User talk:ŠJů

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Aktuální diskuse
Archiv 1 (2007–2010)
Archiv 2 (2011)
Archiv 3 (2012)
Archiv 4 (2013)
Archiv 5 (2014)
Archiv 6 (2015)

010/011 and 090/091[edit]

Čau kolego, zdravim tě! I have dared to change back some of your edits concerning railway lines 010/011 and 090/091. Please don't understand this as personal criticism, it is just the foreign point of view. It's driving people crazy with all those timetable numbers in CZ (and places, which belong to certain time tables), which change quite often. So we prefer sticking to railway line categories with places, it makes things easier. Not all language versions of Wikipedia do follow the Czech pattern, but Wikimedia Commons needs to be flexible. Personally I don't like categorizing by line numbers, but I won't change the system with number categories for railway lines in Czech Republic. But I am kindly asking also for understanding the need for foreigners to have an understable system which fits as much as possible to most Wikipedia language versions. Thank you! Děkuji mockrát a přeji hezký večer, pozdrav z Drážďan! --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Instead of joining this discussion here, you reverted my recent edits. I didn't know you like this, I am truely disappointed! Besides this I don't share your personal opinion about what a duplicate is and what is said to be "unsystematic". Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kleeblatt187. There were many alternatives how to organize content about transport infrastructure. Every of them have some benefits and advantages and some limits and disadvantages. However, consistency and homogeneity of the categorization structure is also a very important quality, whatever system was chosen.

In case of Czech roads and railway lines, their route numbers were chosen as the base for the categorization structure. To dupe or disrupt this system wilfully is not the best way how to enforce a different system.

We all know that the numbers are not just descriptive. This disadvantage needs to be compensated by

  • good description at the category page
  • good interconnection between categories by internal links
  • good categorization by location

Nevertheless, these fittings would be useful also in case of descriptive category names. If the categories are perfectly described, there is very easy to find the right railway line, using fulltext with whatever station name (seek for "railway line Senohraby" etc.). To facilitate to discern the subcategories, a description at the parent category can be also used.

You are right, some of line numbers are changed sometimes, some are more stable. However, a real definition and demarcation of the track lines and their use are also changed. The tracks become divided or connected (physically or by prevalent traffic), shorted or lengthened, relocated, also some stations (including the end ones) can be sometimes renamed. Many lines have a very complicated construction and ownership history – there is not just simple and easy to decide for some objective division of the railway net to separate lines/sections usable for categorization. To accept and use the most official system is a natural way how to prevent chaotic rivalry of many various subjective or historic or technical views. The book timetable of passenger trains is the most widely used system, even though currently unused tracks are not included in them. The numbering has its long-term continuity and every its change have their real reasons, it's a reflection of a real traffic.

There is right, the tables (track sections) of the book timetable have not only numbers but also descriptive titles using names of the end stations or also other important stations. What were the reasons to choose the numbers for category names?

  • they are more practical for links and their maintenance
  • they are widely used in maps (see mapy.cz, IZS and others)
  • in addition, from my own experience from the last update of the railway line list at the Wikipedia, the decriptive line names are even just less stable than line numbers.

Descriptively named categories can be used as an enhancement of the basic system. If the timetable line consists from several obviously specific sections, or for sections used by more than one "lines", to group lines which have common their history etc. However, there is unwanted to dupe categories which have their own number, as 090 or 010. Btw, 011 is historically and factually a part of the line 010: 010 covers the 011 section (long-distance trains are in 010 table, regional trains in the 011 table). Similar relation was recently between 090 and 091: since Dezember 2015, 090 and 091 lines are merged and 091 is newly the previous line "ML" which had not its own table number yet. --ŠJů (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for your long answer! I just want to clarify that I didn't want to "enforce a different system", I just wanted to have some additional clarifications, which are compatible to those language versions of Wikipedia (different than CS-WP), which use a different line pattern (mostly by historical reasons, i.e. lines with an ongoing staničení) and do not depend on current timetable classification. Of course, Category:Praha–Děčín railway line may seem redundant today, but it was definitely not while this line was classified as lines 090 and 091. And it was also not wrong in the 1980ies, when this lines was counted as line 9 (if I remember properly). And it was also not wrong in the 1860-ies and the 1920-ies, when the line was carrying I don't know which number. This is what I meant when I said that categorization with places is timeless. I did not intent to have categories with places such as Category:Praha–Kralupy nad Vltavou railway line, Category:Praha–Vraňany railway line or Category:Praha-Hostivař–Roztoky u Prahy railway line, i.e. to move around "Railway line categories by places", whenever line 091 changes. This is not useful, of course. And I am also aware that SŽDC is one of the few infrastructure operators in Europe, which does not use fixed "infrastructure line numbers" (one number per line with a continuos staničení), but ony timetable numbers and grafikon numbers (which are different, but likewise valid). This all makes it difficult, especially for foreign guests to find certain railway lines here at commons. It truely may be easier to find lines by places in various cases. Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I have seen that you did some great cleanup according to present timetable line numbers during the last days, such as for lines 083, 084, ex 085, 089, ex 098 etc. Thanks a lot for all this! Some of those number categories still need to be updated, though, such as Category:Railway line 132 (Czech Republic) (now: Kadaň-Prunéřov – Želina) and Category:Railway line 148 (Czech Republic) (now: Cheb – Hranice v Čechách, Aš – Selb-Plößberg (– Hof)). Maybe you can take care of this some day, it may be easier for you to adjust all the connecting lines. Thanks in advance! Best wishes, Kleeblatt187 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Voroplavba Maleček.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Voroplavba Maleček.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Taivo (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

