User talk:FDMS4/archive/2016/II

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

Special:Diff/193379796

Category:Categories by brand→Category:Categories
Category:Categories by brand→Category:Brands
Category:Categories by brand→Category:Meta categories
Category:Categories by brand→Category:Categories by brand (flat list)
Previously Category:Categories by brand was category and subcategory of her self.
Español: :Anteriormente Category:Categories by brand era categoría y subcategoría de sí misma.
--Allforrous (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Permission statement generator

Well, I have now updated the boilerplate message generated by OTRS for people wishing to make their media available, and it now instructs potential donors to use your release generator as the preferred method of creating a statement of permission. This was such a great idea, and I will continue to promote it wherever I can! KDS4444 (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia OTRS release generator feedback: translate into french

Hi,

Thanks you to create this tool to simplify the procedure ! I purpose you to translate and adapt it to use in french wikipedia

Is it possible ?

--Framawiki (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Framawiki, thanks for your feedback! The tool will be rewritten (more-or-less) soon, if you're interested in translating the tool I'll show you how you can when the rewrite is done.    FDMS  4    10:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, we're probably going to want to get it translated into German, Dutch, Spanish, and Russian as well at some point, and also Polish and Arabic. These seem to be the popular languages of users uploading images to Commons. Soon, but not today! KDS4444 (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, i'm here if you want. --Framawiki (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Society and people

Hi FDMS4,

I noticed that you reverted my edits to Category:Society and Category:People with the edit summary, "people are members of society, not the other way round". Even though your statement is true, it does not therefore follow that the people category should be a subcategory of the society category and not the other way around. Consider this comment on the Society category talk page. The Society category clearly refers solely to human society; there is no society apart from human society, therefore the Society category should be a subcategory of the People category. Consider it another way: Society = People + Structure, therefore both People and Structure should be parent categories for the Society category. Consider it a third way: all images of society are going to involve people, but not all images of people are going to involve society, therefore Society ought to be a subcategory of People. I would be glad to discuss this with you further if you disagree.

Neelix (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Neelix: Thanks for coming here to explain your point of view. Normally, when A = B + C, B and C (say the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland) should be subcategories of A (Ireland), which I think is also the case here, since the structure of society isn't directly related to people (which as far as I can see always means individual people on Commons). Also, I disagree with your third point – regarding the first part, take for instance Category:Luxury, which is about society but not directly related to people; regarding the second part I believe that what people do/are no matter how private always involves society.    FDMS  4    10:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Cisco Cius (Wales).jpg

I flagged this after a discussion at Commons_talk:Project_scope#Misleading_images - it seems misleading to present a straightforwardly photoshopped version of a product (which may have a different resolution, display border or interface in practice) without clearly flagging it as such in the filename. Although a Wikipedia veteran would guess that a photo of Jimmy Wales indicates that the file has probably been photoshopped as a deliberate self-reference, a person unfamiliar with him and simply looking for an accurate creative-commonsed photo of this tablet device would not. --McGeddon (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: The image depicts a Cisco Cius, and the filename suggests that it is a version somehow related to Mr. Wales. The purpose of filenames isn't to instruct or warn reusers – such information always belongs to the file description page, where it is clearly stated that the photo of Mr. Wales was retouched into the image. (After all, the file description page is where license and copyright holder are specified, so those who can't be bothered to read it probably shouldn't be using the file in the first place.)    FDMS  4    20:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Per ongoing discussion at Commons_talk:Project_scope#Misleading_images, another editor agrees that it should be clarified at the filename level when an image has been significantly digitally altered for illustrative purposes. --McGeddon (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@McGeddon: First of all, the project scope talkpage clearly is the wrong venue for such a discussion. Secondly, there is quite a difference between Fæ's Queen example and this case here; pinging Fæ if he wants to add a comment here. Per COM:FR, Commons aims to provide stable file names; the current situation doesn't cause anyone any harm in any reasonable scenario.    FDMS  4    17:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The file is now "Artist's impression of Tandberg E20 in use.jpg" which is reasonable. As discussed at the above link, the file naming guidelines say that filenames should be accurate and concerns about stability are normally part of worrying about widely used files. A file with 100 transclusions I'd think twice about renaming without a major reason, but a file with 3 uses like this should be free to be renamed for more minor reasons, such as harmonization of naming, or avoiding being misleading. Now McGeddon knows how to go about it, similar cases might happen without anyone noticing. :-) --Fæ (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Fæ: no, that's a different file. I made similar move requests on both File:TANDBERG E20 (Jimmy Wales).jpg and File:Cisco Cius (Wales).jpg a few days ago. The former was accepted by Krassotkin, and FDMS4 rejected the second, which is why I started this thread. --McGeddon (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Why won't anyone help me

