User talk:Lambtron

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Handstands on floors.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

---

Scope changed from Handstand to Handstand --Lambtron (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Oppose scope too broad. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Handstand to Handstands on floors --Lambtron (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Question This is the first time I've proposed a VI candidate but I get the feeling I'm doing it all wrong. First I tried scope "handstand" and was told that's too broad. So I changed it to "handstands on floors" because that's the narrowest category I can find that the image seems to fit into. I was then told "This category is too broad for us to find an image that can represent" by Archaeodontosaurus, but I don't know what that means. Does it mean that this image cannot possibly be a VI because there is no category narrow enough for it? If that's not what's meant, can someone suggest an appropriate scope that might be sufficiently narrow? I would appreciate any advice or help from more experienced editors. Lambtron (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It is very difficult, the general scope still pose the same problems. Why this file:Arctocephalus pusillus in Tobu Zoo Park 002.jpg rather than that file:Fremont Solstice Parade 2007 - gymnasts 08.jpg. There is too much subjectivity. We went in discussions mode to have time to think together about a scope. Other advice would be welcome. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The current scope is "handstands on floors", so I don't understand why this image is being judged against a seal standing on its flippers on a bench, or why it is thought to have a value equal to an image of people doing various things on the ground against a cluttered background. I understand that subjectivity is involved here, but further narrowing of the scope will soon render a VI promotion meaningless because this image will be the only one in scope (e.g., "two-handed handstands by human dancers on stage floors"). I've surveyed the images in the current scope and thought it obvious that this image is one of very few that have VI potential, so I'm mystified by your reluctance to either support it or identify viable competitors. Also, I'm surprised that no one else has shown interest here, and concerned that this nomination may be denied without due consideration. All in all, it's been a discouraging first nomination experience so far. Lambtron (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment I think this is the best in scope. I would support if you can add geolocation. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yann -- I added geolocation to the image as you suggested. Lambtron (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment I still think the scope is not focused enough. Quality of file:Arctocephalus pusillus in Tobu Zoo Park 002.jpg, is much better. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope. Archaeodontosaurus, I think that your comment is not helpful. Actually the image you mentioned doesn't belong to this category. I removed it. Yann (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Sorry I have the wrong address file:Fremont Solstice Parade 2007 - gymnasts 08.jpg. The misunderstanding is rather fun, I had no intention of harming our friend. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• You seem to be judging based solely on image quality, Archaeodontosaurus, but aren't VIs only required to look good at review size? Also, what about the preferred quality of having no distracting, irrelevant elements? It seems very unfair to me that you are still opposed when you have neither identified a viable alternative nor given a helpful explanation. Lambtron (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• The scope does not seem to me likely to give an image of value, without there was controversy. The image that is proposed does not seem to me good technical quality. The example I give is a expemple, not a proposal for a vote. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• I don't understand your arguments -- could you please be a bit more specific? In particular, what VI criteria were you referring to when you implied the technical quality is too low? Also, what were you trying to show with your example, if not that it could also be "best in scope"? Lambtron (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
•  CommentArchaeodontosaurus, you registered an oppose vote earlier and justified it by saying "scope too broad". That reasoning is valid only if you consider other in-scope images to also be possible candidates. Would you please either (1) identify at least one of those other possible candidates, or (2) revise the reason for your opposition, or (3) cancel your oppose vote? Please forgive my bluntness, but I think it's extremely unfair, and somewhat negligent of you to just leave your oppose there without plausible explanation. Lambtron (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• This sope can not receive picture VI. As a butterfly or a car, or sunset. Risk of discusions trigger endless. Thank you for having demonstrated. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Archaeodontosaurus; your reasoning escapes me but you've made your position quite clear. Is no one else willing to consider this nomination? At this point I would welcome virtually any help or advice from other editors -- even opposing votes, as long as they are accompanied by useful explanations. Lambtron (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I'm afraid I have to disagree with my very good friend Archaeo. In my opinion, the part of the scope "on floors" makes the whole scope acceptable. And even if the picture is not technicaly perfect, i think honestly that it is the best in the chosen scope.--Jebulon (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• I am very pleased that the other participant is shown. Even if I do not agree with them, it was a nice discussion. And finished well. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Running in art?