World War I cemeteries in Lesser Poland Voivodeship[edit]

Please do not enhance category of World War I cemeteries in Lesser Poland Voivodeship. Cemeteries must be categorized also by the numbers - foreigners do not know the Polish administrative division, but they know the numbers cemeteries. Selso (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Selso: Hi. If you want to categorize cemeteries by number, you must create a paralel subcategory of "Cemeteries ... by number". Over-categorization is not an acceptable solution. Btw., if a foreigner seeks for any cemetery and doesn't know administrative division, he has many other possibilities - e.g. to seek for the village/town name. Overcrowded categories with unsorted content are not the best way how to make the database usable. --ŠJů (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Selso. What progress you made with elimination of the over-categorization? Do you need some help with it? --ŠJů (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Komprese JPG[edit]

Ahoj, máš asi v editoru nastavenou nějakou brutálnější kompresi JPG, mrkni se na to. Hezký den,--Jagro (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Dík za upozornění. Měl jsem v IrfanView v save options nastavenou quality 80. Asi proto, že nemám nejmladší notebook a pohybuju se pořád někde u hranice kapacity disku. Zkusím si to dát na 100, schválně za jak dlouho mi to začne vadit. :-) --ŠJů (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Myslím, že standardně se používá 90 %. Zkoušel jsem to teď na jedné fotce a když jsem dal 100, její velikost se zdvojnásobila; při 90 % zůstala velikost přibližně stejná a při 80 % se o polovinu zmenšila… --Jagro (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Jojo, taky se pomaličku blížím té ideální hodnotě. --ŠJů (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Old signposts[edit]