Everyone hates my images my talk page is littered with I want to delete all your pictures over and over again and when I want to help them delete all my images all my comments are reverted. And then someone puts a message on ha ha ha you can't delete your own images only other people can ha ha ha. Why why then all my messages for help are reverted SriMesh | talk 12:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC) SriMesh | talk 12:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Storkk for the excellent explanation at Special:Diff/196082253/196082949.    FDMS  4    21:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia OTRS release generator

I like your release generator a lot.

Can you direct me to text which differentiates "the media" from "the work depicted in the media"? I had two questions about that - one was that I was not seeing your generator do anything different depending on the option I selected. I chose one, went back, chose the other, and thought it was the same. The other question was that I am not conscious of what OTRS reviewers do differently depending on which of those options is chosen.

Your generator made me look at English Wikipedia's OTRS release process and question it. I proposed it for deletion because I did not understand why it needed to exist. Now people are stating reasons. See for yourself at en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. It might be the case that English Wikipedia could use a version of this generator, as well.

It is a very nice and helpful idea. Thanks for developing it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Bluerasberry!
Step 3 exists so that for example a sculptor can release a sculpture depicted in an otherwise free photograph (in countries without applicable FOP). Depending on the choice in that step, the generated release text either includes creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work, […] the work depicted in the media or […] both the work depicted and the media.
How do you like this Wikipedia edition prototype (on my to-do list: make "media files" jump to step 1, parse URLs, fill placeholders)?
   FDMS  4    14:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This is crazy useful! There are so many people who send text by email and it is such a pain to explain what they need to do to release text! This is amazing! It should be so much easier to tell people to use this form than to come to agreement by email!
I have a similar feature request. In OTRS, most people who write in say, "I have an article editing suggestion. Can you please tell people to make these changes..." This is a problem, because OTRS reviewers do not actually want to make the changes, and also, it is not possible to copy/paste the request because the text is copyrighted. Look for example at what I did here -en:Talk:BillyBoy*#Letter_from_BillyBoy.2A. This person wanted me to share a letter, and I had to negotiate an OTRS copyright release so that I could copy-paste the text that they wanted me to share. OTRS would go much, much more quickly if there were a quick way to get people to release text for other people to post it to a Wikipedia talk page. I know it is not a traditional use of OTRS copyright release processes, but how would you feel about adding an option to allow people to release the copyright of editing suggestions for posting onto talk pages? If that is something on the table, then I can seek comment from other OTRS agents.
This might be a bit aside, but about sculptors releasing sculptures - I am very interested in this concept and have struggled with it for a few years. I have been unable to identify anyone who is knowledgeable on this matter. I posted about this at
I do not understand what your template does depending on whether a 3D work remains copyrighted (but photographable) and if you know where I can find more documentation on this then I would like to see what you have.
In step 3, no matter what choice a person makes, they see the same text in step 4, right? It should not be that way, or am I missing a text change? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: The Wikipedia edition prototype includes the option to paste the textual content here, is that (close to) what you were thinking of? Sending you an eMail with one release text showcasing each step 3 option now. The text in step 4 not changing is intended behaviour …    FDMS  4    17:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia OTRS release generator feedback

The pic of Karnataka bhagawath is created by me. I have taken the permission of Dr.H.R.Chandrasekhar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangakuvara (talk • contribs) 06:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rangakuvara: In this case your photograph is a derivative work. Please have Mr. Chandrasekhar (if he is the copyright holder of the book cover) eMail a release to OTRS.    FDMS  4    08:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:DJ Many (IMG 1760).jpg

File:DJ Many (IMG 1760).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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

