USER TALK : Ö

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Welcome to the Commons, Ö!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, it makes this: `Image:Foo.jpg` If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: `{{bad name\|Correct name}}` For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

[edit] Sorry on that one

re: these fixups and the moves before that... I'm afraid I'd overgeneralized, this was the first I've really dealt with 'Article space' over here, and the Categories are to be in English-- which I extended in error. As far as those fixups go... navigate via the link and see the finished table on the en.wp. I'm chasing down email change notices right now... but shouldn't need much tweaking to work here if you want to bring it over. Cheers! // FrankB 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate warning

There used to be a warning if you were uploading something that had the same name as an existing file, but now there isn't. I accidentally uploaded over this and another file today (though the other was one of mine that wasn't as good). Is that warning just not working today, or has it been removed? IFCAR 15:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do see that, but even that used to show up more prominently. Sometimes I can't even see it on my screen, and there used to be thumbnail icon of the other image. But if you accidentally hit enter with the warning, it just lets you go through with it now without another page showing up. I miss that feature. IFCAR 16:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potd

There can be used QI not only FP on picture of the day!

I'm going to revert your edit!

--WarX 08:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So sorry - my mistake, :( fix it please ;)

--WarX 17:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NSRW categories

Hey, I renamed all the categories per your suggestions (though I kept the preposition consistent: both Images from... and Pages from...). Let me know what you think. --Spangineer^en ws (háblame) 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restore

Done. Please put a note in both file pages about how they are different. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creating redirects for orphaned an deleted duplicates

Hi. Could you please explain why the heck you are creating redirects for orphaned an deleted duplicates? Cheers! Siebrand 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So that links to the images still works. /Ö 10:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for that... The media are not deleted before they have been orphaned. In my opinion you are wasting your time you could spend better... Cheers! Siebrand 12:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are not needed for all deleted duplicates. But for all images that has been in use on Wikimedia projects it is needed to avoid red links in old page versions. And for all images created by Wikimedia users and are used outside Wikimedia it is needed so that reusers can link to an image page here.

It is difficult to find out if an image has been used in Wikimedia projects, and impossible to know which images are reused or linked to from outside Wikimedia. That means that all deleted duplicates needs to be redirected. The admins who delete images should follow the instructions in Category:Duplicate and redirect the deleted files. /Ö 14:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is not requirement in Cat:D to create redirs and there is no need for that requirement. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The requirement is in the deletion guidelines, see the discussions at Commons talk:Deletion guidelines#Deleting duplicates. The important point is that CommonsDelinker can not delink links from outside Wikimedia. /Ö 13:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It only states that "Heavily used files can be deleted, then redirected.", however I get the impression you are almost redirecting every image such as here Image:Archduchess Maria Christina, Duchess of Teschen.JPG. Please stop doing that, it really is not necessary, unless the image is Mona Lisa IMO. Gryffindor (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deprecated function in your monobook.js

Dear user, I noticed that you use the includePage function in your monobook.js page.

This function is now obsolete, as the importScript function was introduced with rev:35064 to the MediaWiki Javascript core library wikibits.js. It also keeps track of already imported files.

To allow us to remove includePage from Mediawiki:Common.js I'd kindly ask you to replace its use with importScript (same syntax!). Thanks! --Dschwen 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicates

Thanks for the tip. I had used check usage, but hadn't realised the type of use you mentioned. I'll search better next time. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming von Glodedn

That's ok with me, Thx. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Answered

there : Commons_talk:Rename#Instead_of_signing_here... .Yug (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] van Gogh Cleanup Project '08

Hi "Ö", in case "Ö" stands for you being Austrian, please tell me, it would help a lot if I could talk in German.

Anyways I'd like your advice on optimized design of file names, and on categorizing, since you commented on Betacommand's talk page recently.

