User talk:Ingolfson/Archive 2008

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

Order of licensing and categories[edit]

Hi,

I noticed on quite a few of the photos I have uploaded, you have moved the category section to be after the license section (if I interpret the diff correctly) - if this is the standard, how can I get it uploaded that way (since you're doing such a great job keeping up with new NZ photos, I'd be keen to save you some time ;-) - when I upload an image, I put the information tag in the summary box with a description, source, date, author as the only attributes and then select appropriate licensing in the drop down below. Cheers, Pseudopanax 20:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing - I am wondering about when a photo should be in a particular category - mostly I completely agree with the categories you have added and have made a note of them to consider them in the future. 3 examples, though, come to mind where I'm not sure I agree with your added categories:

1. Image:Moon over south end of Rimutakas (Turakirae Head) at sunset.jpg - you have added category "Sunset", but my feeling was that that category would only be appropriate if the sun or at least "looking towards the sun" is in the picture.

2. Image:Wanganui from Drurie Hill.jpg - you have added category "Bridges in New Zealand", but the bridge in the picture is quite far away (and therefore small).

3. Image:A clearing in Nga Manu Nature Reserve.jpg - you have added category "Trees in New Zealand", but from what I've seen, I got the impression that this category should be used for specimen trees, i.e. single trees or a small number of trees noteworthy and the main focus of the photo (otherwise, a lot of photos would qualify for that category!)

So, please don't get me wrong, just trying to understand the criteria for categorisation, in short, should I add a category for something even if that item is a very small non-prominent part of the picture? Are there guidelines in that respect?

Thanks, Pseudopanax 20:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pseudopanax - was away for some time, so late reply. About what you asked:
I can't technically say that categories are standard to be at the bottom, since the wikimedia software itself doesn't really care where they are - its just good housekeeping in my view. I think the current upload is just a bit out of sync with that, because it adds the license tag below whatever else you added. No biggie, except for people like me who are pedants. One day, there will be a bot to sort and order it all (such already exist for Wikipedia proper). Until then, you can either hand-correct it yourself, or leave it to people who will do it on their own, like me.
Sunset - I don't think that sunset images should be *exclusively* limited to images as you describe. One might say that the kind of image you noted should go the "Twilight" section instead, but if he description indicates a more specific daytime (sunset or sunrise) why not use that?
Bridge - I cannot find the image you mentioned? Please provide a link. I do realise that in my endless manic quest for perfect categorisation, I may "overcategorise" sometimes. Would be good to double-check whether it was a reasonable choice.
Trees - point taken. Have changed it. Ingolfson 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply - thinking about it a bit more, I have come to agree with you regarding the "sunset" question - I suppose, if in the future, someone comes up with finer-grained sub-categories, e.g. "Sunset with sun", "Sunset without sun" (just for argument's sake), it will be easier to sort if even pictures without sun are already in the current "Sunset" category...
I understand where you're coming from re. categories. I'll have a look what the upload form does if I specify the license in text rather than select one, that should work and should end up keeping the order.
Re. bridge, sorry, I renamed all my pictures around Durie Hill, because I had misspelt it "Drurie Hill" - the picture is Image:Wanganui from Durie Hill.jpg.
Cheers, Pseudopanax 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) - btw., good on you for being pedantic, people like you are what keeps the quality of Wikis high! (e.g. if I come across a Wikipedia article while browsing and notice a spelling mistake, I always correct it ;-)

Older photos (?)[edit]

I have photos of Clyde/Dam, Shotover R., Skippers Canyon, Wanaka, Wakatipu basin, Oamaru church and Arrowtown. Please advise what you require. Cgoodwin 09:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