{{Synonym taxon category redirect}}

hello FDMS4,
I reverted your change to {{Synonym taxon category redirect}}:
The purpose is to ask administrators not to remove biology redirect related to synonymy.
As you perhaps know, synonymy is a huge problem for biology, contributors create different categories for the same species because of the synonymy.
Once, a contributor discovers a synonymy, he transforms one of the cat into a redirect to the other one.
We really want to keep the redirect because otherwise, the deleted category will be recreated again and again.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liné1! I must admit that I'm not too familiar with biological synonymy (though I've come across many taxonomy-related categories on Commons and really admire your work!). The reason I removed the {{Empty category}} template was that as far as I know not only biology-related category redirects shouldn't be deleted because the categories are empty. Anyway, it's not a big deal; if you want to keep the template the way it is I'm fine with that.    FDMS  4    13:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks my friend Liné1 (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Colleen Ballinger, in London, September 2013.jpeg

Hi, I see you reverted my deletion request. I own all rights to the image File:Colleen Ballinger, in London, September 2013.jpeg and do not give my permission for it to be on the Commons. I'm not sure who the appropriate people to contact are, but I would like it removed.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyGiffen (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 June 2016‎ (UTC)

There was a large message box telling you not to attempt to file a request for deletion at Commons talk:Deletion requests. The correct way to file a request for deletion is explained at Commons:Deletion requests. Note that licenses may not be revoked and a request for deletion on courtesy grounds is not unlikely to be unsuccessful from your perspective because the file is in use in a Wikimedia project.    FDMS  4    21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia OTRS release generator feedback

It is better to require the file name immediately, rather than tell them after trying to submit, and then them backtracking to find where to put the filename. ;) --CoolCanuck eh? 20:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, in my opinion, a notice should be presented notifying them that volunteers receive your information, and you can not guarantee confidentiality. (OR a Privacy Policy - if you're collecting any (you most likely are) information about the visitor, they need to be made aware on how it can potentially may be used, when, how you keep it safe, how they can request access to their information, deletion, retention, etc. Privacy Policies are the law h[ttp://www.iubenda.com/en/privacy-legal-requirements]. Thank you. --CoolCanuck eh? 20:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback – separating the steps and adding an intro are on my to-do list, no information other than dates and if the express version was used is collected.    FDMS  4    21:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

File:PHP Logo, text only.svg

Please, wait all my edits, actually, we change the original logo, that reflects the current and make this image with no restrictions, i see you ideia, but, expect all my edits and discuss before revert. -- Webysther (talk) PR change Original with OTRS confirmed

@Websyther: File:PHP Logo, text only.svg is a simple text version of the PHP logo and as such ineligible for copyright protection. If you want to upload a different logo under a different license, you may do so under a different filename.    FDMS  4    01:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@FDMS4: In PD "...Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions." They dont may still on restrictions, after today. i dont upload the same image with another name, is the same image, with changes about restrictions, and i need to make this clear for all. -- Webysther (talk)
Responded on User talk:Webysther.    FDMS  4    01:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

?

sir this file isnt free, It is stolen from Facebook, Why you did not delete it? --FPP (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@FPP: The file will be deleted after seven days unless the copyright holder (presumably the Facebook user) releases the file under a free license, which would mean that the file can be kept.    FDMS  4    15:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Reply:tilting images

Hello.See Category:Images requiring rotation --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2#tilting images.    FDMS  4    13:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The Images tilted and I make them straight --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Please keep this discussion where it started, on your talkpage.    FDMS  4    16:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:البابا شنودة وتاريخ الكنيسة القبطية الغلاف 1.jpg

Hello.I want to upload pages of the book Within this project.What is the problem in this Cover? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Responded on Commons:Deletion requests/File:البابا شنودة وتاريخ الكنيسة القبطية الغلاف 1.jpg.    FDMS  4    11:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Lokalbahn Retz-Drosendorf

