User talk:FDMS4/archive/2015/II

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

Template revert

You realize the "default appearance" looks like absolute crap for some users, right? (It's looks almost unreadable on the Windows 8 machine I have to use at work, for example.) What's wrong with just using "sans-serif"? Far more users will have a reasonable default for that font setting. And the "condensed" setting just makes it worse. - dcljr (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dcljr: As I said, this is a very specific layout/formatting template, used by people who want its output to look exactly like that. It can't be that bad (I sometimes use Windows 10 to edit Commons myself) as two of the biggest Wikipedias have the same template with the same font formatting. Still, if you've created a page you would like to see a different kind of header on, feel free to create another header template.    FDMS  4    16:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Your characterizations of this template are somewhat misleading (or misguided). This is not an "alternative" template that some small communities on this wiki have decided to use (as is the case on the English Wikipedia, for example). This is (apparently) the portal header formatting template here on Commons, and it's being used on the Village pump, one of the highest-traffic discussion pages on the wiki. So, saying it's "used by people who want its output to look exactly like that", while technically true (and the same could be said of any template, BTW), doesn't really describe the reality of the situation. Furthermore, while this template does indeed exist on the largest Wikipedia, the number of portals there that are actually using it comes to a grand total of 2 (on very similar topics: mountains and ore mountains). It seems to have come originally from the German Wikipedia, where it is used in a great many portals. I can only assume that the fonts specified in the template are more common in German-speaking countries. In any case, there's really no good reason to use specific font choices like this, but if it will make you feel better, I'll open a discussion about this on the Village pump. - dcljr (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you mean these people? Very well... - dcljr (talk)
JFTR, I meant people (= individual editors) who use the template on pages of any namespace. Commons doesn't have any portals and no, that [[it is] used by people who want its output to look exactly like that] could [not] be said of any template – for example, I tag files with {{Remove border}} although it is horribly long and does not (yet; on my todo list) use our unified message box style. German uses the same letters as English plus Ää, Öö, Üü and ß, therefore there are also no "German-only" fonts – in fact, both Gill Sans and Futura are actually quite popular globally AFAIK.    FDMS  4    21:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
My point was that the fact that a template is being used doesn't mean it should not be changed. And I didn't say anything about "German only" fonts. - dcljr (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: File:Pussy.jpg

I am perplexed by your declining to move File:Pussy.jpg as requested. As w:Pussy (disambiguation) demonstrates, this is a highly ambiguous term, for which the name of a particular horse is a comparatively obscure meaning. This is a paradigm case of a move that should be carried out under file renaming criterion 2. BD2412 T 15:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Responded to your VP post, please keep discussions at one venue.    FDMS  4    16:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Very well. BD2412 T 16:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Revert Category:Pharmacies in Salzburg (state)

Hallo FDMS4, ich verstehe dein Revert dieser Kategorie zu einer !-, also Teilkategorie nicht. Das Hauptverzeichnis Category:Pharmacies ist eine Unterkategorie von Category:Shops by product und wird dort völlig gleich wie alle anderen Läden gehandelt (was ja der Sache nach auch so ist und damit richtig ist). --Eweht (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Eweht, völlig korrekt, das ist was ich wollte. Grüße,    FDMS  4    10:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Template PD-AR

Hello, Could you give a good explanation for reverting the template PD-Argentina? I created that template comprising all the copyright information not only for photos but for other forms of artistic works, such as drawings, paintings, cinema works, among others.

If you disagree with the template or think something is wrong, you can discuss it first but reverting automatically is not the way. Thanks. Fma12 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

PD: I also created {{PD-AR-Gov}} and {{PD-AR-Signs}} for other type of Argentine works. I'm not a rookie here and my edits and contributions have always been in good faith. Fma12 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fma12: Although none of that applies to redirects (!) of licensing (!) templates, there is an important difference between bold–revert–discuss and bold–revert–revert–discuss. Not only on wikis but in all (pseudo)democratic organisations consensus for controversial changes has to be established first. I have contested your change, therefore reinstating it constitutes an editwar which I'm asking you not to start.    FDMS  4    20:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Fma12: Reinstate the redirect now or I'm going to report your behaviour at the COM:AN/U.    FDMS  4    20:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said you before, I created a template that comprises all the legal statements of Argentine copyright (as other templates do). You did not give any explanation for your reversions and YOU was the person who started an edit war that I can't carry on. I'll report your non-sense reversions right now. Fma12 (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Torvastad kirke / church

