User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/Mar2007

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Category:Mount Rainier

Hi, if you want to make a case that Category:Mount Rainier, you need to at least empty it out and propose for deletion - merely disconnecting it from articles makes for confusion where some pictures can't be found by linking from one place to the other. Although I too prefer articles to categories usually, some amount of category creation will happen anyway because of the way some uploading scripts work, so in practice we need to keep the links to them. Stan Shebs 03:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I've emptied Category:Mount Rainier. I will propose it for deletion soon. I will likely make mistakes as I learn. Your comments are welcome. Wsiegmund 04:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I proposed Category:Mount Rainier for deletion. It was created by User:Angela. She has 42000 edits on Wikipedea, so perhaps it is a good idea. It may be my lack of experience, but categories seem to me to be more difficult to maintain than articles because no move operation exists. Moreover, I've seen a number of cases where all the items in the category are grouped under one or a small number of letters. Wsiegmund 06:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
There was a huge debate early on about articles vs categories, the community was about evenly split between the two (can't find the poll now, alas), and the outcome was basically to allow both. While there are good arguments both ways, in practice some things (like taxonomic families) are almost always categories, others (such as species) are almost always articles, and then there a bunch (such as major cities) that seem to end up with both category and article. Because category can be added during upload while article requires an additional edit, I don't generally discourage category creation because it reduces the number of orphans (and we have a lot of great pictures that will never be seen because they were neither categorized nor linked into an article). Stan Shebs 13:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the helpful precis of the discussion. It seems to me that as images are moved into articles, they can often be removed from the corresponding category. That reduces category clutter, making it easier to find images that are only linked in that manner. See Category:Glaciers for an example where this has not been done. Is there a consensus on this point? To be specific, I would like to remove the Category:Cascade Range tags from the images that are in the Mount Rainier and Mount Hood articles. Wsiegmund 13:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I've never been able to make up my mind on the point. On the one hand, removing linked-to images from the category is a handy way to see what images are "miscellaneous" or in need of a gallery. On the other hand, it improves the odds of images being found if they are visible on more than one page.
Stan, I've tried to clarify Commons:First steps. You might want to see if I've succeeded. BTW, I've withdrawn my deletion request and reverted my changes to pages that included Category:Mount Rainier. Wsiegmund 18:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW, good additions on the first steps page, but in fact you can search for categories, you just need to check the appropriate namespaces boxes at the bottom of the search screen (I usually search them all, just in case). Stan Shebs 21:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Cinder Cone

Hello Walter, thanks for fixing up my stuff! Viel Dank! I'll try to do better in the future :) I also added an nps.gov link to the Lassen Park category page, the same way it's done for the Category:Yosemite National Park or Category:Redwood National Park. If people like the idea, perhaps I could link all NP category pages to their nps sources? Anyway, thanks again for help, and also for your photographs which I truly enjoyed. Kind regards - Introvert talk 05:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Introvert. You are most welcome. I'm pleased that you thought my edits were helpful. Thank you.
Seems to me that if the external link appears on the Yosemite and the Redwoods Categories, that is ample justification for adding it to the other NP pages. The plant pages, by way of contrast, are very minimal. See Pinus ponderosa. I haven't seen guidance on this. I think that the criterion should be to insure that the category or article is not ambiguous. It is nice if there is more, but may not be necessary since the various en, ru, de, etc., versions presumably suffice. I'm not sure why it is not the practice to provide the interwiki links, e.g., en:Lassen Volcanic National Park, since that would seem to be useful.
I wonder if you might wish to comment on my use of external links to document the locations from which the photographs were taken. See the topozone.com external link in the summary for Image:ChaosCrags 8444 45.jpg. Also, see the links under the Maps and aerial photos heading in the summary for en:Image:WinthropGlacier06.jpg. I particularly link the way that TopoZone and TerraServer-USA provide context for the latter image.
I enjoyed your pictures, too. It's like returning to the park. Best wishes, --Wsiegmund 06:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks in return! My pleasure. I am happy already if one person enjoyed having had a look at my photos. Especially since it may very well remain that way :)

And your topozone link and aerial photos links to the exact location are just awesome, I think this is a great idea and should be put to good use wherever possible! May be it's worth developing a helper template? It seems like a lot of work though... how easy is it to do? I've no clue of course... But others may be smarter and learn from you :)

As to the links to wikipedias, I'm not sure why they are not used more widely... may be there's maintenance concern about broken links or i-wiki conflicts? also it's not always possible to link inambiguosly. But I just looked again at the Yosemite page: there are interwikies in there all right! The category page for Yosemite actually is interwikied also - but again to the articles and not to the categories, which is of course a potential (if not real) interwiki conflict. Perhaps an example of why setting interwikies requires extra caution.