How can Category:Old signposts be a subcat of Category:Fingerposts? Are we saying all "old" signposts are fingerposts? (Looking in subcategories, it appears most of the ones in Japan, for example, are not.) Also, what makes something old enough to be "old" in this respect? - Jmabel ! talk 03:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Generally, "signposts" and "fingerposts" were understood as approximate synonymes of "direction signs" etc. In this sense, we can distinguish modern signs from historical ones, ie. group the historical ones as a subcategory within all directional signs. The main criterion of the "old" can be, that such types are rather a heritage monument than a real part of the current orientation system today. As soon as it is needed, they can be sorted more precisely and objectively (in my country, the most typical "old" signs are stone posts). Do you have any proposal to improve (not disrupt) the categorization? --ŠJů (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Mostly that it seems strange to make something related to the more general "signposts" a subcat of anything about "fingerposts". As I say, if you look through the images under there, quite a few (maybe the majority? I didn't spend that much time counting) are not fingerposts. So I think the ones that are fingerposts should inherit by a different route (or be directly in Category:Fingerposts rather than through a category that isn't about fingerposts. - Jmabel ! talk
I'm not very familiar with semantic shifts of words in various variants of English language. If you are, you can describe and document your ideas of distinguishing and classification of such signs and terms in relevant encyclopedic articles (and their interwikis) at first.
Generally, the categorization structure should folow rather a structure and logic of fenomenons themselves, not the structure and specifics of English language. But you are right, English category names should be correct and fitting. Most of dictionaries diplays the words "signpost", "guidepost" or "fingerpost" as synonymes and as translation of better and more accurate and exact terms from other languages. Naturally, "fingerpost" have not real fingers and such direction signs are not allways on "posts" (in sense "poles") but can be placed also on walls, fences, stones, gantries, hanging from something etc., but is there any suitable, universal and common English word for all types of such signs, independently on their material, shape and technical design? --ŠJů (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
If you read en:Fingerpost (or even just look at the pictures there) you can see that what makes them "fingerposts" is the horizontal parts that point. From what I can see at a glance not one of the pictures directly or indirectly in Category:Old signposts in Japan or Category:Old signposts in Sweden has those. File:Proboštov (Malečov) lípy velkolisté.jpg appears to be the only one under Category:Stone signposts that does, and they're peripheral to the picture and probably not why it was included in that category. In the case of Category:Historic signposts in Germany, it's a mixture.
All of these things are signposts, at least in a broad sense, but most are not fingerposts. According to https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Signposts&action=history, you seem to be the one who removed the distinction, and did so a second time even after Mattbuck seems to have tried to correct that. Perhaps there was some discussion and you and he decided you were right; if so, nothing guides me to find that. - Jmabel ! talk 02:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • en:Fingerpost is an article about a very specific English term which have no interwiki to any exact equivalent in any other language. That implies, this word is a bit unhappy for worldwide categorization. Btw., a stone post with engraved or painted arrows (as is the typical Central-European form) can fall under this term?
  • The alternative en:Direction, position, or indication sign is too clumsy (and covers only road signs by Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals, not the common meaning) and has wrong and confusing interwikis.
  • en:Signpost has not its own article, it is redirected to a different meaning: en:Traffic sign. We lack an established English term for the meaning of German Wegweiser or Polish Drogowskaz (= way indicator), or Czech Rozcestník (= crossroad sign). Should we resign from this concept and its category level and use just the broader category Category:Directional signs instead? Do you mean, the word "Signpost" is the right equivalent of that terms? However, it is problematic to categorize extensively by an English word which has not its own article at en:wiki yet. Túrelio's and Mattbuck's version had absolutely not solved its relations to other related items (as Directional signs, Fingerposts etc.) and to specific function of the sign and that's why it was really a confusing paralel duplicate category which caused chaos only because it attracted images of fingerposts mostly. Should we revive it but more thoughtfully? I'm trying to fix it, but many questions remain. Do all signposts fall under directional signs as the parent category? Are we able to decide which of other directional signs should fall under signpost and which shouldn't? Modern directional signs placed before before intersection originate from central signposts, but is there any clear distinction? --ŠJů (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    • "Way indicators" would be well understood in British English, but is probably a bit obscure to most Americans. "Crossroad signs": not quite because people would likely think of something like File:Fall City, WA - street sign.jpg which just names the streets but doesn't tell the way to anywhere. (Aside: We wouldn't call that a fingerpost because the metal plates are centered on the pole instead of sticking out in one direction. Conversely, some fingerposts aren't at a crossroad, e.g. File:Freeway Park Seattle 28.jpg in the middle of a park, or File:Fremont mile marker.jpg which is mostly a joke.) "Signpost" might be a good choice. Even if there is no Wikipedia article, wikt:signpost seems congruent with using it as proposed. Your German, Polish, and Czech choices are all given as translations on that page.
    • I really would like to see back the distinction of fingerposts even if few languages have a special term for it. They are visually very different from stone signposts, even if they serve much the same purpose. In any case, we should not have fingerpost higher in the hierarchy and then things that aren't fingerposts as subcategories.
    • As for your "engraved or painted arrows" question: I can't say anything authoritative here, but as a native English speaker (US, but lived a couple of years in the UK so I'm pretty good with both leading forms of English) I certainly would never call that a fingerpost because it lacks the fingers, the things that stick out on separate boards/sticks/whatever. - Jmabel ! talk 06:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
OK. If we can use "signposts" as a term for that meaning (fingerposts as well as stone signposts) as a synonyme for traditional European terms, and "fingerposts" as a special subcategory for "finger" design, the problem is solved. (However, some different meanings can confuse it; e.g. Category:Disabled parking sign posts which have nothing to do with direction signage).
"Way indicator" is not typically mentioned in dictionaries as a translation of that. Our dictionary mentions "guidepost" and "fingerboard" moreover, but "guidepost" si translated rather as o term for separate "finger", and the term "fingerboard" is usurped for "little skateboards" nowadays. --ŠJů (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
We will probably need an explanatory note on the category, or maybe it should be Category:Signposts (directional). We might want to take this to the Village pump or such & see if we can get better suggestions and/or something like consensus. For what it's worth, I would never have thought to distinguish Category:Disabled parking sign posts from just Category:Disabled parking signs, but I see someone has been really obsessive about placing things in the category even when these are barely visible and some images are in the category where I just see a sign, no signpost. Conversely others that just as distinctly have a post are in Category:Disabled parking signs rather than Category:Disabled parking sign posts. (I personally might have distinguished photos of these signs from generic illustrations of signs, but would never have considered it interesting, for example, whether they are on a pole vs. a wall.) Oh, well. - Jmabel ! talk 16:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
* Category:Signposts (directional) might be a good solution, a bit similar to Category:Gymnasiums (schools) in Austria. However, maybe it's not so necessary. We can postpone it until the category will attract too many inappropriate images.
* File:Cook County E-911 Center.JPG is categorized fittingly to that category IMO. Disabled parking places are in the centre of the image and the image displays perfectly their situation context. Maybe, the parent category Category:Disabled parking would be better.
It already has Category:Disabled persons' vehicle parking road marking, which is what the image mostly shows (the parking spaces being painted that way); the signposts (in that sense of signposts) are barely visible. - Jmabel ! talk 02:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
* Category:Disabled parking sign posts seems to be really a redundant duplicate of Category:Disabled parking signs, regarding their current content (the main distinction is that the second category contains more diagrams of signs and the first one more photos of signs). However, these categories might distinguish "vertical" signs from road marking (which is conceived as "horizontal signs" in some countries). I marked the category to be merged. --ŠJů (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Fine with me. I'd put the "(directional)" there from the start because of the second common meaning of the English word. - Jmabel ! talk 02:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Nahorany kaplicka.JPG[edit]

