and effective. See the embedded category and navigate to a few cats pages to see effects. (Suggest [ Category:Middle Ages ] and daughter cats

is a better way to get feel soonest.)

 

So where is best talk page to be located? 

Anyone have experience putting together a project page, and can you be a expert

resource to me for same? General thoughts?

 

Thanks all,

 

Frank

Wiki Email: User:Sherool 060716-18:45hrs

Hi again Sherool!

This exchange on the commons discussion on interwiki linking. You I presume know the image issues here much better than I, so is my observation correct. Is there anyone else on en.wp that should be invited into this discusions... which I suspect should be moved to Meta very soon. (list please, emails preferred, user names will do. I'll spam as needed.)

We'll obviously have to announce same on template talk and category talks too, but it looks to me that what I accidently invented to interconnect maps will be of great benefit to all the wiki's and perhaps to images and commons overall.

re: From Conrad (Admin User:CBDunkerson/talk;

Note: I've established ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabartus/tmp2 ) as an email thread page for those not reply-alling that have been invited to kicking this around. Just added the below with lead para as query to user:Sherool, and will CC another en.wp image guy I didn't get to last Thurs-Friday 'spurt effort'. Suggest you bookmark or watch as suits your needs. Will also echo to the same wiki page on the commons (commons:User:Fabartus/tmp2) and undertake to synch them. (Give me ten hours... RL calls! That page on the commons may have an occupant I'll have to evict, either way, I'm out of time now!)

---

Just a brief note on the 'purpose' of all this inter-wiki categorization... as I understand it. Essentially if someone is looking for a particular kind of image, such as a map, they might know where to look on the project they are working on... but what if there are images of the same type on Commons, or another language version of the project, or one of the other wiki projects? By creating cross-links to tie these all together into one 'cross project category scheme' it would theoretically be possible to quickly locate all images of the sought type throughout Wikimedia. Yes, it is a massive undertaking and something similar could be accomplished with extensive 'See also' links, but if someone is willing to do the work is there really any downside? Maybe it doesn't get built and maintained for every category... but it'd still be useful for the ones where it did.

Actually, I do believe images uploaded on en.wp are in even worse shape... save for auto-tagging of copyrights, I've never seen one that is categorized to any 'Meta-category' or equivilent to the commons 'Image galleries' (Just a sub-cat, when all is said and done) save some that I did personally in various historical article support images. (i.e. stuff 'I' uploaded).

This should help that en.wp system ommision eventually, as cross links will remind the editors that such exist, even if we don't mirror all the commons image galleries, as I noted in the 7/14/06 Tfd on MainBold (link follows), we can now easily list a bunch of image galleries with a minor adaptation of that template logic, just as it enables interwiki linking to a list of possibly pertinent articles, when it is apropo. All this is over my pay-grade, save I get well rumunerated in engineering for 'thinking' in system terms (and outside 'the box'). <g>

Personally, I'd rather duplicate the image galleries on the xx.wp's as proper sub-categories, but en.wp processes have got to stop deleting 'Zero Pages' categories of reflected images for that to work. The extant inter-language translations would then carry the load and provide the virtue of the category system being essentially the same identical tree on any wiki. A good thing I thin', and in line with Meta-categories! This rather emphasizes the importance of finding the right venue to discuss this system and get input from diverse others ASAP.

(ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:MainBold ).

I only know of two WikiP editors that work regularly with images, so I'll get a read from them on this. Anyway, I've (already) invited them to join our 'Project Brainstorming' too. (Oooops! A mistake, I missed one! Will fix ASAP!)

Brianna: How much of this is at variance with commons culture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags

(Your tagging is more or less sophisticated (comprehensive)? Seems to me a co-ordination needs made to be compatible across all systems. Is there a Project or Portal co-ordinating that?