Category_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh got meanwhile somewhat "clumsy" to read, that's why hardly anybody comments and I meanwhile prefer to ask single persons on their opinion about certain cases. I recently talked to M. Manske on this, but would dislike "overdoing" it ;) So, worst case, you would be asked (a total of) 10-15 questions. Maybe just 5. Waiting for reply, and probably not commenting within less than 12-18 hrs. Best, -- Wolfgang (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It is the Swedish letter Ö, so unfortunately I don't understand German. If you think I can help, feel free to ask questions. I think that good filenames for paintings should at least include the name of tha painter and some kind of title of the painting. I don't think it is very important if the name is "van Gogh", "Vincent van Gogh" or "Vincent Villem van Gogh", if different files use different names they can be sorted in categories with [[Category:...|Van Gogh, ...]]. Titles of works are more difficult, since there is not always a single title, but including a title will make a more descriptive file name. /Ö 15:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, first: thanks for answering at all. For starting, I copy here my proposal from November 1, on Category_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh#Talk_on_File_names which was not commented but by user:Gryffindor, with whom I unfortunately highly disagree. So, my question to you would be: Do YOU see anything wrong in a filename like

van Gogh 1888-04--1888-05, Arles - Peach Tree in Blossom F_404 JH_1391.jpg, which means,
v.Gogh -- date, location created -- English title of the picture
Furthermore both "quasi-official" F_ and JH_ catalogue raisonné numbers, as sole perfect identifiers (work's titles are quite arbitrary, and their translations are even more arbitrary). [...] --Wolfgang (Diskussion) 10:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC) [Note: vGogh did more often than once "replicas" of his own work, which in some cases are quite difficult to be distinguished; see, e.g., Category:Bedroom_in_Arles ].

As of now, I first will "Defaultsort" existing files in this category, and sub-categorize as much as imo useful. This will sort the oeuvre, as actually existing on COM, according rather precisely researched creation-date+place, and display one-beneath-the-other all those up-to-5 multiple files from same piece of art. I left a statement about those on Category_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh#On_"Duplicates".

In step_2, I might either improve on existing file descriptions, i.e. making all ~350 of them ONE style, or, [I'm not yet certain whichone is to be preferred as "Step_2, the otherone would be Step__3] add some ~100 items, because the category as-is terribly lacks vG's draughtmanship, which is the bigger part of his oeuvre and which influences his painting, all those 10 years he worked as an artist, in a way which up-to-now was insufficiantly documented. It besides is short of his early works. WP has focused, up-to-now, on "average consumer's "great-to-look-at-&-famous" oil paintings, as unfortunately did most of the rest of the world.

cu, Wolfgang (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I think maybe is strange is that two different identifier numbers are in the title. But I don't know much about the numbers, so maybe it makes sense to use both numbers. Other than that I see nothing wrong with names like that. I think the information in the name is useful, and I don't think anything important is missing (and we have description pages so all possible information does not need to be in the title).

Sorry for taking so long to answer. /Ö 23:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template_talk:Painting#Location_created

Hi Ö, I would like to have your opinon, there. There is almost no traffic for quite a while and I need to have some feedback on my proposal, ASAP.

Further, I created today "Category:Drawings and other by van Gogh in the Van Gogh Museum" and a paternal category, for a trial run. At the moment, COM has many of those fancy vGogh paintings, but more than half of vG's work is draughtmanship, and I'd like to create some better balanced view on the oeuvre, soon. I'm uncertain about correct category names, and too stupid to learn it from Commons:Naming categories. A similar question which I asked Siebrand, User_talk:Siebrand#Let's_come_to_the_point: is not answered for three weeks. Do you think my language sounded unfriendly? I for sure did not want to be unfriendly in this case.

