EncycloPetey

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, EncycloPetey!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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 05:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Image:En-us-France.ogg is uncategorized since 27 April 2009.
• Image:En-us-Norway.ogg is uncategorized since 26 May 2009.
• Image:En-us-England.ogg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Field pean.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Incorrect audio file

Hi! does not work. ogginfo tells me the following information:

Negative or zero granulepos (0) on vorbis stream outside of headers. This file was created by a buggy encoder
Vorbis stream 1:
Total data length: 29 bytes

If possible, could you please regenerate that file? Thank you! David.Monniaux (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've loaded a new version, but I don't know how long it will be before the new version is recognized by the server. Clearing my local cache has had no effect, but that's normal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. David.Monniaux (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

File:En-us-Makemake.ogg

Differences of opinion or interpretation are not "vandalism". Kwamikagami (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Tirana

Could you make a Tirana.ogg file, to hear english pronontation of it? --Vinie007 (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Colchicum

Thanks. :) Yeah, it's probably Colchicum. It had a sort of bulge below the petals though. Probably just fertilized and beginning to turn into fruit. I went back to check today and the flowers were gone. :( Probably eaten by a goat. LOL, oh well. Anyway thanks for the ID. Obsidi♠nSoul 05:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

re: File:En-us-Shanghai.ogg

See: http://pokazywarka.pl/64gpcg/

It is not my mistake.

http://www.diki.pl/slownik-angielskiego/?q=Shanghai&source=opensearch -- pronunciation of city and the verb is the same. What is the problem? Upload another file: File:En-us-shanghai.ogg and File:En-us-Shanghai.ogg - will be the same files. // Bubel (dyskusja) 09:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is your mistake. You made the move, and you had no good reason to make the move. The file was correctly named before the move. The error was that someone had added a category that should not have been there. No, the city and verb are not stressed the same by all English speakers. The verb is strssed on the first syllable, but the city name is stressed on the second syllable. Note also that the site you have appealed to is using a UK accent, not a US accent. British and US pronunciations are often different, although in this case the site you found seems to be in error, since it disagrees with the Oxford English Pronouncing Dictionary if it claims that both verb and proper noun are pronounced the same.

And no, I can't uploade another file because the redirect you created prevents me from doing this. And this would not fix the problem you created.

Please restore the file that you incorrectly renamed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK Done.

With doubts like this should give a more accurate description of the file :)

// Bubel (dyskusja) 16:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Elbow flexor model

Hi there, I have a question about the description for 2 of your images. File:Arm_flex_supinate.jpg says 27yo wrestler, File:Arm_flex_pronate.jpg says 26yo bouncer. From what I can tell though, these pictures look like the same person. Were they taken at the same time, or a year apart? From what I can tell, if it is apt, there was a 26 year old bouncer who took a photograph of his arm in a pronated position while he worked as a bouncer, then to celebrate his change to a career in pro wrestling, took a picture of his arm in a supinated position the following year. It seems strange though, like it's more easy to imagine someone took these photographs at the same time. Especially considering that the same shirt is worn, one might imagine that if they were taken a year apart that the shirt might be different. Dictabeard (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If you looked at the edit history, you would have seen that some anon altered the description I originally wrote, which matched between the two images when I initially loaded them. This truth is a much simpler explanation than the story you invented. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Washington (audio file)

Thank you for the File:En-us-Washington.ogg. I used it for creation the spoken article about "Washington, D.C." (intro) for Russian Wikipedia. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Miscategorization

You're right, I think it should go both despite the tangle of overcategorization. You can leave explicit in the edit summary is not an error. I had seen such cases in es.wiki and accepted this dual categorization. At least until other specific categories. You think? Cheers, Metrónomo (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A dual catgeorization (general language and planets) is possible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

About Audio

Hello :EncycloPetey, I saw that you uploaded the audio of . Could please upload for Rahul Gandhi and Mamata Banerjee. Thank You--Kkm010 (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I would need to know the correct stress and pronunciation to do that. Otherwise, I'd just be creating an Americanized guess at the pronunciation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Moss classification

The NCBI moss classification is out-of-date. A current and updated version is available at the author's website [1]. Several families and orders have changed classification since the publication of the system used by NCBI. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool, a online classification is always a good news. I will correct our categories according.