Do take note, YOUR FAVORITE <g> template pair,, can be well utilized in cross-wiki 'Normalisation' of copyright tags... even used to target those that are regularly 'close calls' and need sorted by commons man-power or allowed as 'fine and established equivilents' across the sisters. (Not bad return on investment for a Maps project thought!!!)

i.e. -- When a xx.wp has different templates, the same name on the commons would 'translate' to whatever you DO USE by the recognized conversion template of the same name... which means categories 'Vetted' on en.wp as being 'compatible' with yours (i.e. Cat or cats is/are 'Equalized'... image on 'xx.wp' edited to reflect the correct (or equivilent local) common licenses via such a template set, meaning when transfered finally into the commons, your work is already 'Done'... and the task can be automated at the server level rather than the current embarrasement of wasted manpower.

I do believe, such will drastically cut manpower oversight needs on the commons in the long run. Would you agree?

FrankB

---

Original Message -----

From: Conrad Dunkerson To: Brianna Laugher Cc: Frank Bartus ; David --AT-- Wiki Kernow Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 1:33 AM Subject: Re: I'm going to renege

Just a brief note on the 'purpose' of all this inter-wiki categorization... as I understand it. Essentially if someone is looking for a particular kind of image, such as a map, they might know where to look on the project they are working on... but what if there are images of the same type on Commons, or another language version of the project, or one of the other wiki projects? By creating cross-links to tie these all together into one 'cross project category scheme' it would theoretically be possible to quickly locate all images of the sought type throughout Wikimedia. Yes, it is a massive undertaking and something similar could be accomplished with extensive 'See also' links, but if someone is willing to do the work is there really any downside? Maybe it doesn't get built and maintained for every category... but it'd still be useful for the ones where it did.

Misc Exchanges preceding next section

Hi all!

If you haven't seen my commons talk yet, Duesentrieb's response is very favorable. I've also posted that to user:fabartus/tmp2, on both sisters where I'm trying to keep a thread for some I've invited to comment that had to be contacted via interwiki email, not by direct email.

I don't like the category names either, but those are better than two different names on each english language sister projects. They are temp, as I posted in my response to Duesentrieb, and echo'd on either and both user:fabartus/tmp3 (which is for people invited using interwiki emails to catch up, as it were.)

I really reached the conclusion last night this should be put together as a Meta-proposal and fought out on details there, rather than by creating just complimentary commons and en.wp co-projects as I'd been thinking.

Duesentrieb seems to have no problem with the interwiki linking, and I believe it will go across all national language wiki's with little fuss... as I commented in my reply to him. I'm CCing that by email in a moment.

I realise that en.wp has

and

for these

links. I don't have a problem with that. It makes sense. But on Commons, I think interwiki links should be used. It is their purpose after all.

Huh??? My template automates those, or I'm all wet. What are you calling an interwiki link???

One edit per commons or XX.en page is all that is needed if the templates are written properly in the XX language wikipedia and commons templates. See my proposed 'Beer bet' with 'Duesentrieb' where I deal with that, and list the translation prototypes in the first two templates! (Those do not come over well in the following pre-prepared email).

I think your comment on equalization is just borrowing trouble. Frankly, I resent it a bit, not your concerns the other night, but this groundless fear that I'm somehow proposing to overthrow commons cat structure. What ever gave you that idea at all, at all?

Again see my comments to 'Duesentrieb', which had a fainter echo of fear than yours. The category 'migration', if any, would tend to be into the XX.wp's, not the other way, and they should already have the same skelaton, ala Meta, save for some exceptions like Duesentrieb's example. But settling such little 'details' is why I decided to turn our chats into a wider chat so others could join with their wisdom.

See the next email or the original on my commons talk. (Duesentrieb)

Best to all!

FrankB

---

Original Message -----

From: Brianna Laugher To: conrad.dunkerson --AT-- att.net Cc: Frank Bartus ; David --AT-- Wiki Kernow Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 6:04 AM Subject: Re: I'm going to renege

On 16/07/06, Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson --AT-- att.net> wrote: > Just a brief note on the 'purpose' of all this inter-wiki > categorization... as I understand it. Essentially if someone is looking > for a particular kind of image, such as a map, they might know where to > look on the project they are working on... but what if there are images of > the same type on Commons, or another language version of the project, or > one of the other wiki projects?