I see your edit and i think the Category:Running in art is better. Is this ok? --Atamari (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Good idea -- thanks. Lambtron (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Video shops

Hello! You have moved this category, but you should empty it, too... It contains Category:Video shops by country, which can't be moved by bot: it depends on templates. Fix it, please. Wieralee (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fixed -- please let me know if's still messed up. Lambtron (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

A redirected category should be empty. But still it contains two subcategories. You have to empty it. A person who moves the category, is obliged to empty it... Wieralee (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please check again and let me know if it's okay. Thanks. Lambtron (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirects are useful, we don't remove it. That's all. Thanks. Wieralee (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I assume it's fixed, since you haven't said otherwise. Lambtron (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

File:REC. 002.JPG- Removing from Category:Digital video recorders

Hi, I want inform you that the PANASONIC DMR-BWT745 is a digital video recorder on blue ray disc with an internal HHD. Greetings,--Pier Luigi (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Pier. Does this device record video to blue ray, to HD, or both? Lambtron (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

PANASONIC DMR-BWT745 records video programs directly to integrated HDD and, later, on blue ray disc, DVD or external USB-HDD. --Pier Luigi (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Always missing the category for the analog prosumer recorder VHS PANASONIC NV-HS1000EGC.--Pier Luigi (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The file description didn't explain the image, which made it difficult to categorize. With your explanation and a bit of product research I was able to clarify the description and put the image in the correct categories. Thanks! Lambtron (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Now it seems to me is fine.--Pier Luigi (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hola

Te escribo en español porque mi inglés es terrible. Las imágenes que mandaste a borrar, y que finalmente borraron, no son solamente "de ballet". Son las únicas fotos libres que tengo de una coreografía de Vicente Nebrada, el más importante coreógrafo de latinoamérica del siglo XX. Es como si mandaras a borrar unas imágenes de Four temperaments de George Balanchine "porque no tienen calidad", siendo el único registro que hay disponible sobre eso. No sé si sabes de ballet pero no puedes ilustrar la biografía de un coreógrafo con cualquier imagen de Commons... es como ilustrar una biografía de Vicent Van Gogh con cuadros de Leonardo Da Vinci. Saludos, Laura Fiorucci (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Laura. I appreciate your sentiments and I don't mean to offend you, but I do know a lot about both ballet and photographing dance, and therefore I must point out that it's impossible to illustrate choreography with a still image. As for Nebrada's biography, the essential illustration is one of Nebrada himself. If video of his choreography is available, that would be of great value too. Best Regards, Lambtron (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Categories deleting

Please do not remove categories from pages on Wikipedia without really valid reason for the removal. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. ~Fleur-de-farine 23:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I did state a "really valid reason" in my edit summary: "this is not a useful category: the vast majority of files in cat:dance are photographs". I recognize the value of a category like "videos of dance" because it covers a relatively small subset of dance files. However, the same cannot be said for "photographs of dance" because a great majority of dance files are photos, and consequently it seems pointless to even have a category like "photographs of dance".

Please ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone will ever find it useful to search for just photos of dance when they are by far the predominant media type? Or how about this: Why are most dance photos not covered by the "photographs of dance" category? (Answer: because it would be a monumental task to categorize hundreds of thousands of dance photos this way, and apparently other editors do not regard it worthy of the effort). Even if someone spent months categorizing photos this way, the resulting category would have little value because it would largely overlap cat:dance.

If you choose to, you are certainly entitled to ignore these realities and continue to categorize this way, but unless you plan to finish the job by adding every dance-related photo somewhere under this category, isn't the category useless anyway? And while the job remains unfinished, isn't it a bit silly to have a category that purports to contain all dance photos when it fails to cover the vast majority of them? Lambtron (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Historical pas de deux

Hi, what's the reason for creating Category:Historical pas de deux and deleting Category:Photographs of pas de deux? You wouldn't find here on Commons "historical paintings/objects/operas" - whatever - instead of categorization by century or by main subject. It's kind of peculiar consider 21st century photographs as "historical" - unless you consider "historical" everything that has happened till now. Categorization in Wikipedia does not work that way. So I've rolled back everything as it was (actually turned it into Category:Pas de deux by century). Sorry for that. ~Fleur-de-farine 19:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fleur-de-farine: We can be much more productive if you would please ask questions first, before reverting, instead of the other way around. As my edit summary indicated, I am trying to solve a fundamental problem caused by "photographs of ..." categories. I admit that my restructuring might not be the best way to resolve this, but its unhelpful of you to simply recreate the problem and offer nothing more than an apology.

