UDWiki talk:Image Categorisation/Archive

Info to be included on image categories

A start of a template to be included on each category page for navigation -- boxy • talk • 14:17 20 October 2007 (BST)

Categories

Suggested list of image categories (will be updated as suggestions come in).

• Uncategorised
• Emoticons
• Group images
  • Survivor group images
  • Zombie group images
  • Outlaw group images (pkers, gkers, etc)
• Character images
• Humorous images
• Wiki related images
• Screenshots
  • Necronet scans
• Locations images

I'm sure we'll need more, any thoughts? -- boxy • talk • 04:14 20 October 2007 (BST)

I think this is a good idea, but thats a TON of images. I mean, there are almost OVER NINE THOUSAND. I do have one suggestion for a category, though: "NecroNet scans" --Kikashie ^ELT 04:30, 20 October 2007 (BST)

Fairy nuff -- boxy • talk • 04:34 20 October 2007 (BST)

Necronet Scans and Locations Images should both be under screenshots unless you mean things like the Mall Logos and the NT buildings/Pds/stadiums for Locations Images.--Karek^maps?! 04:45, 20 October 2007 (BST)

Yeah, I was meaning images used for locations pages, like Image:Backalley.JPG -- boxy • talk • 04:50 20 October 2007 (BST)

Why not just make one category for group images? Then mabey put that into subcats for what type of image.--Karek^maps?! 04:31, 20 October 2007 (BST)

I don't like huge great categories full of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of images. But yeah, the different group image categories could go into a higher level category -- boxy • talk • 04:34 20 October 2007 (BST)

By "character images" do you mean user images? --Kikashie ^ELT 04:37, 20 October 2007 (BST)

Yes, I had user images before, but users often have more than on character... either way I guess -- boxy • talk • 04:40 20 October 2007 (BST)

Template images? --Kikashie ^ELT 04:51, 20 October 2007 (BST)

more categorization? I am so in on this project. My suggestion for a categorization system would be something like this. - Vantar 06:00, 20 October 2007 (BST) more categorization? I am so in on this project. My suggestion for a categorization system would be something like this. - Vantar 06:00, 20 October 2007 (BST)

       __________\ Category:Copyrighted Images (part of the copyright project)
      /          /  
     /  ___________\ Category:Unused Images Unsorted Images
    /  /           /
Category:Images
   \ 
    \   
     \___________\ Category:Group Images (also a subcat of Category:Group subpages)
      \          /          \__________\ Category:GROUPNAME images(subcat of Category:GROUPNAME if group has 5+ images & a category)                                                                                
       \                               /
        \________\ Category:Location images (building pictures for location pages)
         \       /
          \_________\ Category:Game screen shoots 
           \        /
            \
             \_______\ Category:Page elements (icons and the like)
              \      /                                     \________\ Category:Templates Images  
               \                                                    /
                \____________\ Category:Character images
                             /                      \_______\ Category: Survivor images
                                                     \      /
                                                      \_______\ Category: Zombie images
                                                              /

I'd rather not involve this project with the copyright drama... that's a whole other project. Probably better to add the category via copyright templates (after we've placed other categories). And an unused images category isn't needed, as the wiki software already lists those in one place automatically, and it would require people to go and edit the image when if they do use them, to remove the unneeded category. Categories that change with usage are a pain to maintain -- boxy • talk • 07:40 20 October 2007 (BST)

Why not make unused into an "other" category for any images that come up but don't fit in the other categories.--Karek^maps?! 09:22, 20 October 2007 (BST)

I was but you I got in an edit conflict with you, Typo on my part that should have been Unsorted not Unused. For images that don't fit nicely into any other category but are not alike enough to be made into a category of their own. Also I'm not saying that we should be involved in classify images as copyright or not Im just saying that If there where to be a Category:Images than Category:Copyrighted Images should be a subcategory of it. I aslo tacked on some subcats to Category:Character images- Vantar 09:29, 20 October 2007 (BST)