Ahoj. Podle mne to není kaple sv. Cyrila a Metoděje v Nahořanech, porovnáním s File:Chapel in Nahorany (1).JPG a File:Nahořany (okr. Strakonice), kaple sv. Cyrila a Metoděje.JPG, a taky s http://www.sumava.cz/objekt_az/2091-kaple-sv-cyrila-a-metodeje-nahorany/. Můžeš se na to podívat? Dík.Addvisor (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Tak to byl docela oříšek. Stavba je to sice podobných rozměrů a tvaru a i stromy a kříž se zdají být v podobné pozici, přemalovat by se kaple jistě dala, ale aby za jeden rok tak zásadně přestavěli portál do jiného slohu, to se mi opravdu nezdá. Vzhledem k tomu, že Kubajzs původně popsal fotku názvem vsi a tím, že to je na návsi, tak jsem pomocí StreetView zkouknul ještě troje jiné Zahořany, jestli tam nestojí podobná kaple, ale nestojí. Tak jsem zkusil Google vyhledávání hesla "kaplička nahořany", jestli se tam neobjeví nějaký podobný obrázek - na narazil jsem jednak na to, že tam byla skoro stejná fotka z úplně stejného úhlu, ale v jiném ročním období (bez sněhu), nicméně jako "Nahořany u Čkyně" (http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/7749709.jpg, na stránce s popiskem se mi nezobrazuje). Ale naštěstí někde asi jako 70. vyhledaný obrázek se objevilo File:Chapel in Kruslov in 2011.JPG, tedy o vesnici vedle. --ŠJů (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

výstavba na invalidovně[edit]

Invalidovna, staveniště (001).jpg

Kolego, nevíte co to staví na Invalidovně? Abych to správně zařadil.--Juandev (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No nevím, kde přesně je staveniště situované, ale předpokládám, že by se mohlo jednat o toto [1], [2] Jedudědek (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

fíky!--Juandev (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Film_or_theatre_directors[edit]

Auntof6 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request Template talk:Potd/2016-04-12 (en)[edit]

Hi! There's no article on enwiki for this bridge. What's the target? Thanks! café --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


Code issues in User:ŠJů/monobook.js[edit]

Hi ŠJů, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:ŠJů/monobook.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new jshint issue -- the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ISSUE: line 1 character 1: document.write can be a form of eval. - Evidence: document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 19:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC).