I realise that en.wp has

and

for these

links. I don't have a problem with that. It makes sense. But on Commons, I think interwiki links should be used. It is their purpose after all.

By creating cross-links to tie these all > together into one 'cross project category scheme' it would theoretically > be possible to quickly locate all images of the sought type throughout > Wikimedia. Yes, it is a massive undertaking and something similar could be > accomplished with extensive 'See also' links, but if someone is willing to > do the work is there really any downside?

Yes. Commons is a multilingual project and not just an extension of English Wikipedia.

Maybe it doesn't get built and > maintained for every category... but it'd still be useful for the ones > where it did.

Of course cross-linking is useful. But trying to 'equalize' the entire category structures a la http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_categories_equalized_with_Wikimedia_Commons_categories & http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_categories_matching_with_Wikimedia_Commons_categories is a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad idea. If nothing else I would like to kill off this approach ASAP.

regards, Brianna

Synchronizing Categories and reply via email 06/07/16

Hi. I have tried to read through the discussion above, but I'm afraid I don't understand half of it. If I got this right, you want to synchronize the category structure on commons with the structure on the english wikipedia. My thoughts on this:

• Many parts of the category structure on commons are a mess. Improving the structure is welcome.
• Improving interwiki links, sister project links, cross-navigation, etc is a good thing.

But:

• If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Don't change categories that are established and useful, just because they are structured or named differently on another project.
  • Apologies to all on the length and disjoint nature. I was at the same time keeping too many balls in the fire and pulled two and a half-all-nighters trying to keep things moving here and at en.wp after a WikiPbreak.-FAB
  • Concur, though some parts of cat system here are superior (and take less effort to put right with less politics) — I'm thinking the general 'Meta defined' category nodes should be linked and anything that matches. The complimentary {{WikiPcatNo}} and CommonscatNo tagging can be added to build a 'mis-match' list. Which names changes if any are to be determined. I really hadn't seen this as a 'Project', but as a toolset within the Maps reorganization... once I started getting some success, it just makes more a more sense to me.-FAB
• Commons has different needs than wikipedia. There are many things for which a category does make sense on Commons, but not on a Wikipedia - for example Category:Sheet music or Category:Clip art.
  • Agreed, and touched on, though perhaps more on the emails.-FAB
• Do not create (nearly empty) "skeleton" structures. Create categories and galleries only as needed. The granularity of the structure should be adapted to the number of images actually available for a subject.
  • Agreed—actually, in my trials, the creation usually goes on on the encyclopedia, not here. As I noted in the email exchange today (repeating point made in this Tfd defense), Image Galleries aren't something I've ever run across on en.wp, save for the backlog list of images to be moved to here. I'm checking that, but I've visited a lot of image pages, and very few even have one category on en.wp that I've seen, at least. -FAB
• There's no reason to sync to the english Wikipedia and not, say, to the spanish Wikipedia. The fact the category names are (mostly) english only is due to technical issues, and it may change in the near future.
• Naming conventions on commons are different, due to its international/multilingual nature. For istance, Commons uses Category:Mammalia (the scientific name) while the english Wikipedia uses en:Category:Mammals.

• • The templates are in fact adaptable enough to handle that sort of difference, at least those on en.wp were written with enough options to actually cross to a different category name instead of the default {{PAGENAME}} link page. 'The devil there will be to identify such specific pages and oversee the proper linkage, instead of a creation of a name equivilent category. Function is function. You and Dave and I can do a trial run or five and see what that suggests. He says you're a guru, and I just put his notes about confering with you on maps cats with Brianna's suggestion to consult you when I saw your answer, so I'm very glad to meet you. Expert and Mentors are valuable! <g>