By first, I would like to modify our templates to specify that we will follow this classification.

• parameter classification= of {{Taxonavigation}} (see current possibilities in {{Taxonavigation/classification}})
• parameter source= of {{Taxa}},{{Genera}},{{Species}} (see current possibilities in {{Taxasource}})

But I need:

• a shortname for that classification (Like Bouchet&Rocroi2005, Jörger et al. (2010), APWebsite, Sibley).
  • it could be: Goffinet, GoffinetLab, Goffinet et al., GoffinetWebSite...
• a displayname for that classification (Like Bouchet & Rocroi (2005), Jörger et al. (2010), APWebsite, Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy).
  • it could be: Goffinet Moss classification, Goffinet Lab Moss classification, Goffinet et al.... (It is not "Goffinet, B., W.R Buck and A.J. Shaw (2008)" because it is a modified version. I saw "Goffinet et al. in prep." on the website)

Do you have any idea for this shortname and displayname (not too long) ?

Thanks Liné1 (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I would use Goffinet et al., sinc ethe other authors are not actually part of the same lab, or at the same university site. If you need more, you could used "2008 emend.", where the "emend." indicates it includes emendations to the 2008 paper, or you could use "on-line". They have a new classification "in press", but I expect that the on-line version will continue to be more up-to-date and revised as new discoveries are made. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have tried to contact M. Goffinet (I did that for multiple classification website and had quiet many positiv answer) but he hasn't answered yet.

Let us try "Goffinet et al" as short name and "Goffinet et al" as display name.

I will contact you to show you the result.

Thanks Liné1 (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You can should the result on Bryophyta. Please, tell me if what you think of it. Thanks Liné1 (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I migrated all taxa with rank higher or equal to family to "Goffinet et al". You will find all the families in Category:Families of Bryophyta. Regards Liné1 (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the way that users can quickly navigate to families. The families of mosses have changed far less than other ranks over the last 40 years. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Spirodela

Hi, please have a look here and give a comment: Talk:Spirodela polyrrhiza. I'd like to make your move of article and category undo. The spelling with one "r" was correct. -- Fice (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the spelling with a single "r" was incorrect, although a common mistake. I've replied with fuller details on the talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

English pronunciation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hello, I was wondering if it was possible for you to record a new sound file for the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As it currently stands the only sound file that exists only says "Bosnia" and not "Bosnia and Herzegovina" the country's full name. Regards, -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. File:En-us-Bosnia and Herzegovina.ogg --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, EncycloPetey. You have new messages at Rillke's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- RE rillke questions? 18:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

audio

Can you record the pronunciation of the word ketchup in the audio please ? Fête (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

File:McCone Smilodon.JPG

File:McCone Smilodon.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!

FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

your file

Arm flex supinate (Biceps)

Your biceps image was used at Hurraki. An Easy-To-Read-Wiki.

Brachialgewalt

Thank you!

Dagwood sandwich

Hello there, EncycloPetey! True story, I've been meaning to reach out to you for at least a couple of years now to ask you about the story behind your amazing Dagwood sandwich photo. You probably don't know me, but aside from being a contributor to enWP I also write a blog about Wikipedia, The Wikipedian. I've recently started an interview series about interesting work by Wikimedians that I admire (here's my first one, with User:Esemono). If you're willing, and if you think you'd have something to say, I'd love to put a few questions together like that for you. So what do you say: are you game? WWB (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. I had a falling out with Wikipedia last fall, and don't care for the way the community has gone. Right now, I'm spending most of my wiki-time on Wikisource. In what format were you planning to conduct the interview? E-mail, user talk interaction, something else? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, definitely email format. Easy for both of us, and it's meant to be fun. I'd put together a few questions, similar to what I did for Esemono, but tailored to your work. I'm really interested in the sandwich, but I'd ask about your work on other projects. I did notice that you have not edited at Wikipedia for awhile, and while I do write the most about Wikipedia, I cover the whole Wikimedia movement. Let me know what you decide! WWB (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Countries - pronunciation

