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)

Category:Boat cockpits[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Driving_cabs_of_watercraft 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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 | +/−

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate discussion moved to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Driving cabs of watercraft. --ŠJů (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries[edit]

Please do not use misleading edit summaries: [1] Particularly not when they are used in this disparaging manner to imply that you are correcting their mistake, when in fact they had just corrected yours – an error so obvious that you had even left it in place yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing "disparaging" on the fact that I corrected your obvious mistake and i see nothing missleading on the fact that my revert is labelled as a revert. If you are convinced that captain's cabins at maritime ships have nothing to do with sea captains, you should explain such unexpected assertion. --ŠJů (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Firstly this wasn't my edit
Secondly it's not about captains, it's about your categorisation of captain's cabins as Driving cabs.
Your edits in all this have been inaccurate and inept. Your comments in relation to others since are far from truthful. It's getting increasingly difficult to assume good faith in such conditions. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You both, participate in real constructive discussion, bring your constructive work, your opinions and your answers to the existing problems and arguments and don't waste your and my time in useless wars and attacks. Don't shatter the discussion to new and new places, rather try to respond there at last. --ŠJů (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I accept, at face value, that you thought that "captain's cabin" was a synonym for a ship's bridge. But, since a couple of people have told you they thought you were mistaken, is there a reason you haven't looked at some of the images we have of captain's cabins? I am sure, once you have done so, you will realize that they are, in fact, merely a captain's living quarters.
I am mystified as to how you could restore your original supposition -- without actually checking our existing images of captain's cabins, to confirm or refute your supposition. You know what? Don't you think it might be a really good idea if you showed you were capable of taking the good faith feedback you received at face value, and made an effort to test your suppositions when other good faith contributors voice their concerns over them? Geo Swan (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You overlooked the main and primary cause of the mistake. The fact that the category Category:Captain's cabins on United States Navy ships was not properly categorized - and isn't yet. If you understood categorization principles, you would know that a category combining two attributing criteria must be categorized under both corresponding parent categories (and create them if they not exist). You have a good occasion to fix this fail at last. --ŠJů (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your complaints about others in discussion fora?[edit]

I am going to offer you my very best good faith advice.

Over on Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Driving cabs of watercraft you have directed what look like personal criticisms against User:Andy Dingley and myself. You have implied we are acting in bad faith.

Good faith contributors can disagree. When that happens we all need to remember to stick to the issues, and not reflect on other contributors motives or character.

You have called my edits "edit warring", and my best advice to you, the advice I think will best preserve your reputation as a reasonable person, would be that characterizations like that are a mistake. I reverted edits you made that I was sure any uninvolved third party would recognize were mistakes on your part -- and I took considerable time explaining myself on the article's talk page. I doubt any uninvolved third party who followed up on your claim would agree that I had been edit warring.

I think you have been around WMF projects long enough to be aware of instances where a generally competent long-term contributor has ended up under some kind of sanction, has ended up being topic-banned, or told they can only edit if their edits were over-seen by a mentor, or were temporarily or even indefinitely blocked, because they had a blind-spot, and there was a gap in their competence that made their contributions a general deficit to the project rather than a general benefit.

It is sad when someone who is clearly acting in good faith has to be sanctioned, or blocked, because they have a blind-spot, and can't recognize how one aspect of their contributions is making them a net deficit to the project, rather than a net benefit. When that is happening, other good faith contributors should make an effort to spell out to the problematic contributor, just what they are doing wrong. Those warnings have to balance tact with forthrightness, and I am doing my best to offer you that here, because, frankly, I think you have a blind spot, or blind spots, and you are running the risk of being sanctioned or blocked in spite of making your contributions in good faith, due to issues of competence.

I agree, and I am sure Andy agrees, that someone else made a mistake -- almost certainly a good faith mistake -- when they used the term "cockpit" for the control seat of bus and truck drivers, and railway engineers. I agree, and I am sure Andy Dingley agrees that you were correct to voice your concern.

