User talk:FDMS4

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

[…]

Frage[edit]

Hallo FDMS4, wollte dich fragen ob du Diskussion über Problem dir mal anschauen kannst wo seit vier Monaten offen ist. Dein Benutzerseite war mal glaube ich geschlossen (Schwarzer Hintergrund). --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Reinhardt: Gerne, um welche Diskussion geht es denn? Meine Benutzerseite war nur zu Silvester (aus "Stimmungszwecken") schwarz, das wurde automatisch durch User:丶/1 geändert.    FDMS  4    18:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Es geht um diese Diskussion vom 4. November 2014: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2014/11/Category:Harmonie_%28Sri_Chinmoy,_Prague%29 --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Reinhardt: Ich weiß nicht ganz wieso du mich diesbezüglich ansprichst, ich war an ähnlichen Diskussionen nicht zuvor beteiligt. Bitte lies dir w:WP:CANVASS durch, das hat auch hier bei der Konsensbildung Gültigkeit.    FDMS  4    19:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Habe ich jetzt ein Fehler gemacht ? Kenne es von Wikipedia das nach einer Woche Entscheidung getroffen wird. Diskussion ist schon seit 3 1/2 Monaten offen.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Reinhardt: Nichts schlimmes, aber Kategoriediskussion können auf Commons durchaus sehr lange offenbleiben, wenn kein Konsens erreicht werden kann (grundsätzlich sollten mindestens 14 Tage abgewartet werden).    FDMS  4    11:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hallo FDMS4,gibt es eine möglichkeit für mich das es in der obigen Diskussion zu einer Entscheidung kommt. Vier Jahre und noch keine Entscheidung wie in deinem Beispiel ist schon etwas länger.https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2014/11/Category:Harmonie_%28Sri_Chinmoy,_Prague%29 --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Reinhardt: Ich sehe in der Diskussion noch keinen Konsens, deinem ursprünglichen Wunsch nach einer Löschung wird jedoch so oder so nicht stattgegeben werden. Lass mich bitte wissen wenn du ihn zurückziehen möchtest, in diesem Fall könnte ich die Diskussion sehr wohl frühzeitig für dich schließen und in das entsprechende Archiv verschieben.    FDMS  4    21:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ja Löschung der Kategorie macht keinen Sinn. Habe es auch nochmal in Diskussion geschrieben. Wenn es für dich möglich ist Kategorie umzubennen ist das Thema abgehackt.Danke ! --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Reinhardt: Sorry, dass die Statue auch einen englischen Namen hat habe ich übersehen. Damit werde ich die Kategorie wohl tatsächlich bald umbenennen (verschieben) können, gemäß unserer language policy.    FDMS  4    16:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Florian, so weit wie ich Diskussion verstehe sind sich alle Disskussionsteilnehmer damit einverstanden Kategorie umzubenennen nach: The Statue of Harmony (Prague). Kann ich das selber machen oder muss das ein Admin machen ? Bzw. was ist deine Meinung dazu.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Reinhardt: CFDs müssen nicht von Admins geschlossen werden, wenn du die Kategorie umbenennen möchtest verwende bitte Special:MovePage/Category:Harmonie_(Sri_Chinmoy,_Prague) und ändere manuell den Kategorienamen auf den einzelnen Dateibeschreibungsseiten.    FDMS  4    12:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Danke für hilfe bei Klärung von diesem Sachverhalt.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Category[edit]

Español - Estimado FDMS4:

¿Por qué quitas esta categoría? Category:Maps of racing circuits in Argentina.

Gracias

Spanish - Dear FDMS4:

Why did you remove this category? Category: Maps of racing circuits in Argentina.