All of them. Just kidding - I was not really looking for any specific pictures (though you might want to look at the articles for the themes above and check if the pictures you have could benefit the article in a "how it looked then" capacity). My comments were basically referring to the fact that old pictures often turn out to be interesting gems. I/we'd be happy for you to upload any useful image! Ingolfson 12:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Come to think of this a little more, I am not quite sure if I got your question right. Did we have an older discussion regarding this, or am I confusing stuff? Ingolfson 12:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You did mention that you were seeking photos of Otago, but all of mine were taken in 2005. Cgoodwin 00:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I am just trying to encourage you to upload all pictures you consider good enough for commons. Cheers. Ingolfson 07:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Powerlines Over Fields Erzhausen.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Powerlines Over Fields Erzhausen.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Tautuku Beach image[edit]

Hi Ingolfson,

I was looking at the Southland article and stumbled across your photo - hey that looks famaliar, had taken a nearly identical shot only a few days ago. The tropical description I removed because standing there it was pretty brisk, cold and windswept, even on a sunny March day - I felt tropical was somewhat misleading. You are right about leaving in the descriptions, it says this in the FAQ also, "What do you see, hear, or otherwise perceive?". Regards, Benchill 04:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hello. I am wondering if you know a NZ Wikipedian who could answer a question for me. There is a new article on HMS Calliope, a RN vessel which spent some time in New Zealand in the 1880s. As I mentioned at the article's talk page, there is a website which has a picture of the vessel's wheel, which is stated to be in the National Maritime Museum in Auckland. The site however would not qualify as a "reliable source". If you or anyone you know could confirm that and provide a photo, it would be a useful addition to the article, and would be much appreciated. If not, thank you anyway for considering this request. Regards, Kablammo 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not there (in the museum) often. But next time I should go, I will make sure to check and take a photo. Even if it may be a time yet. Ingolfson 07:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Kablammo 11:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Prague[edit]

You did made a small mistake: Prague is the capital of the Czech Republic. It never was a part of Hungary. --ŠJů 20:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. The iron curtain is getting a bit thin as an excuse not to know Eastern Europe. Thanks for fixing this up. Ingolfson 04:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with the Valued images project[edit]

As you may have seen, this project is going live for nominations on 1 June, 2008 at 0:00 UTC. Before then, there are a few things to be finished off, and any help you can give will be welcome. The latest discussion is at Commons talk:Valued images candidates#Open action items for Valued images.

When the project launches publicly on 1 June, it will need reviewers who are able to jump in quickly and provide prompt feedback. During those critical first few weeks it will be important to have a decent number of reviewers who are prepared to put in the effort to make sure the first nominations are well-reviewed, as that will set the standard for the future.

Would you help, please, with the final tasks now, and also pledge your help with some reviewing on 1 June and thereafter? --MichaelMaggs 17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Valued images test review phase has ended[edit]

Dear Ingolfson,

Thank you for participating in the development of the Valued images project by test nominating one or more candidates. We have used the input from the test reviews to fine-tune the guidelines, process and templates used, hereby hopefully improving the setup.

We have now decided that on June 1, 2008 at 0:00 (UTC), the valued image project will be opened for official nominations. To get ready for the grand opening, we will close down the last remaining open test candidates in a few hours, such that the candidates list pages are emptied and ready.

Since there has been a certain amount of instruction creep over the course of the test review pahse, we have decided that all promoted and declined candidates from the test review phase will be reset to the so-called "undecided" state prior to the opening. This means that test valued image candidate review pages all end up in Category:Undecided valued images candidates and the test sets end up in Category:Undecided valued image set candidates.

The votes from the original test review will be archived in a previous reviews subpage and reset upon renomination.

Although all nominations will be reset, you, as a test nominator, will still have the advantage that each candidate can be re-nominated beginning June 1 0:00 UTC. The votes from the original test review will be archived in a previous reviews subpage and reset upon renomination. Click on the links to the aforementioned categories for instruction on how to renominate.

In addition, the project has decided to re-nominate all candidates, which were test promoted, unless you tell us not to do so on my talk page. Also, do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or problems relating to valued images.

I hope, you will also take part in the project once it goes on the air, either as nominator, maintainer and/or reviewer.