But you were premature to carry your concern over to sailboats and other nautical vessels. If you honestly thought the terms incorporated into the names for their control areas were inadequate you should not have acted unilaterally. Initiating a discussion first would have been a good choice. What I think would have happened if you had initiated a discussion over characterizing ship's bridges, captain's cabins, and sailboat cockpits as "driving cabs" is that those more experienced in nautical matters would have responded that no nautical expert ever refers to these areas as "driving cabs". More experienced contributors would have said that the names of the existing categories were adequate. Your proposal would have been seen as a good faith but ill-informed propossal, and one that hadn't generated a waste of other contributors' valuable time to clean up, because you wouldn't have taken any images from the existing categories, and placed them in your new categories until other contributors endorsed your proposal. Geo Swan (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You grub through your irrelevant speculations permanently but the factual section of the discussion is without any constructive answer still. Direct your effort to the problems how to classify and consistently organize photos of various types control stands of various vehicles, not to fruitless fighting, tackling, threatening and bothering. Your objections were reflected and some of them accepted in the discussion, but you seems to be not willing to participate in the constructive discussion there. Shattering of the discussion to my personal discussion page is not the best way how to answer the open questions and to solve the existing factual problems. You (and Andy Dingley as well) have a good occasion to come with better and more qualified solutions. The first step may be to read the ongoing discussion and participate in it really. If you had answered construcively immediately, we would not must to waste our time in pointless blathering now. However, you have the opportunity still. --ŠJů (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
First things first:
  1. I don't see that you have made any progress in establishing that there is a need for any neologism;
  2. I see you continue to use your neologisms, as if a consensus to use them had already been established -- but no consensus to use your neologism has been established;
  3. I have seen you inappropriately challenge the good faith of your challengers -- when you should have just stuck to the issues;
  4. I have seen you inappropriately refactor comments -- you absolutely should not have done so;
  5. I saw you inappropriately copied good faith comments I left on User talk:ŠJů, and pasted them in the discussion fora in a confusing and unfair manner;
There are good reasons we expect everyone to comply with the conventions over how to interact with our correspondents. Copying comments left elsewhere into a new discussion fora is problematic because every properly formed comment is time-stamped. The revision history for that fora should have a one-to-one correspondence to those time-stamps. Experienced readers count on those time-stamps being reliable, as they read through discussion fora. They count on the time-stamps reliably showing the order in which comments were left.
However, when people do what you did, ie. copy and paste comments from your talk page, with the earlier time-stamps intact, you mislead third party readers, and you are acting in a way that is unfair to the person whose comments you pasted in. The time-stamps are no longer reliable. They no longer show the order in which comments are left.
Pasting comments, as you did, can unfairly make the other person look foolish. The misleading time-stamps can make it look like they ignored earlier comments in their reply, when their reply was left elsewhere. It is highly unfair, and I encourage you, in the strongest possible terms, to never do this again.
You can use diffs, if you want to make a comment in one fora that refers to comments left in another fora. You can combine diffs with a brief summary. You can combine diffs with a brief summary and a quote that is clearly marked as a quote. Please don't simply paste in comments
Similarly, when someone has already replied to one of our comments, minor adjustment to the spelling, punctuation is considered OK, but rewriting your earlier comment, without signifying you have done so, can be very unfair to your correspondent. If your correspondent's reply questions why you didn't address a certain issue, and you go back and rewrite your original comment, so it does address that issue, it can unfairly look to later readers like your correspondent couldn't be bothered to read your original comment clearly, because they asked about an issue that it looks like you did after all address. So, please, don't do that either.
As for Andy and I reverting you -- you were making changes as if your new structure had already been endorsed -- when it had not been endorsed. I believe that, in circumstances like this, restoration of the status quo ante is generally recognized as not disruptive. Geo Swan (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Please discuss the factual problems at the appropriate discussion page, not here. The crucial questions are without any answer still. Did you not understand them? Can I help you someway when you are not able to notice and read them? --ŠJů (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I find your reply, above, unsatisfactory. Your reply, for instance, does not show any recognition or acknowledgement that you have not been complying with the generally accepted procedures for participating in discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Please direct your effort to the factual section of the discussion how to classify and consistently organize photos of various types control stands of various vehicles, not to fruitless and nonsensical tackling, fighting, blather and bothering. Thank You. --ŠJů (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hradčanská a okolí v době stavebních úprav rok 2008[edit]

Ahoj, nahrál jsem pár fotek do kategorie Hradčanská (tram stops). Ale asi by to chtělo zakategorizovat nějak lépe. Tak kdybys měl čas a náladu...;-) Jedudědek (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahoj. Tak v zásadě by se to asi mělo rozhodit, zvlášť ty v Horákové a zvlášť ty v Badeniho, což v podstatě už je, jinak s tím nic moc nenadělám. Nanejvýš tak když tam vidím na první pohled fotku vodorovného značení autobusové zastávky, tak to možná patří jinam. Juknu na to. Ach jo, já se k nahrávání vlastních fotek snad nedostanu :-) --ŠJů (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Kategorizace vsí[edit]