Hi. I just wonder why you reverted the edits on the church at Torvastad. Most of the categories for churches and other buildings in Norway use their name in Norwegian. There might in some cases be a bit of disagreement of whether to use the bokmål spelling kirke or nynorsk kyrkje, but I haven't noticed any real disagreement about using the Norwegian category names. Blue Elf (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Blue Elf: Please read COM:LP, that's a Wikimedia Commons policy and deals with the naming of categories. If you want me to, I can rename all Norwegian church categories when I find the time to do so.    FDMS  4    20:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

My template

I apologize, but I am not sure to understand your request. I can easily delete a redirect being flagged as administrator, but how am I supposed to move it to my userspace? User:Blackcat/Sergio D'Afflitto permission you mean? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Blackcat, yes, please go to Special:MovePage/Template:Sergio_D'Afflitto_permission and enter a page title in your userspace (like User:Blackcat/permission).    FDMS  4    23:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Your question on Fastily's RfA

Hello. You asked some questions about my comments on Fastily's RfA but I don't want to distract attention from that so I'm going to respond here. As I have understood it, an edit war occurs when two or more users revert each other's edits in a short space of time:

In the space of 15 minutes you reverted Fry six times - to me that looks like edit-warring, especially when you did your second revert in the Bulgarian category. I agree it was overcategorization by Fry but it wasn't vandalism so you should not have immediately gone and reverted Fry even if he didn't respond politely to your message. Equally Fry shouldn't have reverted you but should have engaged in discussion. You are both prolific contributors and I would rather see you both put this behind you and get on with doing what you are good at. Green Giant (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your views (and for not loosing faith in me :) )! At the time I removed the Bulgaria category, I wasn't aware that it has been added by Fry1989 and also didn't find any other symbol overcategorisations by Fry1989 (because there weren't any IIRC). Normally, I wouldn't have removed the category a third time, but given that he had been reverted by other users on all (?) other symbols categories, I didn't count my 2015-04-26 revert. Despite clicking undo more often than that, I'd still say there have been only 2 reverts of mine, as I don't think it makes a difference whether a change made to many pages or just one is reverted (although not a Commons policy, that only reverts made on a single page count is also what w:WP:3RR says). As for "it wasn't vandalism", it was disruptive, and from your AN/U comments I get that you're generally seeing the good in people more than I sometimes am :) . PS: I did not revert Fry1989 on symbols of the Kingdom of Denmark.    FDMS  4    19:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Aye, I prefer to see the positive contributions by a user as outweighing everything else. I agree Fry's actions were disruptive, which is why it is always better to bring these matters to the attention of the wider community. Now other users have reverted Fry's edits, it doesn't devolve into a you-versus-me scenario. That way you are demonstrating a more collegiate style of editing. I tend to think carefully about every edit, often stepping back and analysing whether I could have made a mistake. Anyway I'm unhappy because one admin has gone for a two-month break and another admin has been de-adminned. We've now got INC (who recently stepped down as an admin for health reasons) offering to return to adminship to help out...which brings me to another point. Despite the events of the past few days, I think you would make an excellent admin, although I've been told that you don't feel ready. To be honest, I know exactly how you feel because I had similar thoughts when I was asked. If not now, would you consider running in a few months? Green Giant (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think I would. Thanks for the kind words!    FDMS  4    21:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Cat see also

About this, ok. I just would point out that the gray background doesn't allow an easy reading of the text and the blue wikilink is very thin. Hence my proposal for the bold. Might we want to consider a lighter background colour for this class of templates? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, I too think that something like dark white would be a better colour choice. Alternatively, we could also use {{Mbox}}, like that:
See also: User:Blackcat.
   FDMS  4    20:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
That would be way far better. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Public relations