Happy editing, -- Slaunger 21:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

VI seal

Category:Bridge supports[edit]

You made the category Bridge supports but I think this is similar to the category Category:Bridge details. Happy greetings --Ronaldino 06:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat - bridge supports should be a SUBCAT of "Bridge details", except that that category would better be named "Bridge elements". I have done the corresponding changes/requests. Ingolfson 07:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

ANZ[edit]

The ANZ category was for the buildings current and former and not the company! Bidgee 10:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Image:Vevrier Chloe Adult Ent Expo 2006.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Vevrier Chloe Adult Ent Expo 2006.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--SRJ 15:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Valued image promotion[edit]

Ohakuri Dam Blue Penstocks.jpg
An image you created has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you created was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Dam penstocks .

Congratz with your first VI! Well deserved after all the effort you made during the test review phase. -- Slaunger 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I fear all I was was the thorn in your sides ;-) Hope that presence still helped in the end. Ingolfson 08:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not consider your interplay with the project as a thorn in our sides. The whole point of having a test review phase is to challenge the system and mindset, look for weaknesses and repair them. In the end I think our intercations lead to some valuable adjustments of the project guidelines. -- Slaunger 08:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That was what I meant. I'm just feeling a bit guilty at not having been more actively involved instead of just stirring up questions for you people to answer. But I have too much on my plate right now, on-Wiki and in RL. Oh well. Ingolfson 08:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Seeing some of your editing this may be of interest to you - comments/advice very welcome - thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 09:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The NZ pointer is appreciated & well organised thanks. Further thought - any mileage in an "Inland water of xx" or similar. For UK I have Rivers, Reservoirs, Waterfalls, Lakes (& although I can't find it at present - Canals) for example. I've worked on Commons for quite a while, Cats for a bit & I am just beginning to realise how tough it can be :) Thanks

Parking buildings / NZ[edit]

Hello Thisisbossi - if you find your changes reverted, please look at the edit summaries, they may explain why. In the specific case, I in the first instance mainly reverted your changes because you dumped three pictures into "multi-storey" when they were in fact a single-storey car park building (there is a cinema above, and not more parking, as I explained in the edit summaries). As by that time, you hadn't deleted the car parking buildings cat yet (which would fit perfectly as a generic category containing both multi-storey and NON-multi-storey car parking buildings) I moved them back. Next time I look, you again (!) move those three pictures into multi-storey, and delete the in-between cat. Since you were rather thorough, I couldn't just undo that, so I moved them into car parks in NZ this time. I still feel that a category covering BOTH multi-storey and non-multi-storey car parking is sensible, but in any case, please don't change those three images all over again. Regards and happy editing - Ingolfson (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see your point. I'll see about bringing back the car park buildings categories to fit them in such that they can encompass both single and multi-story structures. There was one photo in particular which was clearly a single-story structure and I was quite confused as to how to categorise it... your suggestion would work well. However, do you think it should be car park buildings which includes the single-storey carparks and is parent to the categories for multi-storey, garages, and carports; or would you recommend a distinct single-storey carparks? Right now I think I'm leaning toward the latter... it'd probably be easier to scale in the future, if more single-storey media is added. I'll see if I can work it in tonight. Cheers! --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 23:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards the former, as a hierachical structure is more typical of Commons (and multi-storey car parks ARE a subcat of "just car park buildings"). However, I would not oppose it if you still think the other option is better. Ingolfson (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I tried implementing the former, but it necessitated an additional branch which I didn't personally feel to be necessary... basically it placed all the car park structures into the buildings category, leaving open car parks all by itself. It just seemed like a bit too much branching out with the categories. How's it look now? --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 21:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Category:Former buildings[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Former buildings has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

--Jmabel ! talk 18:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Sorry about the improper category naming. Thanks for fixing that up. --Dragon695 (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting a category deletion[edit]

It is one you made recently. I know that I do not like when categories I created are politically and with malicious short-sightedness being manipulated without the lowering of the manipulator to even mention it to me. For me, it happened in a new tree of categories that did not exist here.

