Hoi,
The one thing that is necessary is to have translations for the category. When an image uses a particular category it shows the translations conform a setting somewhere.. Having the files and their descriptions is a lot more complicated. Just consider, people select an image by its looks.. not so much by the description.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 21 January 2013 18:30, Jan Kučera <kozuch82@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,

thanks for the feedback. Basically, I think we have 2 problems to solve in multiple languages:
- categories
- image/file description (= name + description)

I think these both could be independent entries in WikiData database.

I started a discussion on Commons Village pump - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Wikidata_-_translating_categories_and_file_descriptions

and also created a place for possible proposal - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kozuch/Wikidata

all input is welcome

Kozuch


2013/1/21 Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com>
I would really like to see each Commons image have its own wikidata
item, where not only categories can be represented, but also such
things such as global usage, origin, licensing, provenance etc. can be
stored and shared.
Jane

2013/1/21, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.rs>:
> I have worked on Commons a bit and was already thinking how could
> Wikidata be integrated into it.
>
> On 21/01/13 12:55, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
>> I'd think it would be appropriate to spec out how these features should
>> work and get a consensus on such a plan. Think about questions like:
>> * how is it represented in the wikitext? I.e. do I categorize a picture
>> with [[Category:Dog]] or can I also write [[Kategorie:Hund]]?
>  > * how should this be displayed on a page?
>
> I don't think category links would any longer be represented in
> wikitext, but each image description page would be a wikidata item.
>
> Wikidata already has various de facto "statement groups" (I'm sorry I'm
> not up to the newest terminology so I'm not sure how are they called).
> The data in the groups are edited independently of each other, and also
> displayed in various ways. Right now, there are two groups: labels and
> wikilinks. Labels are displayed as article titles and only one label is
> displayed at the time, while wikilinks are displayed in a table and
> multiple wikilinks are displayed at once.
>
> But there is no need to stick to this organization, and various wikis in
> various namespaces could have different statement groups that could be
> displayed in various ways. For example, it would be possible that, on
> Commons, in Image namespace, have three groups: image description, image
> properties, and image categories. Image description would be displayed
> and edited similar to Wikidata label: only in the current interface
> language. Image properties would be displayed and edited as wikidata
> properties will be. Image categories would be displayed and edited as
> categories.
>
> Image metadata might tie into all of this as well: these would be
> special properties that are not directly editable but filled in on image
> upload.
>
>> * what about subcategorizing? How does this work?
>
> Similarly, every category would be an item. Category titles in various
> languages would be handled exactly the same as Wikidata labels. A
> category would have its supercategories as properties.
>
> About the only potential problem that I see is that in some cases
> categorization is made logically, and in some cases linguistically. For
> example, on Commons, [[:Category:Tree rings]] is a subcategory of
> [[:Category:Rings]] which makes sense in English language, but in
> Serbian language tree rings aren't called tree rings and no one would
> ever got the idea to categorize them as such or to search for them in
> that category.
>
>> * is it only about categories? What about image descriptions?
>
> Multilingual image descriptions are a common occurence.
>
>> * what about the plenty of data that is already in Commons? Can this be
>> reused or replaced?
>
> A lot of data in Commons is already very structured, so I believe it
> shouldn't be a problem to transfer it to another format. About the only
> problem that I see is the potential need for coexistence of raw wikitext
> and wikidata in the same namespace while the transition is occuring, but
> even that is solvable.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l


_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l