"Category:Drawings and other by van Gogh in the Van Gogh Museum" should contain everything except paintings, as I wrote in the description. I was reluctant to create more differentiated similar categories, because they would hold too few items, I suppose. Thisone might however keep two or three dozen, soon. Thanks, and I hope you can afford the time to have a look at my questions before Monday (this is when I really would like to start filling this CAT). 08:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories for different kinds of works seems lika a good idea. My English is not good enough to say what is a correct category name in English, so I cannot help much with that. I don't like the "and other" in the name. I would prefer to have a parent category with subcategories for the specific types of works (paintings, drawings, and maybe more types), and if other works does not fit in those subcategories they can be directly in the parent category. But you probably know better what categories are useful. /Ö 00:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were en=4. Actually, I addressed (with little success) quite some people with my questions, especially for finding better category names, and therefore forgot to pass by here to "update". An overwiew on actual Categories can be found at Category_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh#Category:Van_Gogh_Collections, Talk (does not happen) should be on Category_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh#Talk or at the bottom of this page. As of now, I call it "Draftsmanship by Vincent van Gogh...", e.g. Category:Draftsmanship by Vincent van Gogh in the Van Gogh Museum. To me, it is quite sad that there is so little feedback on my proposals for that long time, and then renames are done "at once" without talking about (which happened, earlier; I refer to it there), but I learn to live with it. eod on thisone, here. Thanks. Wolfgang 04:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas SPAM.

Hi, I'm aware that Christmas greetings are more-or-less to be considered to be SPAM, but I can't help:
Here is one more, which is from me.
Although I might have [and might in the future] disagree with you, I'd like to ascertain you that I respect and love you. Believe it or not. [w.] 16:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Deletion

What you think is also not a valid reason for leaving unnecessary redirects. Point me to a Commons rule saying that we need to have redirects from deleted dupes. odder 10:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See point 4 in Template:Duplicate/en. And also the discussion at Commons talk:Deletion policy#Deleting duplicates, especially the comments by Tim Starling: "The old name will still work, as required for compatibility with external sites." /Ö 19:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration

I restorate the previous system. First, note that the project is still under construction, which means that I [organisator/manager O.o] I'm still thinking about the best ways to process. To help me, talk first. I have a global view on this project, and if I set things like that, there are some reasons. The best is to talk on the project page, I'm open to suggestions. Edit too fast cause a lot of confusion. As you can see there, I will be away for some days. But your suggestions are welcome. Explain me as clearly as possible, I will look at them soon. Bye Yug (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Why did you delete the move request regarding heads of state automobiles? Ingolfson (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. But if I did something it was probably by mistake. /Ö 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You just did an edit at the delinker which overwrote a move request I had placed shortly before. But if it was just a mistake, no worries. Ingolfson (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sunne Eagle Jussi Mäntynen 02.jpg

I think File:Sunne Eagle Jussi Mäntynen 02.jpg should not be in Category:Värmland, since it belongs in Category:Sunne, which is a sub-category of Category:Värmland. --Zejo (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Men stenen under örnen visar hela Värmland, inte bara Sunne. /Ö 12:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Jaha, du menar så...--Zejo (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Redigering av bilder

Ser du gjort någon sorts redigering med bland annat mina bilder. Vad är det du har gjort? Sen om du redigerar om någon annans bilder, skriv vad du gör tack. Ångrar tillbaka annars. MVH Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jag kategoriserar bilderna (just nu svenska sångare) i mera specifika kategorier. En bild som ligger i en sångares egen kategori behöver inte också ligga i överkategorin för svenska sångare. /Ö 15:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