As boxy, i think copyrighted category should be additional cat that is added by the template. Character image can be copyrighted too. Thus it shouldn't even be discussed in terms of this project --~~~~ [talk] 10:34, 20 October 2007 (BST)

Latests Category Tree

Moved the category tree to a separate page -- boxy • talk • 10:40 9 November 2007 (BST)

What do you guys think? -- boxy • talk • 10:46 27 October 2007 (BST)

Rename the pker/gker etc images to something that is less survivor POV justifying. It's just something that always annoys me cause it's like deeming a whole style of playing against nonexistant rules. And I don't know why Emotes have a section.--Karek^maps?! 03:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What is less POV than "Outlaw"? It's got to be descriptive, and that's what they are, and it's not derogatory -- boxy • talk • 09:55 30 October 2007 (BST)

Page Elements

Where are you going to put wiki "chat" type images, like humorous pictures, emoticons, sig images? -- boxy • talk • 13:46 20 October 2007 (BST)

This looks like a great idea. I think the chat stuff could go into either 'character images' or 'page elements.' --Z. slay3r -  Talk  20:06, 20 October 2007 (BST)

I think, to be most useful, we need sub categories below, so that people can find "emoticons", "icons" and the like without having to go through the lot -- boxy • talk • 16:03 24 October 2007 (BST)

You mean have them as sub-categories of page elements? --^T 20:09, 25 October 2007 (BST)

Unsorted

I would recommend not categorizing images as uncategorized. The most obvious reason that you shouldn't is because if you did, they are. The realistic aspect is that if someone looked at the image and couldn't work it out, it will continue to be listed in the ever-shrinking Special:Uncategorizedimages. If you create a category to reproduce that page, however, it will grow, and that's not any fun. Catch-all categories that aren't meaningful for the stated goals (make it easier to find an image, make it less likely users will upload more images) will just end up as a waste of long hours of work. --otherlleft ^W! 13:23, 23 October 2007 (BST)

The purpose of the potpourri category is to make Special:Uncategorizedimages useful to categorizing images. If you don't have a category for sorted images that don't fit the other categories they get left cat-less, and that means people trying to sort images have to sort through those again and again, it builds up and shits up the process.--Karek^maps?! 20:53, 23 October 2007 (BST)

As Karek, I see it as mainly being a place to put tricky, or hard to categorise images so they don't show up on the list, but they're still in one place to be cleaned up after further discussion -- boxy • talk • 16:03 24 October 2007 (BST)

I see, so it would be like a 'holding pen' of sorts until it can be decided upon where the image should go? I was going to say that having an uncategorised section would be bad, but if this is what it will be for, it makes sense. Perhaps the name shouldn't be uncategorised? Maybe it should be Undecided or To Be Determined (TBD)? --Ryiis 16:07, 24 October 2007 (BST)

Ah yes, I'd go with Vantars idea of calling it Unsorted Images -- boxy • talk • 16:15 24 October 2007 (BST)

Sounds to me like you'd be moving one pile of crap to another pile. When I do that in my house, the pile never gets any smaller, it just gets a new view. Yes, some images are tough to find categories for. But why make a category that for "things we don't know how to categorize" when that already happens by default? Just agree to whittle down what's in there until it disappears. I don't see how it increases efficiency to move things around without purpose. Guess I've worked in too many companies where people do that very thing to appear busy without ever accomplishing anything. But if you're into busy work, have at it, by all means. --otherlleft ^W! 17:34, 26 October 2007 (BST)

Unsorted would be a little used category, I would suggest. It's mainly there for people who would like to help out, but don't fully understand the intricacies of the categorisation system. They can handle most of the images, because it's obvious where they should be put, but if they are unsure, they use this category, and a more experienced person comes along later and cleans it up -- boxy • talk • 10:28 27 October 2007 (BST)

I'm with otherlleft here: If you look at something and can't categorise it, don't. Leave it uncategorised for someone else to look at. That way there's only one to look. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

mini-vote

For or against having a Category:Unsorted Images.