Vizte Category talk:Villages in Louny District, díky. --Palu (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wiener Linien Rampini buses[edit]

Is there a particular reason why you created Category:Siemens-Rampini buses of Wiener Linien as a subcategory of Category:Wiener Linien Rampini buses rather than as a replacement? I cannot think of what to put directly into Category:Wiener Linien Rampini buses now; the bus type that you can see on all these photos is the only Wiener Linien bus type that has anything to do with Rampini. darkweasel94 08:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The Siemens-Rampini electric bus is not the only model of Rampini buses generally, that's why i created the more specialized category Category:Siemens-Rampini buses of Wiener Linien and moved the content to it and corrected categorization of Category:Wiener Linien Rampini buses.
I don't insist on preserving of Category:Wiener Linien Rampini buses but i have also no reason to delete it - prospectively, Category:Wiener Linien buses can have a subcategory Category:Buses of Wiener Linien by manufacturer and Wiener Linien can buy or borrow some different model of Rampini buses. Generally, also categories which contain no image directly can be a logical part of categorization structure. However, such level of categorization is not necessary now and I have no objection if you want to remove Category:Wiener Linien Rampini buses category (btw., the format "Manufacuter buses of operator" is more established, for the case it will be recreated once). --ŠJů (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for handling this, no problem, I think the way you've done it now is best. I also have no objection to the format "$manufacturer buses of $operator"; I created the category as an analogy to Category:Wiener Linien Kutsenits buses in 2012 but have no objection against either format. darkweasel94 09:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

Protektorátní jízdní řády[edit]

Kdysi jsem viděl, že se věnujete také dopravě. Tady jsem natrefil na jízdní řády z doby Protektorátu. Berte to jako tip, kdybyste se jim chtěl nějak věnovat. Měly by být PD jako úřední, možná i jako publikované před 1943. Sám se v protektorátní dopravě příliš neorientuji a nevěděl bych ani do jakých kategorií uploadovat. --Palu (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Děkuji za upozornění. Na hromadné importy dokumentů se nespecializuji, a tohle navíc nemusí být z hlediska autorských práv úplně neprůstřelné (vydaly to Deutsche Reischbahn (tiráž dole pod obsahem), nikoliv nějaké ministerstvo, a nevyznám se v tom, jakou tehdy měly právní formu a jak na tom byly s právní subjektivitou). Jinými slovy, nechce se mi tomu nyní obětovat čas, když není záruka, že to tu během pár let nějaký horlivý pošuk nenechá smazat. Osobně ani příliš nerozumím tomu, jak se počítá PD-old, pokud autorská práva nese právnická osoba (zaměstnanecké dílo).
V kategorizaci bych problém neviděl: pro celé jedno konkrétní vydání jednoho knižního řádu by měla být vytvořena jedna kategorie, např. Category:Deutsches Kursbuch 1944/45, (v rámci Category:Train timetables in Germany), nejspíš s podkategoriemi pro jednotlivé díly a kapitoly, přičemž oddíly "Schlesien und Sudetenland" (KBS 145 - 157), "Sachsen und Sudetenland" (KBS 159 - 178) a Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren (KBS 501 - 525) by asi měly být též zařazeny pod kategorii železničních jízdních řádů v České republice a jednotlivé listy pak do kategorií jednotlivých tratí. A pak by to samozřejmě taky mělo být časem zařazeno do nějakých historických kategorií typu Category:1944 in Germany apod. To už je dodatečná práce, která na samotné uploadování nemá vliv. --ŠJů (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Podal jsem dotaz do Hospody u Commons. Uvidíme - jestli tu právní stránku pomůže někdo vyjasnit, klidně se uploadu ujmu. --Palu (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

Hi ŠJů, could you do me a favour and tell me in short what this article about Dita Pepe is about. I would like to know the scope, plans and reasons of the project. I know something about the project but would like to know what is written here. This would be very kind, because I do not know anyone talking tschechisch. Thank you. --Oursana (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

An artistic book "Slečny" (Misses) was published recently. It is about unmarried women (old maids). It contains 375 pages: documentary photos by Dita Pepe (41 colour and 10 black-and-white) and documentary stories by the journalist Barbora Baronová. The book is in handmade artistic binding. The book is a result of their 4-years work.
The book is supported by the project "Kreativci sobě" (Creators to themselves) which supports new authors and unusual projects through internet "auctions". --ŠJů (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you so much--Oursana (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Lublaňská 33[edit]