Hallo FDMS4, was soll denn diese Verschiebung? Wenn du den alten Originalnamen nicht willst, dann verschieb es soch auf den heutigen Reblausexpress [1] - so ist das doch für eine nicht mehr in Betrieb stehende Bahn ein Nonsens. Sonst musst du auch die Südbahn auf South train schicken <kopfschüttel> auch zur Kenntnis @Herzi Pinki: --K@rl (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Karl Gruber: Beim Besuch der von Mö1997 dankenswerterweise neu erstellten Category:NÖVOG ist mir der Typografiefehler im Namen aufgefallen, primär deshalb habe ich die Kategorie verschoben. Die Südbahn heißt in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia in der Tat Southern Railway, diese Übersetzung erachte ich im Gegensatz zur vorliegenden allerdings nicht als sinnvoll (Kriterium vereinfacht gesagt Trennung Bezeichnung und Name). Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob Reblaus-Express die Strecke oder nur die einzelnen touristischen Züge bezeichnet, falls eurer Meinung nach ersteres könnt ihr die Kategorie gerne dorthin verschieben.    FDMS  4    13:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Es gibt ja nur die einzelnen Züge mehr - mehr ist ja nicht - aber nur wegen dem Bindestrich gleich alles umschmeissen, ist sehr gewagt. --K@rl (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Ich bitte zu bedenken, dass die Kategorie auch für die Vergangenheit da ist. "Alles umschmeißen" finde ich ehrlich gesagt stark übertrieben; wo immer du "Lokalbahn Retz – Drosendorf" eingibst kommst du nach wie vor zur Kategorie und der Link aus der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia führt ebenfalls direkt ans Ziel.    FDMS  4    13:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
(nach 2x BK) Was Eigennamen sind, ist nicht scharf definiert. Es gibt was die Englischifizierung angeht, halt einen gelassenen und einen agressiven Umgang mit diesen Grenzfällen. Eigennamen (proper names) sind explizit von COM:LP ausgenommen (Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names …). Dazu kommen aber Konventionen in Richtung einheitlicher Namensschemata. Im konkreten Fall ist es fraglich, ob Lokalbahn Teil des Eigennamens ist, oder eine Gattungsbezeichnung. Aus Sicht der ÖBB ist wohl das Ganze ein Eigenname. Schön wäre es, FDMS4, wenn du als Verschieber auch die Verwendungen korrigieren würdest. Leider gibt es ja kein Tooling was das Nachführen der Kategorieverschiebungen angeht. Der grundsätzliche Mangel dieser (aber auch vieler anderer) Kategorien, dass sie nämlich keine Beschreibung haben, ist mit einer Verschiebung nicht behoben.
Was allerdings noch dazu kommt, ist die fälschliche Annahme allgegenwärtiger Englisch-Sprachkenntnisse. Manche lokale Benutzer tun sich wesentlich leichter in ihrer Muttersprache. Englische Namen führen dazu, dass z.B. die Kategorisierung von vielen dieser Benutzer nicht mehr ausgeführt werden kann oder werden will. Und auf noch weniger Schultern liegen bleibt. Ich habe mich unlängst um einige spanische Kirchen gekümmert, und ein paar 100 Bilder erstkategorisiert, die spanischen Kirchen hatten allermeistens spanische Kategorienamen. Bis auf ein paar, die hatten englischen Namen und waren von deutschsprachigen Benutzern angelegt worden. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@Karl Gruber: Eine Eisenbahnlinie hat eine historische Dimension (wenn nicht überhaupt nur eine solche). Insoferne erfasst die Argumentation mit einzelnen Zügen oder der jetzige Name Reblausexpress diese Dimension nicht. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Das heißt: Ws würdest du da vorschlagen: die deutsche oder verschobene Version? --K@rl (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
[BK] Grundsätzlich aktualisiere ich bei allen Kategorieverschiebungen das entsprechende Wikidata-Item und ggf. auch die Wikipedia-Verlinkungen (schade dass diese auf de noch nicht auf die Wikidata-Property zurückgreifen), sorry dass ich letzteres in diesem Fall erst heute nachgeholt habe. Wie gesagt, die alten Kategorienamen können (via HotCat, der bei Weitem am Häufigsten verwendeten Methode dafür) von deutschsprachigen Benutzer weiterhin verwendet werden – wer einmal in einer Mutterkategorie wie Category:Railway lines in Lower Austria angekommen ist, dem wird auch klar sein, dass es sich bei Category:Retz–Drosendorf railway line um die Eisenbahnlinie von Retz nach Drosendorf handelt (andernfalls benötigt die Mutterkategorie in der Tat eine entsprechende Beschreibung).    FDMS  4    14:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@Karl Gruber: Ich neige zur defensiven Variante, d.h. ich würde dem Ersteller Respekt zollen und nicht unbedingt verenglischifizieren. Wenn die Umbenennung erfolgt ist, dann lasse ich das aber auch. Es lohnt nicht. Wichtiger ist, dass die Bilder zu einem Objekt (in diesem Fall der Eisenbahnlinie) in einer Kategorie gesammelt werden. Irgendwann wird das eh internationalisiert (stand irgendwo als einer der obersten Benutzerwünsche).