Thanks for Category:English pronunciation of names of countries - it is a really useful resource for people learning the English language 78.10.216.131 11:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Latin Pronunciations

In producing your audio of the pronunciation of words in classical Latin, why did you distinguish the quantity of the short 'i' and the long 'i' but not the quality?--73.204.246.150 05:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It was both a result of feedback in discussions at Wikipedia regarding Latin pronunciation, and as a result of reading Continental scholarship on the matter. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Every I resource which I have consulted has stated that there was a distinction between the quality of the short and long 'i.' To what scholarship are you referring?--73.204.246.150 09:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"Now do the same with the short vowel sound i in the word fit."

"The student should regard the making of long vowels in writing Latin simply as a form of spelling, to represent differences of sound. Long i and short i, for example, are as different in Latin as i in fit and ee in English."

"The short 'i' being shown to be pronounced as the vowel sound in the word 'pick."

"Ĭ Engl. ĭ of 'in.'"

"ĭ like i in pin"

"Pronounce Latin short i like i in (English) "pin;" long i as in "machine."

"These three accounts of Latin ǐ, ī, taken in connection with the evidence supplied by the Romance languages, where Latin ǐ as become a close E-sound, while Latin ĭ is in invariably close I, give us the right to suppose that the usual Latin ĭ was different in quality from Lattin ī, being an open I, like Engl. 'bit' or Germn. Kind, while ī was the ordinary close I of Italian and other languages;..."

We may reciprocally conclude from the declared similarity of 'e' to 'i' the similarity of 'i' to 'e'.

Pompeius Grammaticus writing in the early sixth century:

E aliter longa, aliter brevis sonata... Ergo quomodo exprimendae sunt istae litterae? Dicit ita Tetentianus, "Quotienscumque e longam volumus proferri, vicina sit ad i litteram." Ipse sonus sic debet sonare quomodo sonat i littera. Quomodo dicis evitat, vicina debet esse- sic pressa, sic angusta uta vicina sit ad i litteram. Quando vis dicere brevem e, simpliciter sonat.

Servius, writing in the fourth century:

E quando producitur vicinum est ad sonum i litterae, ut meta; quando autem correptum, vicinum est ad sonum diphthongi, et equus

Publius Consentius, writing in the fifth century:

Medium quendam sonum inter e et i (i littera), ubi in medio sermone est, ut hominem. Mihi tamen videtur quando producta est plenior vel acutior esse, quando autem brevis est, medium sonum exhibere debet.

Either the pronunciation contemporary with these grammarians changed to make their commentary too late for acceptability, (with the pronunciation somehow having been altered over several centuries and then reverting back to the classical pronunciation), or this extraordinary "Continental" scholarship to which you refer provides a more reliable analysis than the Romans' observations on their own language.--73.204.246.150 13:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested in specific examples of scholarship to which you are referring which maintain the position that there were no difference in quality between long and short vowels. The excerpt from Servius and Publius unambiguously state that there was a difference in quality between long 'e' and short 'e.' Either the ancient grammarians are unreliable, their commentary, having been written several centuries after the golden age, is too late to be considered contemporary with the classical pronunciation, or your pronunciation is the result of reading scholars who ignored or disregarded undeniable firsthand accounts.--HerbSewell (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The Classical Latin period is generally considered to have ended in 200 A.D. You can read more at Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That seems completely irrelevant. Such an explanation would necessitate that a different pronunciation developed several hundred years after in which there was a difference in qualities between long and short vowels and then reverted back to the classical pronunciation as seen in the Romance languages, in which the distinction of long and short vowels is only in quantity. There is orthographic evidence that this distinction existed well before the beginning of the classical period.--HerbSewell (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's great that you have so much interest in this topic, but I do not have the time or the interest to carry on an academic disucssion at this time. I spent three years researching this topic before I began to record my files. If you wish to pursue this topic on your own, then I encourage that. But, as I said, I do not have the time or interest for such a conversation at present. My time is being spent elsewhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In order to assist me "pursue this topic on my own," would you kindly cite examples of such "Continental scholarship" which provide evidence for the theory that there was no difference in quality between vowels of different length? On several occasions you have intimated the existence of this scholarship and a concurrence among that which originates from the continent on this matter, (apparently not considering Roman scholarship "Continental"), while you have not, to my knowledge, named any of these sources. As you said that you have studied this subject for three years, surely it would not be so difficult to identify one source which supports the position which you have taken.--HerbSewell (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You also neglected to pronounce final syllables that ended with an "m" as nasalized vowels.--73.204.246.150 00:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