Hello. Would you look Category talk:Public relations. Thanks --Benzoyl (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hot cat

Hallo FDMS4, I noticed that you did three changes in three related categories, if you add or change more than one category at hot cat is pressed before the ++. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, unfortunately this methods takes far longer.    FDMS  4    21:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Cats

If you wish, I will discuss with you why I feel putting Symbols of... as a subcat of Culture of... is not appropriate. Fry1989 eh? 22:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please do so. For the reasons explained in the AN/U thread I think that the symbols categories should not be top-level country subcategories, but if you have (I tried to find one, but failed) any other country subcategory we could put them in that might be a good compromise. Symbols of the United Kingdom is also in the country's society category, which (unlike the categorisation as history) doesn't appear inappropriate to me, even though the main symbols category currently isn't a member of any society category (which would have to change if we decide to implement this). Let's invite NaBUru38, Tm and Verdy p to this discussion.    FDMS  4    13:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue is that symbols of a country, specifically flags and coats of arms, are among the most prominent and recognisable signs of that country in question. Furthermore, these symbols can be designed either to evoke a country's history and culture or to shy away from either. In that case, it would be proper to subcat them under both Culture of... and History of..., but that causes a problem when dealing with countries such as China which try to "throw away the old" with their national symbols. Now originally Symbols of... was a top-level county subcat, it was only recently that TM and Cathy Richards have changed this and put it under Culture which doesn't properly envelope the scope of these images. Fry1989 eh? 17:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that only the official SVGs of the flag and/or the COA are usually the most prominent and recognisable signs of that country, and I'd simply include them on the country category pages themselves (which is as far as I can see already being done on most of them). I think symbols can only be associated as much with history as culture in general (and structures, climate and everything else?), as they can change based on actions of the present, which things like sieges can't. I agree/think that the culture category only covers the design part of symbols, but if we can't find an appropriate subcategory covering the purpose part that probably just means that only subcategories of the country's symbols category share a purpose similar enough for categorisation, since there are no reference or concepts (transparency) by country categories?    FDMS  4    22:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
From 2006 until 2014/15, most Symbols were top-level categories of their respective countries and those that were not were either outliers or hadn't been created yet. It wasn't until recently that the users I mentioned started changing that up. Categorisation not only has to be neat and concise, it has to make sense. If you are exploring Commons and you want to find out about a country, things such as it's culture, it's history, it's languages, military, transport, these are all top-level categories. However if you wanted to know about that country's symbols, it's flags and coats of arms and anthems, I would not intuitively look under culture for the reasons I mentioned. Fry1989 eh? 22:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but I count at least 6 different users who removed the top-level categories, and only at least one who added them from/to existing categories. Tokelo just still doesn't have a culture category … ?! Still thinking about the rest, please expect another reply tomorrow.    FDMS  4    18:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) User:FDMS4, Fry is completely right about this, in my opinion. «Symbols of» a self-governing entity, esp. a territorial one, esp. a country, are as much a part of its culture, as of its history, as even of its politics (note these are some times termed «official symbols»). In terms of Commons’ categorization, seems wisest to place categories about symbols as a direct child of the general category about the said entity (placing it alternatively under the categories about culture, and history, and politics, while acceptable, seems clumsy and unhelpful).
(What you say about SVGs of official symbols is worrisome — please note this is about categories, not articles. Wherever we categorize SVGs of official symbols we should to categorize scribbled doodles of the same symbols.)
Some countries, especially former soviet bloc ones, add to the more usual flag, CoA, and anthem, also the country’s capital city, while others include also the President (or King?), and the constitution (and, of course, this can be found in the said constitution itself). All this adds weight to the argument that symbols are best treated as a separate notion on its own, not to be subsumed to an entity’s culture, history, or politics.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Well. Firstly, thanks Tuválkin for sharing your opinion.
Yesterday, I at first wanted to reply to Fry essentially saying that people don't look for the symbol categories anyway, because it's a quite broad-scope meta (religious symbols and road signs isn't something you would usually associate with each other) category and visitors should rather look for the desired content in other category trees. Then I noticed that flags and COAs are only in countries' symbols category, and can currently only be found via the culture category tree, which is unacceptable.
I however still don't see how symbols generally are "history" and equally politics – how are road signs more history-related than any photo, and what do religious signs have to do with politics?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't categorise flags and COAs, but including certain files on the category page is often the most user-friendly (and sometimes only) logical option.
   FDMS  4    17:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
FDMS4, I suppose (I’m really quite sure, actually) that what is being here discussed is not the concept symbol as defined in Semiotics terminology, but a very specific subset of it — what is more commonly termed elsewhere "official symbols": Typically the flag, the emblem (usually a coat of arms), and the anthem of an independent country or a subdivision thereof. I’m very surprised you expect this to be a set of parent categories for things like religious symbols or road signs in use in said territorial entities.
(The term in use in Wikimedia Commons, "symbols of", is in my opinion more suitable than "official symbols of", as often those symbols are not officialized in the same standing as, say, a national flag — things like state bird or city mascot.)
These symbols — mostly national flag, CoA, and anthem — have obvious ties to a territory’s history, politics, and culture, as said above. If you need this explained in any detail, maybe this talk page is not the proper venue for a productive discussion after all.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Tuválkin: All of these should be included in Symbols of [country] categories as well unless they are international diagrams. The same goes for Road signs as it's a subcategory of Symbols of transport. I don't think I'm "too dumb to get it", but feel free to explain why you think that a flag has stronger ties to the respective locality's history than, say, it's government building anywhere you want.    FDMS  4    22:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, folks! I've just seen the invitation by FDMS4, so here I am.