So, in that I do not want to be considered a manipulative female dog, I am here before I push the save button that request the deletion of Category:Observatories in the United States. I put the inappropriate tag {{badname}} on it also; inappropriate as this template is made for duplicate images. The big difference between the situation that I encountered and this one is that there is an existing and mature category tree for the image you made this category for and my problems occured in a new tree by a shortsighted, uncommunicative user. So, even more, I put that image into Category:Palomar Observatory where it doesn't even need to be put into Category:Observatories in the United States of America (cumbersome name I am sorry they use!) because Category:Palomar Observatory is already a subcategory of that.

If there are questions or problems or suggestions, feel free to let me know either here or at my talk page.

If you would like the template that warns of deletion, I can find one of those (maybe) and paste it here as well. -- carol (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting another category deletion[edit]

One that I made and instead of telling myself about it on my talk page, I thought I would tell you that yours stays and mine goes.

Category:Observatories of New Zealand in favor of your Category:Observatories in New Zealand, so there -- call me a female dog if you would like, but it is the right thing to do!! -- carol (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mate, I do not really care about the "in" or "of" debate that much - as long as they are consistent within a cat. If you want to move or delete stuff to correct things like that, go ahead. Ingolfson (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't care for that debate either. I requested that the category you made be deleted because there was an existing category which was more mature. Rules/guidelines are really good sometimes; but other times they get made for the wrong reasons and then are grandfathered in for years and years and years without acknowledging the wrongness of their existence. Marijuana laws are an obvious case of this. In United States, they were made as a tradeoff to get the alcohol prohibition rules to be stricken. Religion is another good one for making rules which make sense at the time and location they are made but start to just look silly several thousand years later.
3 million images later. I don't think that Category names or gallery titles are parts of sentences. Actually, I am quite certain that they aren't. -- carol (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Takk for hjelpen[edit]

Mange takk for hjelpen. Det er fint om du kan gjøre slettingen slik at det kun er en versjon av hvert bilde og det er greiest å beholde den minste kopien av Rasmus Josefsen Utsi fotoet. Selkki (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC).


Thanks for deleting those other versions. It would be nice if you added some categories. The information on the page for the photo tells that there are no categories to this picture pr. today. If you have added them, where do I find them?Selkki (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC).

Image:Graf von Zeppelin.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Graf von Zeppelin.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 16:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Ships[edit]

You put on [1] (Deffo not they are RIVER BOATS, not ships - wonder why this attracts so many edits...) . I made a remark on the discussion page at Category:Ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Image:Panzer_IV_Afrika.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Panzer_IV_Afrika.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Sandstein (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Castles are not necessarily military buildings[edit]

I don't think that castles are always military buildings, My guess only 25 %; think on the many Chateaux in France. --Foroa (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Foroa - I disagree, please see the below Wikipedia articles.
  • Castle - a defensive structure
  • Chateau - a manor house or residence
Therefore, Chateaux are not castles, except in colloquial speech. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thats too quick (not that I care a lot, I anticipate future reactions). In French, Dutch and I guess in many languages, there is one single work used to indicate both concepts. On commons and following your (new) logic, I guess that 80 % of the castles are châteaux, 20 % are castles. I guess that in common English, château is not very much used neither. So good luck if you want to split the castle categories in two different ones that are mostly covered by the same word. Moreover, many châteaux, as the owner became rich, evolved towards/from a defensive (or sort of) structure making them belong to the two categories. --Foroa (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
After re-reading carefully the wikipedia definitions: good luck to untangle them and split them in two different categories that work in all languages (I am even surprised that the palaces and fortresses don't interfere too much). Even some of the examples on the en:wiki can be disputed. --Foroa (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
For such borderline cases as you describe (and I am not disputing there may be a lot), something will eventually have to be found. But to NOT put castles into the military buildings cat would be against the primary defintition of what a castle is. Ingolfson (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hospitals or clinics etc.[edit]