Bei Lokalbahn bin ich mir noch dazu unsicher, ob das Teil des Namens war / ist. In der Elternkategorie Category:Railway lines in Lower Austria macht mich der englische Name allerdings unrund, weil er dort die Systematik bricht, fast alle anderen sind ja deutsch. Konkret denke ich hier wäre ein breiterer Konsens herbeizuführen, und dann einheitlich umzubenennen oder auch nicht. Vielleicht weiß das Portal:Bahn Rat? lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@Herzi Pinki: Dass Lokalbahnkategorien so selten railway line heißen wusste ich nicht, Eisenbahnlinienkategorien in anderen Bundesländern heißen durchaus oft railway line (und zwar nicht weil ich sie dorthin verschoben habe). Soll ich dazu ein CFD eröffnen, bezogen auf alle Lokalbahnkategorien in Niederösterreich? Solche Diskussionen sollten meiner Meinung nach direkt auf Commons geführt werden, auch aber nicht nur weil das Portal:Bahn als Ersteller der deutschsprachigen Konventionen in dieser Sache wohl nicht ganz unbefangen ist.    FDMS  4    18:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC) PS: Habe User talk:Plani auf der Watchlist.
ich halte ein CFD für sinnvoll. Ich habe meine 3M geäußert und weiß noch nicht, ob ich mich inhaltlich im CFD äußern werde. @Karl Gruber: ist dir die einheitliche Benamsung ein Anliegen? Nach einem kurzen Überfliegen der Eisenbahnlinien in DE & AT (das wäre mE der Scope für einen CFD) sind die allermeisten Linien deutsch benannt.
Zur Unterfütterung: FR (nur französisch), ES (gemischt), IT (nur englisch), PL (nur englisch), CZ (englisch), SE (nur schwedisch), BR (nur brasilianisch). Durchwachsen, aber eher länderweise einheitlich. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Persönlich wäre es mir für Österreich einheitlich deutschsprachig in der Basiskat, d.h. entsprechend dem Wikipediaartikel - die Überkat, könnte ruhig englisch sein, praktisch wie wir es bisher bei den Bahnhöfen in NÖ haben (oder hatten ;-) - das sollte sich nicht nur auf die Bahn beziehen sondern auch auf andere Kats. Ich selbst habe immer wieder Probleme etwas zu finden, wenn es nicht über einen Wikipediaartikel möglcih ist. Beispielhaft ist das of oder from, wo ich zwar etwas Englisch verstehe, aber den exakten Unterschied nicht kenne. Bei den diversen Schulungen etc, ist es heut nicht leicht möglich jemanden zu erklären, wie er ein Foto bei Commons finden kann. --K@rl (talk)
@Karl Gruber: Ich bin gerade einige Bahnlinienkategorien durchgegangen, und meine daher mit Verlaub sagen zu können, dass das absolut unwahr ist. Die Namen der NÖ Bahnlinienkategorien wichen zu einem sehr großen Teil wenn nicht sogar mehrheitlich entweder hinsichtlich Typografie (Bahnstrecke Krems an der Donau - Herzogenburg, Lokalbahn Korneuburg-Hohenau‎, Lokalbahn Wien-Pressburg, Lokalbahn Ober-Grafendorf – Gresten, Lokalbahn Retz – Drosendorf), Destinationsnamen (Lokalbahn Willendorf–Neunkirchen Lbf), Eigennamen (Lokalbahn Wien-Pressburg, Poysdorfer Bahn) oder durch englische Sprache (Waldviertel narrow gauge railways, Railway line 248 (Czech Republic) sowie zahlreiche Kategorien mit BKL bzw. Ortseinschränkung) von Artikelnamen der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia ab. Abgesehen davon findest du jeglicherweise benannte Kategorien über die Commonscat-Templates von der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia aus. CFD folgt am Wochenende.    FDMS  4    16:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC) PS @Herzi Pinki: Nicht zu vergessen unsere modernen, aber unordentlichen Nachbarn.
Die Schweizer habe ich bewusst weggelassen, die haben ja ein Babel im Kleinen. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Ich habe nicht gesagt, dass die deutschen einheitlich sind und wenn du eine tschechische auf mit dazuzählst ;-) (5 km in Österreich rechne ich da nicht dazu). Dass es verbesserungswürdig ist immer unbestritten. Aber um das ging es ja nicht. --K@rl (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Dienstag – versprochen.    FDMS  4    20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia OTRS release generator feedback