audio file

When you get time can you please do and audio sound for the word "community" Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsubzero93 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there already is one: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

yeah, but can you please do a male version? Really like your country pronunciations. Mrsubzero93 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Any chance you could still do a male version and name it something like en-us-community2.ogg ? I ask because I really liked your country and state pronunciations. Thanks. Mrsubzero93 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

En-us-Appalachian.ogg

Content moved to "wiktionary:en:Talk:Appalachian#pronunciation." Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[Date]

Hi EncycloPetey, what do the brackets mean?[2] --Arnd (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Brackets around publication dates usually means that the date is the official date, but isn't the actual date. I see this most often with scientific literature where priority of publication is important who determining who got there first. Sometimes a scientific journal will be published with a date printed on it, but the printed date is wrong (for various reasons), or the release was delayed, etc.

In this case, the date in the brackets is the official date of the first edition of the book, according to the book/publisher, but isn't actually the first date the work was published. Neither Commons nor Wikidata have a mechanism for dealing with this kind of issue, as far as I can tell, and for some publications knowing both dates is of value. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I would really like to see a template for such dates to make it clear for non-profis. --Arnd (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

File.ogg audio file information bugs

I uploaded a series of LibriVox recordings (listed below). They all seem to have uploaded just fine, and they seem to play just fine. However, the top of each file page says: "Invalid Ogg file: Cannot decode Ogg file: Invalid page at offset 319" (with varying page numbers), whereas it should says something like: "Ogg Vorbis sound file, length 27 min 47 s, 67 kbps". The size of each file displays in the category listing at Category:LibriVox - House of Atreus, but the file size and other information isn't appearing on the individual pages for each file. What is happening here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• File:Oresteia Prefaces.ogg
• File:Oresteia Agamemnon pt-1.ogg
• File:Oresteia Agamemnon pt-2.ogg
• File:Oresteia Libation Bearers pt-1.ogg
• File:Oresteia Libation Bearers pt-2.ogg
• File:Oresteia Furies pt-1.ogg
• File:Oresteia Furies pt-2.ogg

Checked File:Oresteia Prefaces.ogg, the file does not have 'OggS' capture pattern in position 320 as expected according to ogg container format documentation. I have no idea how some media players are able to play this file. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the file as it comes from IA. The file plays both through their site and via the player installed here. If there is a problem, what can be done about it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Method 1: Find out how media players can play these apparently corrupted-per-specification files, and file a bug report to MediaWiki extension TimedMediaHandler so that it works properly.

Method 2: Sanitize / remux each file like I've done to File:Oresteia Prefaces.ogg.

Method 1 would help to make things work for any similar files that may get uploaded in the future, but method 2 is much much easier. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I would need instructions to know how to do Method 2. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: There may be other softwares, but I used FFmpeg. The command is ffmpeg -i <input_filename> -c copy <output_filename> --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thank you for renaming and graphically improving my uploaded images from Category:The osteology of the reptiles. Abyssal (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edit

[3]: Thanks, my next step was to filter through these and remove the pronunciation ones since they were categorised already as such, but I was running into browser crashing issues. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

template assistence....