• • Actually, I believe things are already perhaps better synched than you imply, in the sense that various language projects already use their own alternate template and category names inside each of the English wikiprojects. I think the system software does the rest, as it should. Thus by tagging here with the single template I proposed, the system software will 'fix the links' to their own non-English 'equivilent name' as recorded on each en.wp page. (Look at virtually any technical article... the equivilent names are tabulated for such inter-wiki translation already. The only missing piece would be their own translation of the tagging templates... whatever we end up calling the set. They contain the function, the interconnection, not the name used in the specific project where we place them originally. It was realizing this as I answered Brianna's concerns that made me think this needs to be fast tracked into an official (Meta???) WikiProject proposal.) A conclusion I just reached last evening, vice the commons+en.wp project(s) envisioned before my wikibreak.-FAB

I see no point in creating several new templates - especially not if they only refer to the english wikipedia. Look into improving existing templates, like {{Sisterwikipedia}} - that template could for example automatically generate interwiki links. Creating separate "left" and "right" templates is completely useles in any case - placement can easily be controlled using optional template parameters. A template just saying "this needs work" is pointless - it applies to anything on a wiki. A template saying "this is ok" is equally pointles - it's bound to be obsolete (and thus misleading) very quickly. For coordinating restructuring efforts, we could use generic tags like {{todo}} or {{work in progress}} or something. Those should be short term tags.

• I'd be bold indeed to walk in here an propose everything sucked and was in need of revision. I'm thinking this is far more promising an improvement however than I original shemed. Chaulk one up for 'serendipity', and boo-hiss 'to you' for thinking I might be that revolutionary. <BSEG> CBDunkerson and I had touched on positional controls in an email, but that's a refinement, and so an aside. It'll make for a one character name difference either way it's implimented. My scheme means no pipetricks in most cases. That's got a merit all it's own, but the two can be combined. My scheme is hardly the last word in any wiki environment, merely a trial attempt for the Maps that has grown into it's own concept... as a good general solution will and usually does. -FAB

I do believe we need to test my last para, which you just now challanged, as it were. If the template set 'Commonscat series' is replicated in say French or German (whatever), will it then link back as I believe once said template is placed on their category page. Bet you a Heiniken it will go both ways without any more fuss, than that! Thus the templates are universal, once translated in the local xx.wp project. Can someone bilingual try that with one of the pairs? Suggest Category:Middle Ages as a trial bed. -FAB

• I'm afraid I'll need to play with {{Sisterwikipedia}}, to know what it does. Not documented to MY standards, I fear. <g> The given 'Lists' are in fact documented as 'very short term', so I disagree. Those Six! (2 sisters X3 on each sister) cats do provide a useful cross check when looked at across the interwiki divide in two browser windows... a missing item on one list should be visible immediately by mere eyeball inspection, to verify all equals are accounted for. The 'To-Do' list allows inter-worker co-ordination... says hey this can use a hand, or has been started. The 'disjoint' I've covered above... gives a place for your category cleanup task force to look hard and long. 'Nuff said!' -FAB

Note that on commons, category schemes are devised and maintained per subject matter, by their respective projects (like Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life). Many areas don't have such a scheme or a "project", though. So, if you want to create such a scheme or project for Maps or History or whatever - great. Even a general Category Cleanup Task Force may be a good idea. But before restructuring massive parts of commons, or creating infrastructure like sets of templates and policy/convention pages, make sure to coordinate with the community and listen to feedback. Please don't try to make Commons into a "back end" for the english wikipedia - import structures, conventions, etc only if they really make sense here for everyone and don't disrupt what we already have.

• Firstly, we're talking about templates which are already in use... so beg to differ with term 'New templates' <g> They're already tested and used in a small list of test trials. -FAB

On 'especially not if they only refer to the english wikipedia'...Again, covered, I believe. (At least 'very likely so' in 'My Mind'), the disjoint tagging (WikiPcatNo and CommonscatNo) obviate creating sister-project categories (in the first pass at least)... by creating a list of such to work through and resolve things like your example
     'Category:Mammalia (the scientific name) while the english Wikipedia uses en:Category:Mammals.'
     Once identified, such can then be linked via the appropo pipetricked name links, which again tie in (If I'm correct about the system software) to the names given by XX.wp's table of equivilents to en.wp's names. At least I can think of no other reason to add such tags in each article and category on that project. (I even took care to build a 'evolved name' on things like template:commonscat2.