Just went through the release generator and have a few thoughts:

  • The current version of the email template includes examples of what we mean by "the media work", "the work depicted in the media", etc. Do you think we could put something like this in the generator? Perhaps, in parentheses or italics underneath, a, "Confused? For a more detailed explanation of these terms and some examples of what they mean, click <here>. When you are done you will be brought back to where you left off."
  • The generator automatically proposes the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, which is, of course, the one we want most people to use, but I feel like we should also offer them information about contributing under less restrictive licenses as well, if they wish. Again, we would need a statement underneath that went something like, "If you wish to release the rights to this work under another license, please replace the text in this box with the name of that license. For a list and description of these licenses, click <here>. When you are done, you will be brought back to this page". Or we could let them choose from a list of the acceptable licenses, with CC-BY-SA 4.0 as the default selection.
  • Lastly, I am terrified of the "confirm" button! It doesn't say what will happen when I click it! Will it automatically submit my choices to OTRS? Or will it just produce a page with all of my release text on it which I must then copy and paste into an email? Please change it to read "Click here to [perform action X]" rather than "Confirm." "Confirm" is scary because it so vague yet so final. Give me a button that will tell me what will happen when I click it, not one that tells me what it thinks my intentions are.
  • Oh, one more thing! Is there any way we can track how many times this tool gets used to submit an actual permission statement? THAT would be very interesting to know!