I've always argued that categories are a tool to help users find pages and files. I'm afraid that categories of countries get overpopulated, so I frequently move categories into subcategories. For example, I put "geology" into "geography", "transport" into "technology": "companies" into "organizations"; and "people", "health" and "education" into "society".

Another reason for those actions is that I expect each category to have the relevant subcategories. So I get confused when "sport" and "art" aren't part of "culture", or when "transport" isn't part of "technology".

In the case of symbols, I put them into "culture" because I expect it there. Also, as Tuvalkin notes, the "symbols" categories not only have official national symbols, but also regional symbols and non-official symbols. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

Thank you for your positive vote at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Jameslwoodward. I will do my best to live up the trust you have put in me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Respect copyrights?

In this edit of yours you include «respect copyrights!» in the summary. What exactly did you mean? (I cannot parse «[ao]», either.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Linking the thumbnails to their file description pages for attribution (alternatives like an attribution subpage or imagemap are available, but I think it makes sense to offer an expanded view of the photos). In my edit summaries [ao] stands for among other( change)s.    FDMS  4    15:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I see; the photos are now poiting to their file pages instead of the categories they are supposed to exemplify, therefore rendering the whole thing useless — less experienced users may even imagine that there’s only 6 photos to pick from. I’ll try to change this in order to accomodate the concern with copyright with the actual purpose for these shortcuts to popular galleries. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Are you sure using imagemap wouldn't look more elegant (and also be clearer)?    FDMS  4    16:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how imagemap would be used for this, at all: It allows parts of an image to have different hyperlink (click) targets, while on this page we have six example images, each enabling hyperlinking to the (one) category it exemplifies. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Like that (initially wanted to boldly change the category page myself, but somehow never finished and now I can't find the tab):
   FDMS  4    21:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a good idea, clarifies that the "🛈" refers to the image, not the subject. I’ll go for it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Aha, already done, okay. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions to Wikimedia Commons! And specially for inform me about this problem in some of my uplouds to Commons. I'm beeing resolve this incorrections. Thanks.--Josuevg (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Views from outside of trains