To že je nyní Lublaňská 33 diagnostickým ústavem, není důvodem aby Kategorie:Lublaňská 33 byla v kategorii nějakých ústavů. Protože ten objekt, nebyl od počátku ústavem a nemusí být ani do budoucnosti ústavem.--Juandev (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Tady máš napsáno, že ústav se do toho baráku nastěhoval roku 1904, ale vzhledem k tomu, že ten barák vypadá na neorenesanci, tak je vysoce pravděpodobné, že byl postaven v druhé polovině 19. století. --Juandev (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Za prvé, to už jsme jednou probírali a snad jsme tehdy i došli k tomu, kdy a k jakému účelu byl ten dům postaven, a za druhé, teď ten dům je diagnostickým ústavem, resp. slouží diagnostickému ústavu. Diagnostickým ústavem není jen tabulka u vchodu. Kategorizace funguje tak, že je strukturovaná, to není pouhé tagování. Tj. máme-li více fotek téhož jednoho ústavu, je rozumné pro něj vytvořit samostatnou kategorii (tu ostatně v tomto případě máme) a teprve tu zařadit do kategorie diagnostických ústavů. Stejně se to dělá se školami, s muzei, s nádražími, s úřady... Mimochodem, bylo by dobré nezaměňovat diagnostické ústavy s detenčními ústavy či výchovnými ústavy, to jsou tři různé typy institucí. --ŠJů (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Mýlíš se, mi jsme k ničemu nedošli. Ten dům prostě ústavem nebyl. Je logické, aby fotky toho domu z roku 2011 a z roku 2013 byly zařazeny do kategorie pasťáky, ale není logické tam zařazovat tu kategorii. --Juandev (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Ten dům je diagnostickým ústavem a proto jeho kategorie je zařazena v kategorii diagnostických ústavů. Nedělej v kategorizaci bordel. --ŠJů (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Pokud do obecné tématické kategorie budov podle funkce zařadíš větší počet fotek téže budovy přímo, ačkoliv ta budova má svoji vlastní kategorii, tak to je naprosto zbytečné narušování systému kategorizace. --ŠJů (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Category talk:Film by year[edit]

Can you please provide some more input on the discussion above before I choose to move the category? I think that as it stands since you seem to have objected to it before, it's no longer considered a non-controversial category move request as per User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Perhaps you should bring it to CFD or the village pump so that the community can come to a decision as to what name to give the current category, since it's unlikely anyone is watching the category's talkpage for comments. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Meta_categories_by_country[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Meta_categories_by_country 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 | +/−

Alan Liefting (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Fotografické mapování rozebírání Rámusáku[edit]

Zdravím, vím, že jsi po Praze fotograficky aktivní, přesto se chci pozeptat, zda mapuješ také rozebírání Rámusáku? --Jan Polák (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Zdravím. Nikoliv, nemapuji, už jsem se tam dlouho nevyskytl. --ŠJů (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Vím, že ho rozebírají způsobem, kdy celý most přesouvají (jakoby stahují) na trojskou stranu a tam rozebírají. Nepletu-li se, již jsou skoro u konce. --Jan Polák (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hall of mirrors picture[edit]

Hello. I'm considering using this picture in an English teaching schoolbook. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:V%C4%9Btru%C5%A1e,_zrcadlov%C3%A9_bludi%C5%A1t%C4%9B.jpg It will appear at about 2 x 3 cm on the printed page. What kind of attribution would you like? Zbrntt (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your notice. I have no special desires (you can use attribution "ŠJů, Wikimedia Commons" or "ŠJů, Wikimedia"). Is the license Cc-by-sa sufficient for you, or do you want to use it in non-free work, awaiting individual cc-by licencse from me? I have no problem with it. --ŠJů (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear ŠJů,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Přesun kategorie Krásný Les bažantnice → Krásný Les bažantnice (train station)[edit]

Ahoj, chtěl jsem se pozeptat, proč jsi kategorii „Krásný Les bažantnice“ přesunul na „Krásný Les bažantnice (train station)“. Domnívám se, že rozlišovač „train station“ není potřeba. --Jan Polák (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

