Commons talk:WikiProject India

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category Trees[edit]

Can we agree to some structure for category trees, especially as related to xxx professionals of India vs xxx professionals of Indian state as we seem to use something different from what's used for other countries. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did not understand you. Category:Actors from Kerala is synonymous with Category:Actors from California‎. We have Category:Politicians of Maharashtra and Category:Politicians of Florida‎, Category:Poets from West Bengal and Category:Poets from New York. Do you want to point at some specific category you noticed? ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 05:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yann and I had this conversation before: I'm of the opinion that if something can be classified under "Actors from Mumbai" it shouldn't be a part of "Actors from India" and so on. He mentioned that in the case of the US, it is only "Actors from United States" and so on. IMO, this leads to an unnecessary bloat of the "from India" category, but I'm fine with this option if we get rid of the state categories. The problem with the state+country category system is that there's way too much confusion and unnecessary category bloat of including in multiple layers of the same tree. Therefore what I'm suggesting is that we do only one of the two:
  • Remove all state based categories and categorize everything as "XXX from India"
  • or categorize only under "XXX from state" which rolls under "xxx from India".
cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think categorization by state makes much sense here. Most people don't care if an actor or actress is from Maharashtra or from Delhi. Similarly, as shown above, most people don't care if an actor or actress is from California or Florida. I don't mind if these state categories are added in addition to a country-wide category. Yann (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if we delete "Actors from State" and keep only "Actors from India". We anyways have "Language-film actors" categories which more or less serve the purpose. Same goes for all arts-related personnel.
But for politicians we need to keep "Politicians from State" category which in turn would fall under "Politicians from India". ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 06:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought; if we delete "Actors from State", we won't have the basic "People of State by occupation‎" which falls under "People of State" category. ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 06:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to delete these categories. And yes, for other people, e.g. politicians, state categories make sense, because there are mostly active in one state only. For actors/actresses, it does not. See e.g. Category:Aparnaa Bajpai. She is born in Kanpur, schooled in Chandigarh, went to college in Delhi, and done Tamil and Telugu movies. She is in Category:Actresses from Uttar Pradesh, but on what basis? She has certainly spent most of her life out of UP. Yann (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In such case, as with Bajpai, "Actresses from India" would be useful. We can keep her away from state-wise categorization.
So if we are not deleting "Actors from State" are we simply discussing specific disputes like Bajpai? ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 08:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayana or Mahabharat?[edit]

Hello,

I came upon these images, and I found contradictory categories:

  • Mahabharat
    Mahabharat
  • Ramayana
    Ramayana
  • ?
    ?
Technically both are right, as Vishvamitra has a role in Ramayana and the Menaka story is part of the Mahabharata. However, it shouldn't be scenes from the Ramayana as the Menaka narrative isn't part of it. —SpacemanSpiff 09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I put them in "Mahabharata". That's what I thought in fact. ;o) Yann (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, why do we have three files? ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 10:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three different sources, three different quality. Yann (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not related to this particular image, but in general related to epics. Better clarified.
Could we have some category like minor and major characters of these epics? Of course minor and major would be POV and hence some different way is required. Thats generally speaking. But if you ask me, i wouldn't categorize most of these Rishis under either of the epic. They have played roles in these epics, their stories have been told in these epics and sometimes stories hint that their timeline lies before these epics. Then why add these epic categories to them? These epic categories should be only for the characters who are mostly part of only these epics. There is point in adding Category:Ramayana in Category:Shiva even if he is sufficietly connected. ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 10:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion about this. I just copied the categories from one image to others. Yann (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rama temples[edit]

Shouldn't this category (and the subcats) be rolled under Category:Vishnu temples and the associated subcats? I'll do it, but I;m just asking here in case there's some specific objection. —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same will be for Category:Krishna temples. ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 08:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couples[edit]

When we have Category:Paintings of Shiva and Category:Paintings of Parvati, do we need Category:Paintings of Shiva and Parvati? ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 09:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, this is not a "a + b" category, but an "a & b" category which in and of itself is a significant grouping. I wouldn't create a cat for Shiva and Lakshmi, but Shiva and Parvati or Vishnu and Lakshmi makes sense. —SpacemanSpiff 09:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you then suggest removal of cat:a and cat:b from images that have cat:a&b? ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 10:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If cat:a&b is rolled under cat:a and cat:b —SpacemanSpiff 03:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! Verified that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified categories[edit]