That List is: {,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  } as adapted from the Original 'commonscat' template, so I believe commonality is already present, with a little judicious effort. The system will need only recruit an interested party to 'tag' their own language wiki-categories to tie into what I propose. The WikiPcatXXX templates will then work for them as well (once they provide the equivilent translation link in the master here like {{WikiPcat}}; the 'pretrial names' have been helpfully added modeled on the above in THAT one, though not all, and that list is
     { ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  }.
     So a model is in place, given a suitable template name set, and I infer it will work across all the wiki's with minimal fiddling needed. Or so I strongly suspect. -FAB

Please don't feel put out by my comments - your efforts are appreciated. But please try to get a feel for how commons works (and in what ways it does not work) before starting to revamp major structures. Please keep in mind that commons is a unique project with unique needs, and that commons should server many other wikis in many languages.

• Well, that would be churlish of me since I asked you to the party and tried to get across the idea I'm looking for input and advice!!!

I'm thinking of this more as adding a much needed parallel capability (and vastly greater visiblity to the commons, which should lighten the load over here, not complicate it!), not in any way revamping what already is (outside the Kernow/Flammerade Maps project), so please relax on that concern. I'll be easing into the culture here too, I'm already on the email list, for example, and have chimed in on a few deletion votes, et al.

Hope this clarifies things for all. Gotta deal with 'RL' for a while. Best to all. Hope you're all having a great weekend! // (Synch time is: )FrankB 23:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Regards -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 10:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Email invitation to Dmcdevit

My maps category work on the commons is generating what looks to be a boon to image management in the form and capabilities of the interconnection system of templates I devised for the maps re-catting and cross connecting parent categories of same between en.wikipedia and the commons.

I'd like to invite you (meant to email Friday, but you were hiding in my Archives pages) to join in discussing any benefits and pitfalls of the proto-type interwiki category connection system' before it is formally proposed, which now looks to be best done on Meta as a project.

This is all just beginning to begin shaking out, being summer etc. and I've essentially concluded as a result of the questions and answers on my commons talk late in the week that it needs a preliminary kicking around between knowledgable editors that can see the potential benefits and/or pitfalls, discuss those in an (preferably) email 'copyall' mode for a week or so, then put up as a MetaProject proposal ASAP. Of course, you can add in on the aforementioned talk as well. The thread starts at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fabartus#Templates_and_Wikipedia, and is quite lengthy. The early exchange is particularly badly organized. Happens in dialog. Reading the 'tmp2' page mentioned below which was preped specifically for you and a few other wiki-email invitees will enable you to minimize the false starts and confusion in that first section.

Among other things, I'm minded to push for some interwiki transfering of images as part of it, as the 'general system' lends itself to synching all the XX.wikipedias with the commons. As well as reconciling things like incompatible copyrights tags. So it has a lot of potential, imho!

So bear with me as the initial exchanges on my commons talk Commons:user talk:Fabartus start sectionor are somewhat untargeted at first.

This is a A better introduction:
      is the two 'tmp2' files, where I've been putting together a thread specifically for those being contacted via wikipedia email services like yourself, and we can all watchlist. It started by posting interwiki emails sent to those not doing the copyall yet on direct email, and these invitations. Those links is w:user:fabartus/tmp2 and Commons equivilent (Both content-synched with page of same name when updated. See either. The second navigates to the commons, and both have a link to my commons talk where the talk-excanges are occuring).

So that's the best place to begin.

Thanks, FrankB 01:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC) aka FrankB

Direct email:Fabartus-AT-comcast.net