Did you know that I previously left a message on your talk page about this very issue (Category:Photographs of dance)? And that similar messages also appear in the thread above this one, and on the category's talk page? I assume you didn't read those messages because you never responded, and because if you had read them, you would already know why I deleted Category:Photographs of pas de deux. I hope you will take the time to read them and reply and, if you agree with my reasoning, work with me to replace these problematic categories. Of course, you may disagree with me, but it seems only fair that you explain why you think my logic is flawed -- before reverting again. Thanks, Lambtron (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Patrolling incorrectly

Please stop patrolling items unless you know what you're doing. The high amount of images you marked as patrolled which are already deleted shows your high error rate.--JacktheHarry (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@JacktheHarry: Please explain your concerns more clearly (I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about). AFAIK it's impossible to even access a file that's been deleted, let alone mark it patrolled. Also, I have no clue what you mean by "error rate", or how you measured mine and found it to be "high". Finally, I must point out that I'm not involved with or even particularly interested in patrolling. I can only surmise that you have major misconceptions about my activities at Commons. If that's not the case, please elaborate. Lambtron (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Male & female

Dear Lambtron, Please read: this discussion about categories comprising females. Vysotsky (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: Those are some interesting viewpoints. IMO, female-specific categories don't "marginalize" females -- they are simply one of many practical and logical ways to categorize files. Also, apparently some editors think it's negligent to create a female category without also creating a complementary male category (or vice-versa). IMO this is not negligence; it's an incremental improvement to a perpetual work-in-progress. There is a simple remedy for those who are disturbed when they encounter this sort of category asymmetry: make the next incremental improvement and thereby establish symmetry. Lambtron (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Lambtron, By creating a separate Category Female so-and-so without making a symmetrical Category Male so-and-so one is in fact removing women from the main category. It is a bit silly when people then tell others to clean up the asymmetry they themselves created. (And it is much more time-consuming to change a few hundred Photographers to Male photographers compared to "removing" ten Female photographers -or 60 Females stretching, for that matter.) Vysotsky (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a male (or female) subcategory effectively eliminates that class of files from the parent category. However, this does not remove the class itself from the parent; it simply substitutes a link for files of the class. What I think is silly is the notion that subcategorization is some sort of demotion when it's really just a smart and reasonable way to make a particular class of files easier to find and browse. It's true that what's left in the parent category is female (or male) files — and the files of all other uncategorized classes, which is perfectly fine until a subjective editor deems it unsatisfactory. I wouldn't presume to tell others that they must "clean up" category structures they find wanting — or that category asymmetry is inherently wrong and cannot be allowed. Having said that, I do appreciate symmetry and strive for it when I have the time and consider the effort worthwhile. Lambtron (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum. I rest my case. Vysotsky (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what's been demonstrated, but I'm glad you've attained a sense of closure. Lambtron (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

File:The Dalles Mural - World Famous Cherries.jpg

File:The Dalles Mural - World Famous Cherries.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in/contribute to a photo contest

English

Dear Lambtron,

We’re excited to share with you our first-ever art and photo contest for this year’s #VisibleWikiWomen, on Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports!

We’re inviting submissions of photos, illustrations, and other forms of art depicting womxn and non-binary people in sports — as athletes, fans, cheerleaders, referees, journalists, and much more. Our #VisibleWikiWomxn contest celebrates the bodies of womxn in sports by centering their voices, images, stories, and experiences in all their diversity, plurality, and glory.

You can find all the information on our landing page: Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports

Spanish

Hola Lambtron,

Queremos invitarte a participar de nuestro primer concurso de arte y fotografía "Cuerpos plurales en el deporte" en el marco de la campaña #VisibleWikiWomen de este año.

Estamos convocando a presentar fotos, ilustraciones y otras formas de arte que representen a mujeres y personas no binarias en el deporte - atletas, personas aficionadas, animadoras, árbitras, periodistas y personas ligadas al deporte en todos los aspectos. Nuestro concurso #VisibleWikiWomxn celebra los cuerpos de las mujeres en el deporte centrándose en sus voces, imágenes, historias y experiencias en toda su diversidad, pluralidad y gloria.

Puedes encontrar toda la información en la página del concurso.

Portuguese

Olá Lambtron,

Ficamos felizes em convidar você a participar de nossa primeira Wiki-competição de arte e fotografia, como parte da campanha #VisibleWikiWomen deste ano, sobre "Corpos plurais no esporte"!

Estamos recebendo fotos, ilustrações, e outras formas de arte que retratem mulheres e pessoas não-binárias nos esportes — como atletas, torcedoras, juízas, jornalistas, e muito mais. Nossa competição #VisibleWikiWomxn celebra os corpors de mulheres e pessoas não-binárias e coloca ao centro suas vozes, imagens, histórias, e experiências em toda sua pluralidade e glória.

Você pode encontrar todas as informações necessárias em nossa página: Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports.

Sunshine Fionah Komusana (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)