Thanks for considering these suggestions! KDS4444 (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, will take a closer look (and intend to evaluate the tool's usage) on Monday (currently on vacation).    FDMS  4    05:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@KDS4444:
  • Are you suggesting that the current (very brief) explanatory texts underneath the selection buttons be expanded or were you thinking of something more interactive? I very much like the idea of dynamic help texts, but I'm not sure yet which way it would make most sense to integrate them (will give that more thought on the weekend).
  • Agreed (except that I'd personally prefer it if most people used the CC BY 4.0); license suggestions and info should be coming this weekend.
  • All the confirm button does is toggling the visibility of the generate the release button. Its purpose is to make sure we don't put words into users' mouths (or rather eMail clients) they don't understand and/or mean to say. At first I intended to have I-have-read-and-accept-[…]-like checkboxes for each paragraph, for aesthetical reasons I scrapped that idea in favour of the current solution. If you think the button's function is confusing, maybe it should be gotten rid of altogether.
  • Yes! While implementing full analytics is on my to-do list (not sure yet if at all allowed on toollabs though), it is currently possible to track actual permission statements sent using the tool thanks to the [generated using relgen [version]] line the tool appends to each release text …
… which brings me to the evaluation of the tool's usage: As of today, out of the 72 new tickets in the permissions-commons queue …
21 use the Commons release template,
15 use the Wikipedia release template and
  2 were generated using the tool.
Additionally, there are 2 tickets that have a follow-up eMail that was generated using the tool.
Before I get to measures that could increase the tool's usage: There's a suspicion I have – could you go through the whole tool for me once (no ticket or other kind of database entry is created unless you hit the send button in your eMail client)?
   FDMS  4    21:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Stats since 2016-04-25: 56 total / 14 C template / 9 WP template / 8 tool. (Progress!)    FDMS  4    14:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the slight delay, have now gone through the entire release generator up through the email generator. Let me know if anything interesting happened as a result. It looks like it generated the correct text along the way (my reading of it was somewhat cursory, but I am hoping that does not matter). KDS4444 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@KDS4444: Cursory reading is great in this case; please let me know your thoughts when you reached the result step – was it immediately clear that the release process wasn't finished, but that users still have to create the release eMail (button click or copy-and-paste) and send it?    FDMS  4    13:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It was obvious to me— which may not be the best indicator. Let me look a second time to be sure... KDS4444 (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I have now looked at it again, and everything seems quite obvious to me. I still am worried about the "confirm" button, as well as the "generate email" button ("will it send an email without letting me review it first? What will happen? Should I be worried?") for reasons I have already stated above. But even just now I sent a client from an OTRS ticket to this page using the More-specific-statement-of-permission boilerplate message available on the English OTRS wiki, which means other OTRS volunteers should also be encountering and using it, which means my proposed changes to this message were accepted by an admin there and that this project remains a good idea. KDS4444 (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
And now I am going to take some of what I just said back (but not the "good idea" part!): the word "confirm" suggests that, when I click it, my permission statement will be confirmed as having been sent somewhere. Then I see that I am taken to a page where i must actually "create release email". So maybe I click on that and I am done? Perhaps not: I still need to click at least one more time to produce the intended email, and then attach my image (if I chose to do so) and THEN I must send it somewhere... (my browser tries to start Windows Live Mail, which I do not have installed). I wonder if for the person completely unfamiliar with Commons if this might not seem too confusing (oh, the idiots I have dealt with!). Is there a way to make it more simple, perhaps? I still love it! But I get the sense that you yourself have doubts about people's ability to navigate the conclusion. KDS4444 (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@KDS4444: Better? Another thing that might increase clarity is renaming the "result" section to "step 5 of 5" (and the generate the release / view release text button to proceed to the next step). Suggestions for a better label than create release eMail are of course welcome. Also, I'm currently looking into a suggestion that the tool might require users to upload files to toollabs instead of attaching them to the eMail if they haven't uploaded them to Commons.
Some more accessible tracking is now available here (created today, so currently empty). Your other suggestions are on my to-do list for tomorrow. Thanks again!    FDMS  4    14:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree! Are you accepting layout suggestions as well? I wanted to ask for there to be a line break between each of the sections of the page you pointed me to above— just for visual and stylistic reasons, not technical ones. Looks great so far, though! KDS4444 (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, will definitely address that. Unfortunately wasn't able to spend the time working on the tool I intended to today; there should be an update coming in the next few days.    FDMS  4    20:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Ooo, another suggestion: people will sometimes arrive at the release generator after having clicked on the link on the Commons "email templates" page— couldn't we have them bypass the "start" button on the R.G. altogether, since clearly they have come here to start the process? Could we begin directly with something like, "Welcome to the Release Generator." (in big, bold, friendly letters). "Below you will be asked several questions. Please provide the answers to each, and when you are done, the Generator will produce a statement of permission suitable for you to email to us at permissions-en@wikimedia.org" (or whatever the email address is). "Let us begin: Are you... the copyright holder to the work? The Representative of the copyright holder of the work?..." Etc. I say we skip the "start" page since if they have come this far they must want to "start"! KDS4444 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@KDS4444: Two of the philosophies behind the tool are small steps and avoiding instruction creep, that's why I must say that I like having a start screen instead of getting to the first step right away and decided to have I […] buttons instead of questions. That's no reason not to have a short introduction describing what the tool actually does at the beginning (IMO good use of the start screen), though; added that to my to-do list.
I intend to rewrite the tool so that each step is a separate page in order to make it support releasing multiple files and collections and to make more dynamic instructions and release texts possible (currently, the tool (as well as the original template) say I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. even if a PD license is chosen). Due to my density of exams and presentations in the near future, the timeframe for this unfortunately is weeks rather than days.