I see you've been disentangling things related to Category:Hospitals or clinics. I can't recall for certain, but I think I had created that category based on (possibly bad) advice given at COM:VP. Category:Medical buildings is a much better name; either it didn't exist at the time or no one noticed it. We should probably get rid of every category with the wording "Hospitals or clinics" in the name and substitute "medical buildings". - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes we should, but I spent much of yesterday evening creating hundreds of categories by hand (I think I even created twelve categories "Walls in XCountry" and then had to in turn create nine "Architectural elements in XCountry" categories to fit them into int turn etc... I may not exactly get around immediately to renaming those subcats you mentioned, but feel free.
It all really started with me feeling that there were too many cats in the "Buildings by function" and then trying to sort them out... Ingolfson (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Military life to military culture[edit]

I see that the proposed move has been carried out, however I do not believe that the discussion for this move has run its course, or for that matter that my concerns raised on the talk page have been adequetly answered. My apologies if it was not you who approved the move, but since we were the only participants in the discussion, this is the only logical conclusion. My personal beleif is that the participants in a debate should not close and unilaterally act on a proposal. How would you feel if I was to declare that the conclusion of the debate was to keep military life and was to revert the move, with only two entries on record in the debate, who is it to say that you are correct and I am wrong, if the overwhelming opinion of a number of editors is that the move should be made, than I would accept the decision, but as it is I feel rather aggreived by this action. And why the haste? In my experience of such debates these discussions can run for months without harming the project as this allows a larger number of users to contribute to the debate, so why close and move after a matter of days if not in an attempt to skew the results in your favour. KTo288 (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

KTo288 - I proposed the move, but I have not closed or moved anything. As per the robot's edit summary (the robot who did the actual move), it was probably Mattes who made this move go ahead. Which he probably shouldn't have done, as a 1:1 split is certainly no consensus for change.
I still feel that culture is the appropriate term. But if you feel that "military life" would be a (if I get you right) larger category than military culture, then how about recreating it, and moving SOME those categories from "military culture" back up to that level? I.e. keep "military culture" as a subcat with "military life" as an in-between between it and "military". For example, I think "military training" could be moved back up to a "military life" cat (while "military traditions" should stay in the new "military culture" cat. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that the problem is largely due to me. Since a couple of months I am trying to keep the move request list short and manageable so that move requests effectively gets executed. Moreover, experience shows that naming discussions happen only at the beginning of the request and that they hardly evolve (even when waiting for months) till the move really gets executed. So waiting more than one week tends to make no difference. I must admit that I read the comments on the military life very quickly and I am used to execute well thought out move requests from Ingolfson. Moreover, I am rather allergic to a name like "military life" as I know that it will attract all sort of images that are somewhat related to the military and for which people have no idea on do not make an effort to search for a proper category. In fact, any image that has a glimpse of military in it can be categorised as "military life". So, I can put things back if you both agree and tell me what precisely. --Foroa (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition to this (and, admittedly, partly due to Foroa's support) I have reconsidered. I'd like the "military culture" cat to stay a direct subact of "military". Maybe instead we can place "military life" WITHIN "military culture" instead, and try to define a good description for it. That could take care of most of the "lazy-I'll just dump-it-here misplacement" that Foroa is concerned about. Ingolfson (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
My most profuse and sincere apologies for my misdirected accusations. As to your above suggestion, a better place for this discussion would be on the category talk page. However for a quick reply I would say this, your initial suggestion was based on the premise that "military culture" and "military life" are near synonyms, with military life being a subset of military culture. However my arguement is that this is wrong, the word culture in "military culture" is not used in the same way nor does it mean the same thing as it does in say "popular culture" or "British culture".
Please Google the terms "military life" and "military culture", if your premise was true than "military culture" would return the larger number of hits, and that there would be a substantial overlap of hits of "military life" to "military culture". However this is not the case, "military life" produces the greater number of hits by a factor of 10 (even if you were to disregard the links back to Commons and those sites selling life insurance). Furthermore there is no significant overlap in the first couple of pages of Ghits.
The Google test shows more succintly than I can (I've just deleted a short essay from this page) the difference between"military life" and "miltary culture" as the terms are used. "Military life" centres around the individual service person and their families experience of the military. "Military culture" is the military ethos and distilled military history of nations and organisations, which shapes their warfighting doctrine.
As to "military life" being the target of lazy categorising, this has not been the case in my experience, and even if it was the case fixing lazily categorised images is not an impossible task. KTo288 (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi KTo288 - I'll think of your comments, but at the moment, I am a bit too tired to want to make the effort (sorry ;-) I'll get back to you in a few days. Maybe we can reinstate "military life" AND keep "military culture" (because I do feel we need it as a topcat within "military") by defining more clearly the differences. How about you propose definitions for both cats if they existed in parallel. Note that if "military life" and "military culture" existed at the same level - directly within "military" - then there is no need to make them mutually exclusive. Subcats could be in both - i.e. the tree reconnects further down. Ingolfson (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tender Donau A516.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Tender Donau A516.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 04:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Darkone- Conditions on images[edit]