Came across this Category:Unidentified buses in India. Most of it include some sort of identification in the title itself, like BEST bus, locations where it is running, etc. What more identification is expected here? Do they want chassis number? Or are they mostly wrongly classified under this category? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely they were just added when identification was required, but not removed when it was categorized appropriately. —SpacemanSpiff 03:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cleared them now. Only File:CNG Bus.JPG left for classification. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XYZ in year[edit]

The main category of Category:Manmohan Singh in broken down into:-
[×] Manmohan Singh in 2005‎ (4 F)
[×] Manmohan Singh in 2006‎ (11 F)
[×] Manmohan Singh in 2007‎ (10 F)
[×] Manmohan Singh in 2008‎ (12 F)
[×] Manmohan Singh in 2009‎ (32 F)
[×] Manmohan Singh in 2010‎ (20 F)
[×] Manmohan Singh in 2011‎ (6 F)
[×] Manmohan Singh in 2012‎
I see no difference in him through these years. (This is not a political remark on him in particular). I don't see that difference in many other people where their categories are broken yearwise. Examples: Category:A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, Category:Pranab Mukherjee, Category:Pratibha Patil‎, Category:Jawaharlal Nehru and so on. I can understand that for politicians their yearwise activities are noted by these categorization. But that is how their encyclopedic article should be broken into. Of what use is breaking their image categories? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu[edit]

I'm trying to clean up and restructure this category. However, there are many temples where local dieties have been incorporated as Hindu dieties over the past couple millenia. Could we consider something like a Category:Native temples in Tamil Nadu as an encompassing category for these (e.g. Karuppusamy, Karuppannasamy etc). —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karuppusamy, Karuppannasamy are now (in the current form) Hindu regional/village deities. So IMO Category:Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu suffices for them. -Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are far more than just these two dieties (I can count at least ten different ones now) that it needs a subcat like Ganesha temples/Shiva temples etc. —SpacemanSpiff 15:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Varma press[edit]

Hello, I uploaded some works from Ravi Varma press, and some of these works are not signed and not dated. So there is some doubt about who is the author, and when they were made. Most of these works are published by w:Anant Shivaji Desai. However his date of death is not known yet. Also who might be the author(s) of the works not signed? Any idea how to find that? See also VPC and Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Commons:Deletion requests.2FFile:Sita_1.jp Yann (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huge problem i suppose. Someone might want to use the registration number present on left bottom to arrange the images of RRV Press chronologically. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Siva-parvati-by-raja-ravi-varma.jpg, we have conclusive proof that Ravi Varma Press lithographs, printed by Anant Shivaji Desai are pre-1945, thus PD as Copyright Act 1911 (British Empire). However, if a Ravi Varma Press lithograph does not have date or Anant Shivaji Desai, then it should be deleted as per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle as Ravi Varma Press shut down in 1980. I have updated the list above with Keep/Undelete and check/Continue DR.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. When the temporarily undeleted images have been checked, please place either (keep) or (re-delete) after their entries on the list. INeverCry 17:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updated more. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say keep on the partial. Seems like a safe assumption that this world be the same Desai as the other prints. Any objections to keeping it? I've kept the other one. INeverCry 05:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found conclusive proof that it is Anant Shivaji Desai's. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. INeverCry 05:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retaining editors[edit]

With Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 going on, i see many new people coming to commons and uploading images. But they don't stay here for editing. Could something be done to encourage them to join for good? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category uniformity[edit]

Odd category tree:

Why does it have such a lenghy name? Can it be renamed as "Nandi sculptures in India by state or territory"? What is "Nandi in art"? In sculpting not an art form? If all arts, sculptures and paintings mainly, are included in Nandi in art, what will the main category "Nandi" have in it? The real live Nandi?