Going through relgen-generated tickets in OTRS I found otrs:9140211#10854525, which made me wonder if tickets with attached files should be sent to photosubmissions instead of permissions-commons. What do you think?
Short update on license suggestions: I found that Bootstrap (the CSS/JS framework relgen uses) doesn't natively support comboboxes; for this and other reasons I decided to switch to Wikimedia's OOjs, which I'm sadly not quite getting to work yet.
Last but not least: 0.9.8, the promised update, is here. The text in step 4 now looks much nicer and (the user) actually sending the eMail is now step 5.    FDMS  4    14:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@KDS4444: Overread my question?    FDMS  4    10:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
No, didn't overlook, and trying to move into a new home and am wrestling with the landlord and I get distracted and forget stuff, even important stuff-- very sorry about that. But with regard to your question... Hmmm... Well, first of all (and this is unrelated), the dude who uploaded the images claimed copyright to images that he does not own the copyright to, so they are probably going down soon anyway, but more to the point, help me better understand your concern in this instance. It looks to me like the person generated the release correctly, attached the images as intended, and sent it on to a place where that statement could be processed-- what would have happened differently if he had sent it to the other place you mentioned? (would the copyright violation have been more likely to have been caught there, perhaps?). Gimme a hint! Otherwise, everything continues to look good-- dont let this interfere with your exams, those are much, much more important! Again, my apologies for the delay. Not overlooked, just forgotten, which is just about the same thing sometimes. Sorry. KDS4444 (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@KDS4444: Oh, I wasn't looking at the context of the ticket at all, but had the ticket arrived at photosubmissions, it should have been even clearer to the agent that the customer probably wanted us to upload his submitted file instead of being told to do it himself. The question is: Aren't all releases of attached files actually photosubmissions? (Absolutely no urgency here, sorry if I made it feel like the opposite yesterday.)    FDMS  4    00:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Good question. It seems that I do not actually have access to the photo submissions queue, which strikes me as rather odd: I was able to send in a message to the email address there, and I could view my message on the inside but I could not respond to it, which I do not understand. I have submitted a request for an explanation, and should be able to answer you question when I hear back on it. Please remind me if I do not get back soon! The landlord has taken a turn for the worse here...! KDS4444 (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ping (as requested). Hope all goes/went well with your landlord, glad I'm in a housing co-op …    FDMS  4    10:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
And that is exactly why I asked you to ping me! My note on the photosubmissions ticket has so far been ignored, so I have now left a message at the OTRS café to ask how I can get access to the photosubmissions queue. Keep pinging me to remind me to follow up! The landlord has gone on vacation and I am able to breathe for a bit! KDS4444 (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I requested access to photosubmissions and can how comment on it. The photosubmissions queue has a boilerplate response that explains to clients that even though they have submitted a photo to the queue, we would really prefer that they do us a favor and upload it to Commons directly. The wording of that response was clear, but I have now revised it to emphasize that photo submitters can/ should do it themselves AND I directed them to use the Release Generator to, well, to generate a release if their photo appears to require one. There are so many queues, and so many boilerplate responses in each, and not all of these are responses that even relate to licensing, but many of them do and what needs to happen is someone should go through all of them and revise them to make sure they all recommend the latest version of the CC-BY-SA license and that those which are likely to require a release get pointed to the release generator. We are still getting release statements that say things like, "I release my work for use on Wikipedia- thanks, your's truly, George Smith". All of those get returned to sender as inadequate and then the recipient has to remember to get around to re-uploading the file AND sometimes generating a release as well which I suspect a number of them never bother to do. Anyhow, the point is that I have now adjusted at least a few of the boilerplate responses to point contributors to the release generator, and have used those responses to send some people there myself. Any idea what the use rate is up to so far? Would love to know! KDS4444 (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@KDS4444: Fully agree, thanks for the rewrites! The photosubmissions queue is currently mostly ignored by Commons' help/project pages – it can only be found through w:WP:Contact us - Licensing (via COM:OTRS#See also), where there is no eMail template (relgen can in turn only be reached through w:WP:Declaration of consent for all enquiries and COM:Email templates, i.e. three clicks are required). If relgen automatically changed the eMail address to photosubmissions@wikimedia.org when I will attach the file to the eMail is selected, it could be linked to "more" prominently there and photo submissions otherwise sent to permissions-commons would go directly into the photosubmissions queue.
Out of the 148 tickets in the permissions-commons queue created in the last 10 days, 51 use the Commons release template, 21 use the Wikipedia release template and 21 were generated using relgen (~15%, same as 2015-04-24–2015-04-28; Commons and Wikipedia release template stats aren't very reliable). By comparision, tool users generated a release or an error message 60 times in 52 different sessions.
   FDMS  4    16:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@KDS4444: This might come as somewhat of a surprise … I've just committed a new version (0.9.9), featuring basic input validation and, believe it or not, a license combobox with a help link (see what happens when you select CC0)! Please let me know what you think; I intend to work on step 2 (file selection) next. Thanks for your patience!    FDMS  4    13:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@FDMS4: My apologies for getting so dreadfully behind in this conversation of ours. Let me check out how things look and get back to you a.s.a.p. You've done such a great job so far! KDS4444 (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I have now had a look. My only thoughts are with relation to the "doomsday button" that is option number 3 on the list. I think we could perhaps even consider not having this option at all, and instead include some text under the first two buttons which states something like, "If you are not the holder of the copyright to the file or are not an appointed representative of the holder of the copyright, then your file may only be uploaded to Commons if it is has been previously and correctly licensed by the copyright holder or is in the public domain. Please see [[COM:L]] for more information about these other licensing possibilities." Otherwise, Step 1 looks fine to me! KDS4444 (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, wait, one other thing: I think it would better if uploaders didn't even need to look at a "Start" page when they upload. They should be taken directly from the "Try our new release generator!" button to step 1, "are you the copyright holder." The "Start" page is an unnecessary middle step. Can you remove it or does the software require this kind of intro page? KDS4444 (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FDMS4/archive/2016/II&oldid=372583096"