Sochy neznámých autorů[edit]

Zdravím, všiml jsem si odstranění kategorizace pro sochy neznámých autorů u několika českobudějovických soch a sousoší. Podle mně dostupných materiálů jsou autoři těchto děl neznámí. Známá je (u některých) pouze doba vzniku. Neměla by tam kategorie zůstat? --Xth-Floor (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Zdravím. Řekl bych, že to bylo dost nesystematické a nepraktické zařazení. Tohle by mělo smysl možná u nějakých moderních plastik, kde se dá doufat, že jméno autora či název díla půjde někde dohledat. Ale u barokních soch a křížků je spíše standardem, že autor je anonymní a že památkáři a kunsthistorici většinou nevědí nic víc, než co je na podstavci sochy napsáno. Nemá podle mě smysl, abychom 95 % všech barokních soch dávali do této kategorie. --ŠJů (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Sackabfuhr[edit]

You destroyed my category: The category "Sackabfuhr" contains ONLY a special form of waste collection in the city and state of Hamburg, as described in German on the old category! REVERT THIS ASAP! The article for this category does not deal with any other city. I am really angry! Before you do a bulk action you should have contacted me beforehand! GeoTrinity (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@GeoTrinity: Hi. I suppose, the category was not "your" nor "my" but it was one of categories of the Commons project. The name category should be fitting, accurate and not confusing and should be in English and be consistent with the existing categorization system. Please study Commons:Categories#Category names.
"Sackabfuhr" is clearly not a specific proper name of the Hamburg system but common German words for "waste bag collection". If you want to create a category specific for the Hamburg system, you need to name it correspondingly, and categorize it within the Commons categorization system. You can employ the existing category Category:Waste collection in Hamburg and its systematic subcategories. --ŠJů (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
My dear friend, I invested a lot of time to write the article and to create the corresponding category, and that makes it my category within the commons project. I have been working at wikipedia projects for the past 13 years, I'm familar with the rules and not a newbie. Let me explain to you, what "Sackabfuhr" means: It is the official way of collecting trash in specific red or pink bags for those households that don't have other waste containers. It must not be confused with other, general waste bag collections. Therefore, your category "waste bag collection in Hamburg" is simply wrong since Sackabfuhr has nothing at all to do with other, free, or paid forms of waste bag collections. You dissolved the differentiation though. And whenever a category is useful for something specific, the terminus technicus has to be used, cf. the category "gelber sack", even if this is in a language other than German. What you did, is NOT an improvement but you destroyed a working category for something very specific that was set up correctly by me, with a lot of effort, by the way. I will now look for a way to revert your crap on my own. If you don't fully understand what this category is about, you better leave your hands off it. What you did was a mistake. GeoTrinity (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasm for this waste collection system in Hamburg. However, this system is not more and not less "official way" than collection systems in thousands of other cities, municipalities etc. There exist several methods or types of systems. Bag collection is one of them. Nothing mysterious, nothing untranslatable. Various cities and municipalities chose one of them or can combine them for various types of waste. Every city or municipality have its own specific system, but we should categorize them systematically in Commons. However, it's necessary to understand and accept basic principles of categorization and naming categories at first. Hamburg category should be categorized under Hamburg, Altona images under Altona category, a specific bag collection system under bag collection systems etc. Somebody understands promptly, somebody is disoriented even after ten years of work. Fortunately, we can compensate deficiencies one of other’s. --ŠJů (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Category.Svazu bojovníků za svobodu (Rokycany)[edit]

Hi, this is not a valid prefix, this will not work as a category. Jcb (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Zlatá turistická značka[edit]

Zlatá turistická značka (001).jpg

Pro zajímavost.--Juandev (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Díky, zajímavé. Doplnil jsem další kategorie. Kategorizuj, prosím, i fotky z přírody mimo sídelní útvary do kategorií obcí či části obce nebo alespoň okresů nebo nějaké konkrétní přírodní oblasti, protože pak je větší šance, že se fotky vztahující se ke stejnému místu dostanou časem k sobě a bude je možné nalézt v kategorizačním stromu podle lokality. --ŠJů (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Dělal bych, ale nestíhám. Zatím to dávám do pracovní kategorie pro budoucí zpracování. Pokud je tam geo, tak se to v budoucnu zvládne a třeba na to někdo vyvine robota, pokud geo nemám tak je to horší, protože ne vždy poznám (ze satelitních map), kde jse fotil. díky.--Juandev (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No jo, to je holt výhoda foťáku s GPS, i když někdy musím čekat pět minut, než mi souřadnice naběhnou, a setkal jsem se i s lokální anomálií, že mně to zapisovalo souřadnice o půl kilometru vedle. Jinak mi nezbývá než pátrat po předchozí a následující fotce a z počtu minut chůze zhruba odhadovat, kde asi jsem mohl být. --ŠJů (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Interlinks on Authority control template[edit]

Hello ŠJů, would you consider adding the interwikis from Wikidata even through the template {{Authority control}} as well as it happens now with {{On Wikidata}}? This way we could use either according whether there are data for authority control or less on the Wikidata item, and still having the interlinks in automatic way. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Cattle_by_age_and_gender[edit]

Auntof6 (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)