okey, vet inte riktigt hur du menar nu. Då kan man ju lika gärna ta bort kategorierna "Category:Musicians from Sweden", "Category:Vocalists from Sweden", "Category:Television people from Sweden" osv? Jag håller inte med dig och tycker det kan vara skönt att glida runt bland någon av ovanstående gallerier, sen tycker jag det är en bonus om alla artister har sitt eget namn som en kategori. Vill gärna höra fler personers åsikter om detta, för jag gillar inte det du gör om, men ja ger efter om andra tycker att ovanstående kategorier är överflödiga. MVH Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Problemet är att om alla bilder på svenska sångare skulle ligga direkt i samma kategori så skulle den bli väldigt stor och svår att hitta något i. Det finns en sida om kategorisering där avsnittet Commons:Categories#Over-categorization handlar om just det här typen av kategorisering. Exemplet där är att bilder på Albert Einstein bara ska ligga i Category:Albert Einstein och inte i Category:Physicists from Germany. /Ö 15:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Är helt med på din idé, men du skapar många frågor nu. Vem bestämmer vilka artister som ska vara bland "Category:Musicians from Sweden", "Category:Vocalists from Sweden", "Category:Television people from Sweden" osv? Ska jag följa hela din tanke bana så ska inga bilder alls finnas under de kategorierna och alla bilder ligger under artisten/personens egna namn. Så du ska tömma dessa tre exempelkategorier helt på bilder? Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Alla svenska sångare kan vara med i "Vocalists from Sweden", men helst genom att bilderna ligger i underkategorier för de olika artisterna. På samma sätt är det med musiker i musikerkategorin och TV-personer i TV-personskategorin. Jag kommer inte själv ta bort alla bilder från de här kategorierna eftersom jag inte gillar att skapa kategorier med bara en bild i, så en del bilder blir kvar. Men i princip tror jag att alla bilder i kategorierna kan flyttas till underkategorier för enskilda personer. /Ö 15:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Okey, men om vi säger så här. Nu laddar jag upp en ny bild, vilka kategorier ska det vara? Imagebydan... + personens namn och sen inget mer? Bildas en underkategori i vocalists automatiskt om jag alltså skapar en mapp med (exempel) Elin Lanto Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jag tycker att de två kategorierna räcker när du laddar upp en bild. För att skapa en underkategori så får du gå till exempelvis Category:Elin Lanto, redigera den sidan och lägga till texten [[Category:Vocalists from Sweden]]. (Fast just Elin Lanto har redan en kategori som är en underkategori, så du får pröva med någon annan artist) /Ö 20:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] J:son

Category:Jacob J:son Gate (which you created): is this really correctly named? From the one image in which the name appears it seems to be Jacob J^son Gate, which of course we can't do in the category scheme. Wouldn't that simply be a shortened form of Jacob Jonson Gate? Or am I mistaken? - Jmabel ! talk 03:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I used the same name as the article in Swedish Wikipedia. I don't know if that is his real name in official records, or if it is just the name he is most known as. But some Swedish people really have such shortened forms with colons as their official names. /Ö 14:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bro kyrka

Hej, såg att du omkategoriserade kategorinBro kyrka. Är inte säker på att Bro kyrka, Lysekil nödvändigtvis var det bästa namnet, men med tanke på wikipedia:sv:Bro kyrka tycker jag ändå att det finns en poäng i att kunna skilja på kyrkorna, så varför inte lika gärna göra det från början? /Julle (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Att kommunnamnet inte är den bästa särskiljningen kom jag på ganska snabbt (bl.a. för att det är för lätt att blanda ihop kommunen med tätorten). Så det ändrade jag nästan direkt till landskapet "Bohuslän", som länken på grensidan på Wikipedia. Andra alternativ kan vara stift, som artikelnamnet på Wikipedia, eller län. Men det tycker jag blir onödigt långa namn: "Bro kyrka, Diocese of Göteborg", "Bro kyrka, Göteborgs stift" eller "Bro kyrka, Västra Götalands län". /Ö 13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Church photo

I would like to point out that we did not throw the church picture away. We just moved it one day forward, to October 1, instead of a butterfly - because as JovanCormac pointed out, the POTD for the first days of October was dominated by butterflies. See for yourself. Airwolf (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category talk:Sylvia

Hello Ö - this topic that you have contributed to before, has become active again. Letting you know in case you wish to comment any more - MPF (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)