Thanks for the template pointer. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert on Flueron

Thank you for being on the ball, I still can't figure out how that got saved accidentally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes the software does strange things. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

True, but I'm somewhat paranoid when such things happen..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Unidentified impression on old wood.jpg

Hello,

You're saying that this is not the Bosch painting in the Wellcome Collection. Maybe that's because it shows the reverse rather than the front. But maybe I'm misled by the description on http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/record=b1202649. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like it may be a Papal stamp, and I can't tell to what it was affixed, but it clearly isn't an oil painting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not? It looks like it's stuck on a piece of panel, that could be the backside of the painting. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The backside would be the object to which the painting is attached, not the painting itself. The painting is the painted surface, not the back, not the frame, not the room in which it is located. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Image without license

File:Divisiones bryophytarum.png

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 22:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Norfolk Island pronunciation

Hi EncycloPetey

In 2008 you loaded in WP:Norfolk Island an Ogg Vorbis file with pronunciation of "Norfolk island", stated to be in US English. If you would like to look at "Norfolk Island", Talk, 23. American pronunciation of the name, you will see that some of us are puzzled. Can you clarify? If the pronunciation isn't actually from NI, I'd agree with removing the file. Kindly respond on that Talk page. Wikiain (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not know which Talk page you mean. American English pronunciations are fine, and are needed for Wiktionary, which utilizes pronunciations from all regions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Victoria Barrier and Land

I just wanted to say that I would not have stopped everything I was doing and uploaded a new version over this image. I started poking at the prints first so I was already involved and had the new version before I looked at this. And I have done what I described before.

Frankly, it is a well done image. I don't know that I could have done better with the software I use before version 2.9. It has problems. Jpeging is the word I use because the word artifacts has too great a history and usually means by now valuable or interesting. Jpeg artifacts are where the pixels have all lined up into more visible squares. Huffman tables....

It is a good name. It is the name space. I am thinking it should be used for a tutorial of how to do engravings. I think you should write it with this engraving, especially has you have such a long history here with sound files (as I remember it). --RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about in most of your posts because you ramble. If you wish to say something, then say it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

JIF is pronounced jif. GIF is pronounced gif. Then. That you do know.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

and laser (Light Amplificaton (æmplɪfɪˈkeɪʃən) by Stimulated Emission (ɪˈmɪʃən) of Radiation) is thus not pronounced "leɪz.əɹ" but "læsɪɹ"

same logic

and yeah, of course I pronounce "GIF" as "jif" 193.175.5.176 16:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Poets

Dear colleague, the poets are a type of writers. So their categories are subcategories of the categories for writers. Just look at the „Category:Writers“ and you will find there the poets in „Category:Writers by format“. Have a nice night! --Elkost (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Elkost: You are incorrect. Not all poets are writers, especially in the ancient world. While all poets are authors, they are not always writers. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Literary works by H. G. Wells & Works by H. G. Wells

Hi,

Take in account that some works by Wells are literary but some are not. So your move is not very good...

Regards Electron ツ ➧☎ 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The distinction between "book" and "literary work" is very unclear. And if you look at what was in "works" there is only one movie that is not a literary work. Having one category for all the works except the one film was silly, especially since the one film was not a work by Wells. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

These: Category:Sketches by H. G. Wells are also not the literary works, strictly... But OK. Now is much better than the mess that was some hours before in the author's category. Electron ツ ➧☎ 22:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. When I stumble across an author category that is completely disorganized, I try my best to give it a thorough cleanup. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

--Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: substing your message; the header is not displaying as a section because the subject is a template call. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah...apparently there is an issue with the lua module that controls the autotranslation which I didn't realize. You can't substitute an autotranslation else it errors. Unfortunately it appear that the mass message system and translation systems don't play well together, which I wasn't aware of since it looked fine in the mass message interface when I previewed it. My apologies about that. --Majora (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Woollgar Verrall