The couple I've looked at have the same conditions and I agree it would be a shame to lose his images, however personally I would try and oblige authors/copyright holders with regards their work if it is at all possible to do so, if this deletion goes through I intend to nominate hi other images. If it doesn't I guess we need somone to talk to him about removing the restrictions and to suggest that he upload his future images to the relevant wikipedias under fair use only.KTo288 (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Shame to lose his images" But that is the point. Check Step 3 of the form. He cannot add conditions to images he uploaded without conditions, and him putting these out under those licences is irrevocable. As I see it, at least some of those images were uploaded and kept without his condition stuff for a long time. Those at minimum cannot be deleted. Ingolfson (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems that he still hasn't actually responded on his page or the deletion request as to what his intentions were, that a specific license was optional or neccessary. Hopefully Dennisses reading of the box is the correct one and I've over reacted by nominating the image for deletion. As to the form, I guess a lot of uploaders don't read the form properly when they upload their images, reading the village pump there are quite a few users who decide that they want to have their images deleted and become dismayed when they learn that they cannot. One metaphor that I seen used is that you would'nt dream of asking for your donation back once you've put it in a charity box. I don't know how to do it or who to talk to but I guess one could break the upload process into stages, with a checkbox to each to say that the uploader has read and agrees and understands the conditions, before actually being able to upload. KTo288 (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, you would still get people who ignore it - and the fact is that different licenses acceptable for Commons DO contain different provisions, so they'd still have to understand what they are choosing. Not something that can be clarified 100% unless the people actually think about what they are doing. Ingolfson (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
And if they do something like your checkbox thing, please keep it very simple ;-) I already take quite a bit of time filling out the info forms for all the pictures I upload. At least, since I just public domain them straigh-away, I don't need to worry about any intricacies of the license there ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO Numbers[edit]

You removed the IMO number from Image:Sapphire Princess Humongous Ship II.jpg I am working on all ships in Commons to make it possible to find all pictures of ships by IMO number. See category:Ships by IMO number Is there a special reason why you don't want this ship to be included ? --Stunteltje (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a ships always keeps the same IMO number even if she changes owenership, flag, name or radio callsign. Sv1xv (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Atmospheric theatres?[edit]

What is your Category:Atmospheric theatres about? In particular, how does one tell if a particular theatre belongs in the category? - Jmabel ! talk 02:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Atmospheric theatres is a well-defined term, see en:atmospheric theatre on Wikipedia. Someone else (i.e. a reference source on the specific cinema article on Wikipedia, for example) should be making that choice (though of course sorting on Commons isn't quite as strict - if we needed references for sorting individual images, we'd have sorted about 10,000 pictures by now, not millions... Ingolfson (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll link the Wikipedia page from the Commons cat. I had no idea it was a well-defined term. - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. You had already done it and I missed it. Hence my confusion. My bad. - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)