• For -- boxy • talk • 09:59 30 October 2007 (BST)
• For --Karek^maps?! 10:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• For --Ryiis 18:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• For! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else? -- boxy • talk • 10:32 9 November 2007 (BST)

Locations

What sub-categories do we need? Things like "Mall Images", "Building Images", "Street Images"? I think at least some sub-categorisation is needed so that similar images can be found easier -- boxy • talk • 16:06 24 October 2007 (BST)

Specifically, you could break it down by Tactical Resource Points, such as: Police Departments; Fire Departments; Hospitals; Necrotech Buildings; Malls; Forts; etc. I'm not sure how many images there are for other types of buildings/streets/monuments... --Ryiis 16:11, 24 October 2007 (BST)

There would be quite a few I think. But I don't know if it's worth splitting them all up. Perhaps splitting the buildings into TRPs, non-TRPs and outdoor locations would be sufficient (we can always go in and split them up later if it turns out there are too many in any category) -- boxy • talk • 16:18 24 October 2007 (BST)

Maps

Seems like a category for map images might be useful. --Clay5x 12:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there are many map images are there? Depends what turns up I guess. Anyway, I guess it can be a sub category of screenshots -- boxy • talk • 10:36 9 November 2007 (BST)

I'm thinking that the suburb history images for that project might go under that. Also many groups keep map images for locations of their base or territory.--Karek^maps?! 14:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There is already a Maps category. Should we make one just for images, or just integrate the existing one? -- boxy • talk • 13:24 11 November 2007 (BST)

Implementation

Holy crap, this is going to be a pretty big project, huh? I'm guessing that we're going to be running the same sort of operation as the location block project? May I suggest a seperate page or category for images that will undoubtably be found that need deletion (inapropriate content, very unused ect) so that they may be processed, discussed and deleted in a controled way over a period of time instead of clogging up the deletions page all in one go? --Seventythree^Talk 15:12, 20 October 2007 (BST)

Yeah....I'll make a new template((imagedelete?)) to go along with this that will automatically place a category on it so that the sysops know that the image fits under a criterion.Once the project is completed, it will need some constant maintence. --User:Axe27/Sig 15:44, 20 October 2007 (BST)

Well, I'll be happy to lend what little expertise I have to it.--Seventythree^Talk 15:46, 20 October 2007 (BST)

Actually, I believe the regular speedydeletion template, with a little tweaking, can be used in this process. See my Sandbox and give me and ideas you think should go along with this new template. --User:Axe27/Sig 15:47, 20 October 2007 (BST)

Will we really have that many images up for deletion? UDWiki:Administration/Deletions#Deletion_Scheduling should take care of the majority of the images to be deleted and Special:Unusedimages already makes a list of them. If an image is not on that list than it is being used somewhere and thus not a good candidate for deletion. The only exception I can think of to that would be if there was multiple copies of the same image but I do not think there will be enough of those to warrant a process beyond being placed under speedy delete as a Crit 1 (duplicated elsewhere to no purpose) - Vantar 04:04, 22 October 2007 (BST)

well, let's be kind and assume that 95% of all the pictures are not in any way needing deletion, that still leaves 448 images left that may or may not need deletion. I'm not saying that we will definately need some kind of seperate system, I'm just saying that it might be better if we do. --Seventythree^Talk 13:29, 23 October 2007 (BST)

Start up date? As soon as we've finished all the location blocks? -- boxy • talk • 09:57 30 October 2007 (BST)

9064 now... Bloody hell.--Seventythree^Talk 14:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot, but it's not too big of a jump from 9024. I think my purging of Special:Unusedimages kept that down a bit. If you guys have the time to add some of the unused images on A/SD, it would help me out a lot by cutting down the time it takes to get to them. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  14:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing mate, I'll get on that now.--Seventythree^Talk 14:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)