You recently reverted changes I made to this cat, as a result it is now listed incorrectly in 1851 births and 1912 deaths in alphabetical order by christian/given name, rather than by surname as it correctly should be. With regard to surname it no longer appears at the bottom of the cat at all and is no longer listed under the Verrell surname. In other words the automatic addition from Wikidata is, in this case, corrupting the cats mentioned above and is doing so in hundreds of other similar cases. Obviously the template being used from Wikidata is faulty and must be corrected urgently. Until then please revert to my changes. Ardfern (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it is appearing in both categories in the correct place. Sometimes it takes a few minutes for the software to keep up with changes. Next time, do not panic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for ensuring Wikidata element is now working properly. No panic on this side thanks very much and it was more than a few minutes for the software to keep up, more like days - I even checked it two or three times earlier today and it still hadn't changed. It was also like that on numerous other cats. Ardfern (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Other examples of the Wikidata problem include: Category:Jessie Fothergill, Category:Theodor Quentin, Category:Karel Raymakers, Category:Konrad Zaleski and Category:Alexander Bulygin. The Bulygin one has been like that for the last 2-3 days that I have seen. This seems to be a very widespread problem - there are hundreds of cats like this. This time I have not panicked (again), but this needs to be fixed. Ardfern (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Usually, the problem can be fixed by adding the appropriate data to the Wikidata item. If you have a way to make a "null edit" to the Category after editing the data item, it speeds up the process and enacts the change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This is crazy - in order to make it right in Commons I have to go into Wikidata and add the appropriate data?? This is making work for people working in Commons that they do not need - this will have to be done hundreds of times - those adding the Wikidata should get it right in the first place. Ardfern (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

For instance in the first page of Category:Jackson (surname) alone there are/were 28 cats listed by given name rather than surname as they should be due to the use of Wikidata Infoboxes. Something is very wrong here (no panic). Ardfern (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

People editing in Wikidata are the same people editing in other projects. The difference is that content added to Wikidata becomes usable across all projects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

File:A Passage to India.djvu

File:A Passage to India.djvu 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!

--ghouston (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

not such a good cat

The categories to get rid of was "books by" and "literary works by" which deserve the label "superfluous", leaving the books to appear first in the authors cat.

Authors hometown, statues, festivals, clubs named after them, places they slept, etc. require scrolling.

Also, you have been flying under my radar (watchlist) and its nice to see you again. Especially if you are the smart egg dropping Petey and not the limited single quotes variety.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Books are a subcategory of Works on Commons. There are super-categories for things named for a person. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata is going to help to get rid of that. The authors name can be catted simply and sweetly into authors cats and the individual book cats (when they exist) can go into super book cats, by year and publisher and cover color or whatever. It is wrong to have to navigate through two cats to get from W. Irving to his books. "Superfluous" <-- I promise to look that word up, btw. I think I might like it....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not "wrong". Commons uses a consistent category structure so that the same categories will always be found in the same place. This is especially important since it serves an international community. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Kunstformen der Natur - plate 82 (Hepaticae)

I don't understand why you removed this category from File:Assortment of Hepaticae from Kunstformen der Natur (1904), plate 82.jpg. It makes sens to have a category for each plate, which makes navigation through Category:Kunstformen der Natur easier (work in progress) ; each category can be than associated with a wikidata item. Léna (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Mks

2 2405:201:A411:40FA:4051:7F2B:C815:65A 09:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:The Acharnians and two other plays

Hello, noticing your revert, Category:Ernest Rhys was the editor of this translation by John Hookham Frere. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you know that? I cannot find that information anywhere printed in the volume. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello EncycloPetey, The description on the bottom reads:
Unknown author Author Aristophanes Translator John Hookham Frere
Editor Ernest Rhys.

And also The Acharnians, and two other Plays of Aristophanes (1909) . Cheers. Lotje (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The "description" was added by an editor. The information does not appear anywhere in the book that I can find. It is information with no source, and it therefore not reliable. That author also stated that the author was unknown. I have corrected the description. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The first page states that Ernest Rhys is the series editor, so a category for the series could be placed into Category:Works edited by Ernest Rhys. But adding a category for an individual volume into a personal category without any context would only confuse people. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you EncycloPetey for your vigilence. Very much appreciate your comments and your time correcting the description. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)