Thank You


Girardelli G.Escucho 21:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gustavo Girardelli: Hi, all three files were already part of Category:Maps of racing circuits in Argentina via Category:Gran Premio de Santa Fe circuit maps. Placing them in the same category multiple times is called "overcategorisation", which is generally forbidden on Commons. Please see COM:OVERCAT for more information.    FDMS  4    21:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

File:New Fresh Wharf near London Bridge.jpg[edit]

Are you taking care of this? Then I won't interfere anymore. I'll be out of office for two weeks, anyway. Jonathan groß [talk] 09:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jonathan Groß: As you have already responded to the new eMail and I have cleaned up the mess I can't see anything related to this file left to do.    FDMS  4    14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Jonathan groß [talk] 09:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Outer Wilds poster (no credits).jpg[edit]

A separate OTRS email was sent for the edit you reverted. The email needs to be associated with the existing ticket, if possible. czar  18:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done.    FDMS  4    22:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

autocat[edit]

Die Ausgabe ist fuer Sprachen ausser Englisch inkonsistent und teilweise falsch. Beispielsweise:

{{autocat|templateName|value1}}
{{Image template notice|templateName|value1}}

Spricht etwas dagegen einen redirect von Template:Autocat nach Template:image template notice anzulegen? --McZusatz (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@McZusatz: Ursprünglich wollte ich {{autocat}} eh zu einem redirect machen, nur stellte ich dann fest dass {{autocat}} Parameter hat die {{image template notice}} nicht kennt und {{image template notice}} spezifischer (spricht immer von Dateien) ist und somit der redirect eher in die andere Richtung gehen sollte. Am optimalsten wäre es, würde {{autocat}} das Design von {{image template notice}} übernehmen und {{image template notice}} {{autocat|ns=File}} o. ä. transkludieren. Oder meinst du mit inkonsistent [Layout ja, sonst eig. nein; Anm.] und teilweise falsch etwas anderes?    FDMS  4    23:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, dein Vorschlag ergibt Sinn. Dann waere der erste Schritt also, die anderen Sprachversionen von {{autocat}} auf die englische abzustimmen. --McZusatz (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit to commons: source page[edit]

I see you recently undid my edits to the page COM:SOURCE. I had added the text because the image File:Sacrifice of Isaac-Caravaggio (Uffizi).jpg has a problematic source field, and this has caused the image to fail as a candidate for Featured Picture on the English Wikipedia. I felt it was important to make clear to uploaders the importance of including valid source info, since even this file was uploaded by an admin who didn't understand its importance. Thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@KDS4444: I have converted your NSD tag into a regular deletion request. There is no policy saying that we should delete files that are clearly PD just because the source information provided isn't very detailed. As for Commons:Essential information, I don't think that's the right place to explain English Wikipedia FP requirements and to be honest, to my ears, your addition to that page sounded quite rude, especially but not only given that there is no consensus that these are requirements, at least none that I know of. The non-rude, realistic version would be "the more info you provide the better", which is however kind of obvious.    FDMS  4    23:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if my additions to the page came across as overbearing. I was trying to emphasize already-included instructions such as "In order to make sure that the license is accurate, the file description page needs to mention where a file came from". It seems contradictory to have demands like that in the list of essential information but then not treat it as essential in a given case. The red star next to the "Source" field on the file upload page also seems to suggest its essential nature. Or are you suggesting that such information is just not essential for anything clearly PD? And if that is the case, wouldn't it be useful for us to say so somewhere? I am trying to find ways to reduce ambiguity when it comes to what a file needs in order to be uploaded because so many uploaders do not seem to understand the requirements... Except they apparently aren't always requirements, which means the ambiguity remains. Ah, well. It seemed worth a try. I guess it's like the Middle East: no solution. KDS4444 (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm suggesting that, there is {{unknown}} for such cases. Although COM:EI isn't that prominently linked to, I will look into (possibly rewriting) it this evening on 2015-03-21 and answer in more detail afterwards. Stay optimistic!    FDMS  4    14:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@KDS4444: Sorry for the delay, like the new version? Commons' Dubai :) ?    FDMS  4    20:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/152825270/152826681[edit]

Hi. I undid this due to the never-gonna-get-archived h1 headings. Would you elaborate on how {{section resolved}} didn't work? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: Indeed, h1 headings, should've thought about them, sorry. ArchiveBot didn't fully support them either, maybe SpBot could just remove empty h1 headings when archiving, User:Euku? {{section resolved}} requires {{autoarchive resolved section}}, maybe both archive methods could be used on COM:VP?    FDMS  4    13:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't know about the timeout parameter. And sure, using both methods should be okay afaik (COM:BWR use this method), as long as not all of the sections get {{section resolved}} --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done.    FDMS  4    14:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Template revert[edit]

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)