That said... Let me propose that if the page, e.g. the National Park site or a plant family page, or a category, is clearly one-to-one associated with a wikipedia article or with the respective category, then we could link them safely. Should this suggestion go out somewhere? To the village pump maybe? May be this has been already discussed and decided upon. Or may be it's just plain obvious? I guess in any case I will be now paying attention to these things. Can't promise that I can do it quickly, but I'll go through the NP pages (to start with) and see if I can adorn them with the necessary links :) and clean them up where necessary. In the spirit of the season, so to speak :)

Thanks for the useful discussion. Best wishes (please take extra care when on those volcanoes and glaciers too :) - Introvert talk ?en ?ru 08:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find the interwikies on the Yosemite page; I probably didn't get enought sleep last night. Anyhow, interwikies for the NPs and similar sites seems useful to me. Those names are not likely to change very often.
I've left a query for User talk:Stan Shebs. He can probably suggest a good location for this discussion. It seems like a good idea to seek existing guidelines and opinion before doing much work on this.
Templates exist for generating external links from (latitude,longitude). Please see en:User_talk:Wsiegmund#Geolink_for_Nisqually_National_Wildlife_Refuge_example.
Thank you for your cautionary note. Steamboat Prow is a remarkably easy and safe location to reach, considering the spectacular setting. Only cross-country route-finding skills and a bit of non-technical rock climbing (2nd class) are needed. I travelled on low angle snow fields for part of the route, but this would not be necessary. Best wishes, --Wsiegmund 18:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again, I'll check out the template! Interwikies :) no problem -- I may be using some improper naming, but what I mean are these links between wikis in other languages, or those from wiki-commons to other wikipedias, such as en:Yosemite. Those that appear on the left panel under their language name, if you are using the default skin.

Yes I feel like I really need to educate myself here, and figure how to deal with Categories and links and all. On my talk page, I just replied to User:Saperaud who asked me *not to add weblinks to Categories*. You are welcome to take part in that discussion as well or just to follow it if you prefer, and see what his suggestion would be.

Have yet to get to Mount Rainier, not been up there yet :) Later - Introvert talk ?en ?ru 21:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I see the interwiki links, now. I'm using the Cologne Blue skin and the links are at the very bottom. Thank you for your patience and help. I've added your talk page to my watch list and will follow the discussion. Thank you for mentioning it. --Wsiegmund 23:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The most extensive discussion I know of is connected to the old vote at Commons:Images on normal pages or categories:Vote, which was remarkable for the nearly-even split as to the best way to go. So since then people have been inventing their own schemes, with some amount of local consensus (most biological species have gallery pages, not categories, for instance). My personal belief is that as pictures from the language WP migrate to here, and people add new ones (I have a backlog of at least 1,000 images myself), that most articles in WPs will have multiple pictures for them, and we will want to have a 1-1 correspondence, with the commons article being a "skeletal" article consisting of just the gallery and 1-line description, and with 2-way interconnections to all language WPs. Similarly for categories, which people gradually interwiki-ing also. There is still considerable room for experimentation though - if other people like your new idea about how to organize, you'll find they follow and organize additional images correspondingly (but note that organizers are a small minority here, so maybe a while before your experiments are even noticed). Stan Shebs 07:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Stan. In September, I read that discussion when I was trying to understand the use of categories and gallery pages for organizing articles. I think your proposal is a good idea. Why don't you put it on a new Commons page and link it appropriately, so that people can find it? We'll move our discussion to its talk page. I'll volunteer to edit Commons:First steps for consistency, if you like. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 17:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I haven't wanted to push it too much, because as the vote discussion shows, it wouldn't be a consensus. But it would be good to record what people are actually doing right now. Stan Shebs 15:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Recording what people are actually doing right now is an excellent suggestion, and surely uncontroversial. I would be happy to help. Do you have an idea for the title? Linking articles and categories or Article and category links? Perhaps, it could be a subsection in an existing style guide? Thanks for the suggestion. Thanks to Introvert, too for starting and contributing to this discussion. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 18:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks from me as well! (especially since I was the one who stirred this all up in the first place :)) I too very much agree to such an idea - having a gallery page for an "article" in Commons and linking it to the main page in a language wikipedia if there is one. At least, for the National Parks pages or plant families it makes perfect sense, and for others, I'll be learning. Also, thanks in advance for any kind of a link or a pointer to a policy or a proposal or a previous discussion on anything related to organizing here. I don't know even where to start looking! I would like to participate even if a tiny bit, but even more so I want to know what I am doing :) Kind regards - Introvert talk ?en ?ru 03:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Cool Cat