As we have "XYZ in sculpture" eg: Category:Shiva in sculpture, Category:Shiva and Parvati in sculpture, should we have Category:Shiva in paintings instead of Category:Paintings of Shiva? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I think we should have the following tree. My 2 Rs. ;o) Yann (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All India Radio music files[edit]

I came across this RTI response that Arunasank uploaded. Can we create a template for such licenses (assuming that this is good enough verification for us). I'm assuming that a copy of the original might have to be sent to OTRS and this file deleted (and one of us could also do it), not entirely sure if RTI responses are PD unlike other government communications. Also, if this is the a valid license for us, then there's a lot of media that would benefit a lot of articles on the content wikis. Pinging Yann and Dharmadhyaksha to see what they think. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Unfortunately All India Radio publications on YouTube are under a Standard YouTube License, so we are back to square one. :( Regards, Yann (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, the RTI response covers I&B ministry account, not the Akashvani account. I understand the standard license on youtube, but since this RTI says that only "public domain" stuff is on the I&B account I'm asking if we can use it. I'm not suggesting one way or another, just seeking clarity here as this is the first time I'm coming across an RTI regarding licensing. —SpacemanSpiff 03:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the issue is the same. Videos are also under a Standard YouTube License there, so which videos and sound recordings are in the public domain? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to this RTI response, only AIR public domain stuff is uploaded on to the I&B channel. The RTI response is "meant" to be the final and clear response according to law. —SpacemanSpiff 12:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I know what a RTI response means, and I don't read a clear statement that documents on the I&B channel are in the public domain. Probably, you should ask on COM:VPC if you want another opinion. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I can upload my original RTI query onto Commons as well - where I clearly ask how to procure recordings that are legally in the public domain. In India, sound recordings come into the public domain 60 years from the date of recording, and not 60 years after the death of the artiste. Would that help clarify things? Arunasank (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so you don't need any official permission for these. If you can prove than they are more than 60 years old, then fine. I thought this RTI query was for recent government works, which have an ambiguous permission on the website. Did I misunderstand something? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I also thought the same thing as you Yann. Perhaps Arunasank can clarify. —SpacemanSpiff 02:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the RTI reply says that PD recordings are available on I&B ministry account. Its does not say that all videos on that account are PD. So its pretty much what we already knew beforehand about the audio recordings. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I asked for a list of all public domain recordings from the AIR, and they pointed me to the youtube channel. Maybe I should raise an appeal asking for a confirmation. I am a little doubtful that those recordings on their youtube channel are public domain recordings, since they don't seem 60 years old - but I missed the subtle "all" that Dharmadhyaksha noticed, since I was just thrilled with the reply, and quite likely got too caught up with that. I will keep you posted on what happens with the appeal. It's probably best to delete the recordings from Commons until then? Arunasank (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, deletion is solution now. I will raise a common DR for all 8 files. Meanwhile if anyone can find sources on these individual files that they are in PD, having been recorded 60 years before, then put them on the DR. We can check case by case then. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DR is at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Arunasank. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Money of India[edit]

Hi, I am restoring all money of India. In the future, please use {{GODL-India}} as a dual license. Some help with sub-categories of Category:Banknotes of India and Category:Coins of India might be useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of Press Information Bureau images[edit]

I am planning to batch upload all Press Information Bureau images using a bot (BRFA here). The size of the collection is roughly 129,000 images and it will require several volunteers to categorize the new uploads. The tracking category is located at Category:Images from Press Information Bureau needing categories. We can use automated tools to ease the job by creating a list of frequent subjects such as union ministers and categorising using Help:VisualFileChange.js, but it'll still require some manual review. If you wish to help, please indicate your interest below. —Gazoth (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support — @Gazoth: I am in; this would be a significant improvement on the current, manual way of categorising audio-visual media files. The only apparent issue would be that some politicians like Narendra Modi have categories that devolve into months and years, how would you tackle that? Great step, either way, though. SshibumXZ (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC); edited 21:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I can modify the script to autocategorize special cases like those during upload. Let me know if there are any others which need month or year-wise split. —Gazoth (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Handled Narendra Modi and Manmohan Singh in script. —Gazoth (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I'll frequently check and improve categories and any other missing info. Jee 02:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. This is a great initiative Gazoth. Indopug (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perumalism (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep and eye and categories images wih help of cat-a-lot and your script as well. I will also use those images in articles for better use. Thank you for taking up the upload work.-Nizil Shah (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:WikiProject_India&oldid=313995029"