Hello,

About this category, I think it was a useful category, because it categorized any picture taken from outside of trains (in countries where it is still possible, with the arm outside from the window), so that the train itself is visible on the picture. And not only usual views from train windows. It would be a good way to separate these two kinds of views from trains I think, users who wants to find only pictures from outside of trains would find them easier. I talked about it with Yann who deleted the category when it was empty, he doesn't seem against that idea. What do you think? Thanks a lot. Jeriby (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jeriby: The category should not be recreated as Views from outside of trains, maybe under a different name (suggestions?). The category also contained photos like Betveen epl9.jpg, which IMO shouldn't be included in a views from trains category.    FDMS  4    20:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi thank you very much for your answer. If we can create this category under a different name, I would suggest something like "views off trains", "views arm extended off trains", "views arm stretched out off trains" or something like that (English not being my mother tongue I don't know which one would fit the best). Or something that expresses the picture is taken from a train but with the train visible. The File:Betveen epl9.jpg is interesting in the way the picture has been taken "on a train" but not "in a train", or just not "in a coach". Maybe another idea for naming the category would be "views from trains off any coach" or something like that. What do you think? Thank you . Jeriby (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thought some more about it, maybe views of trains from trains? Ping User:Mattes and User:Bahnfrend, (still active) editors of the view parent categories.    FDMS  4    20:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Road Signs and Rail Alphabet

I've mailed the Department (of/for) Transport about both (i) The road signs - (and in respect of this ask they confirm the status to the commons permissions queue) (ii) I've also made initial enquiries concerning "Rail Alphabet" a font that was widely used on public signage in the UK.

Another thought: Are you familiar with the Vienna Convention on Traffic Signs? If it's a Commons compatible document, it probably ought to be on Wikisource? :)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: No, despite being Viennese, I wasn't. Thanks for the good idea; as the UN document appears to have a UN document symbol, it should be Commons-compatible ({{PD-UN-doc}}). I guess its text could also be extracted to Wikisource, but as someone unfortunately not knowledgable about the relevant procedures at all I'm the wrong person to ask about that.    FDMS  4    21:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Frage

Moin! Bescheidene Frage. Vorlage ich oder If copyright holder produziert auf der linken Seite das kleine i – Info icon. Das DelReqHandler script erzeugt keep und delete links gleich daneben. Kann das unterbunden werden? Sieht doof aus Clin und verwirrt den kleinen Admin der dann manchmal versuchen wird das Info Icon zu loeschen. Vorsorglich habe ich das Icon erstmal indef geschuetzt. Gibt's einen Weg die links zu unterdruecken? LG nach Wien --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Das Problem ist auf der linken Seite
Hallo Hedwig, wenn ich mal dazu etwas sagen dürfte (da neugierig...), kannst du davon einen Screen machen? Denn wenn das so ist wie du sagst, ist dies ein Fehler des Scriptes und nicht der Vorlage. Ich vermute mal stark es ist Commons:Deletion requests gemeint. LG ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  07:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@Perhelion: Abba imma Irgendwie is der OTRS-Block OK, das Info Icon nicht. Beide sind SVG. Kopfkratz.... --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Aja danke, sehr seltsam.o_O Habe mir den Code angeschaut, sieht alles IO aus (aber kann den Fehler nachvollziehen). Bug weitergegeben: MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-DelReqHandler.js#jQuery_bug (bin erstmal off für heute). ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  09:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington and Perhelion: Eigentlich behoben …    FDMS  4    09:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Also das düfte eigentlich nichts damit zu tun haben. Ich kann nur eine Tag-Konztrukt-Fehler auf der Seite vermuten. Alles was nicht in H3 (Überschriften) ist wird ignoriert... (da sind Vorlagen eigtl. völlig egal, sofern sie nichts an den Überschriften ändern). "-: ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  09:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Scheinbar doch irgendwie, habe es mit einer "nicht-Admin-Version" des Gadgets getestet (wobei hier keine Links zu sehen waren …). Danke übrigens fürs Reporten (und drum Kümmern)!    FDMS  4    09:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Naja (ich meinte ja dürfte), Du hast fürs Erste das Symptom entfernt (Bildlink) aber nicht die wirkliche Ursache, so kann der Bug jederzeit (mit anderen Bilder) wieder auftreten. ;-) (Habe dort noch mal geantwortet). Bis dann ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  09:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Danke fuer den schnellen fix. Muss jetzt nicht mehr so genau hinschauen was ich so mache Clin --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/164412748

OK. You got it. -Nv8200p (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FDMS4/archive/2015/II&oldid=166964888"