Admin mop.PNG Hello! Thank you for taking the time to vote for me in my recent request for adminship. It ended with a final score of (8/10) and hece failed to reach concensus. I value all of the contributions made during the process and I will take a special note of the constructive criticism regarding interacting with users in the user talk space. If you have questions, or requests, please leave a message. --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Tamiasciurus douglasii

Thank you, --Folini 15:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sitka Spruce image

Greetings! I replied to the message you left me on my user talk page (User talk:Rkitko). Just wondering if you saw my reply or not and had any thoughts. Thanks! -Rkitko 05:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Frog kite 01284.JPG

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Frog kite 01284.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}}to release it under the GFDL or{{PD-self}}to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Rüdiger Wölk 15:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Lophodytes cucullatus 00736t.jpg

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Lophodytes cucullatus 00736t.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Rüdiger Wölk 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Anas strepera 00889t.jpg

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Anas strepera 00889t.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Rüdiger Wölk 04:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Hadley Peak 7007.JPG

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hadley Peak 7007.JPG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Rüdiger Wölk 04:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed that one and fixed a number of other images using the Gallery tool. Wsiegmund 05:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Acer_circinatum_03676.JPG

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you.--Orgullomoore

Image:Mergus_merganser_03451.JPG

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you.--Orgullomoore

Image:Viola_glabella_06313.JPG

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you.--Orgullomoore 19:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sialia_mexicana_07094.JPG

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 05:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cathartes_aura_07287.JPG

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 05:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

All the above have been fixed. License tag may not be sticky. --Wsiegmund 15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Larix decidua copytag

Ooops! Thanks for picking it up; done now - MPF 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure; I owe you for catching many of my errors. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Geo coordinates

Did you use any special upload tool for the Sialia_mexicana_07089.JPG? This image has geographic coordinates and links to some map servers, but I somehow suspect that you didn't fill in all the details by hand for every image. Some people use wiki templates for things like this. What tools do you use? --LA2 18:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

welcome

Welcome to Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life! TeunSpaans 10:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, TeunSpaans. --Wsiegmund 17:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image rendering

Since you're here a lot more than I am, have you noticed any problems with images being viewable here in commons or on en.wiki?...it may be best to shoot me an email, or I can ask you that way too...but I came here to see your latest uploads and I can't hardly see any images anywhere. I even removed many images from my userpage on en.wiki as I was unable to see them...maybe my recent switch to IE7 from IE6 might explain some of this problem.--MONGO 08:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I've had no difficulties either yesterday or this morning. --Wsiegmund 16:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Passer domesticus

What is the reason for deleting Category:Passer domesticus? Was it not more correct to delete category:Passeridae? --Brams 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response at Talk:Passer domesticus. --Wsiegmund 00:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

National parks of the United States

Hello,

Park is spelled with a first upper-case letter in the name of a specific park. If we gather several parks in a category, “park” becomes a common name and is spelled in low-case letters (see the English Wikipedia en:Category:National parks of the United States). --Juiced lemon 18:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This official site does not use the same conventions than Wikipedia: en:Category:National parks in the English Wikipedia, Category:National parks in Commons. --Juiced lemon 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Department of the Interior of the United States

Hello,

In my opinion the Commons:By location category scheme applies only when you make up a new title with a location name for classification purposes. Here, the topics is the name of an organization, and you can use the title of the matching English Wikipedia article as is en:United States Department of the Interior (here, you'll find some alternative names used for redirection pages). Even, en:United States Fish and Wildlife Service is a correct category name in Commons.

About waterfalls, I deal them as other landforms, and I use the preferred preposition of, since we can regard that landforms are irremovable. So, Category:Waterfalls of Washington is the correct name (for the state of Washington). --Juiced lemon 09:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 Competition

POTY barnstar 1.svg
Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the
Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006
Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February.

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | Nederlands | português | svenska | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All Featured Pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As a past contributor to Featured Pictures, we invite you to participate in the competition (but please wait until tomorrow to vote). --MichaelMaggs 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ToL Newsletter issue 1

The inaugural newsletter of the Tree of Life project has been published. You are welcome to read the newsletter, comment on its contents, frequency and form, or unsubscribe by putting your name on my talk page.

Teun Spaans 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

The redirects are part of the advantage, actually, though the taxonav addition is helpful. Having 1 page rather than two ensures that everything can be found in the same place (since it won't matter whether people identify an image through category or through adding to a gallery). It also means that someone searching with the search tool will find all the pictures at once (including IP users who can't set their search prefs), as will someone searching through category. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 09:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand and will support any scheme for which a consensus develops. My point is simply that it is unnecessary to redirect the gallery pages to illustrate your proposal. It is easy to understand that the category pages replace the gallery pages. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 21:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)