V době, když se diskutoval systém názvosloví kategorií pro železniční stanice a zastávky, byl dohodnut princip, že pro stanice a zastávky, které jsou tvořeny místním názvem, bude používán jednotný rozlišovač "train station", zatímco bez rozlišovače budou pouze ty názvy, které jsou přímo názvem nádraží nebo zastávky. Tedy, stručně shrnuto, pokud název stanice nebo zastávky obsahuje slovo "nádraží" či slovo "zastávka", jde obvykle primárně přímo o název té stanice, zatímco pokud je název stanice nebo zastávky tvořen názvem sídelního útvaru nebo označením lokality existující nezávisle na dané stanici, tak se kvůli jednoznačnosti rozlišovač jednotně používá (a to přesto, že v názvu stanice má to označení lokality typický "železniční" formát, takže někomu může připadat primárně jako název stanice). Pokud tedy název stanice obsahuje označení jako "město", "střed", "střelnice", "bažantnice" anebo jde o názvy typu Praha-Vršovice (tak se oficiálně ona část města sice nejmenuje, ale přesto jde primárně o označení části města, nikoliv oné stanice) tak se rozlišovač "train station" standardně používá. Je sice pravda, že pro kategorii samotné krásnoleské bažantnice bychom asi volili vhodnější formát názvu, nicméně i tak je slova "Krásný Les bažantnice" třeba chápat primárně jako označení té bažantnice, podle níž se zastávka jmenuje. Ostatně není náhodou, že jsem na tento název narazil a přejmenování provedl právě v souvislosti s tím, že jsem tvořil a plnil obecné kategorie pro bažantnice a české bažantnice. --ŠJů (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Přidávání kategorie "Municipal border signs..."[edit]

Zdar, prosím tě, proč ke všem snímkům značek, označujících okraj zástavby, vkládáš tuto nepatřičnou kategorii? Minimálně z 99 % tyto značky nikdy neoznačují hranici obce a těch případů, kdy je tato značka v blízkosti skutečné hranice obce, je zatraceně málo. --Kirk (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Taky zdravím. Slovo "obec" má mnoho významů. Primárně označuje obecenství (společenství) osob (například v nějaké osadě) i s jejich majetkem, sekundárně samotnou tu osadu, terciárně tu osadu i územím, které je k ní katastrálně a správně přičleněno... atd. Pokud jde o dopravní značky, u nich mi připadá praktické se pokud možno držet terminologie, která se používá ve vztahu k silničnímu provozu - viz § 2 písm. cc) zákona č. 361/2000 Sb.: "obec je zastavěné území, jehož začátek a konec je na pozemní komunikaci označen příslušnými dopravními značkami". Ale to asi znáš. Jistě je další otázkou, zda i obec v tomto významu je vhodné překládat slovem "municipality", ale připadá mi lepší vycházet co nejpřesněji z oficiální terminologie, než nějakou lidovou tvořivostí vymýšlet, jak by se ta značka měla jmenovat správněji. Shrnout „začátek“ a „konec“ pojmem „hranice“ (resp. "border") mi připadá celkem nekontroverzní. Pokud chceš navrhovat návrat k původnímu termínu „uzavřená osada“, který se používal snad cca do roku 1960, tak se obrať na ministerstvo dopravy anebo na poslance – když schválili Eliášův občanský zákoník, mohli by i toto :-). Potíž je, že i slovo osada od té doby poněkud zúžilo a posunulo svůj význam a mnozí lidé by nechápali proč je jejich město nazýváno osadou. --ŠJů (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Photographer Barnstar.png The Photographer's Barnstar
Hallo,

wir möchten darüber informieren, dass wir Dein/Ihr Bild (Wiki-Commons)

zum Blick auf den Lysý vrch / Ortsrand Chrastava (CZ)

- selbstverständlich inklusive der Copyright-Hinweise und Urheber-Angaben - in unserem nicht-kommerziellen Projekt << FVKS-Kalender "Unterwegs" 2014 >> zum Thema „Ausblicke" verwenden.

>> http://www.kalender.fvks.eu

>> http://kalender.fvks.eu/2014/05/07/blick-auf-den-lysý-vrch-ortsrand-chrastava-cz/

Wir hoffen, alles korrekt umgesetzt zu haben.

Der Kalender begleitet auch unseren im Jahr 2014 laufenden Fotowettbewerb (fotowettbewerb.fvks.eu), ebenfalls zum Thema „Ausblicke".

Grüsse FVKS - Förderverein Kulturstadt Görlitz-Zgorzelec e.V. kalender@fvks.eu, Agata, Cornelia, Matthias fvks (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Canteen of Škoda Works[edit]

K tvé poznámce ...údajně budova čo. 56 (toto čo. neexistuje). v kategorii Canteen of Škoda Works.

Škoda Plzeň prostě pro svoje haly čp. ani čo. neměla. Adresa celého areáu (2,5 km na délku) je Tylova 1/57 (čp./čo.). Haly, kancelářské budovy i různé větší boudy byly vždy označovány jen "budova č.". Zde jsou na plánku areálu některé budovy označeny právě jen svým číslem, ostatně ani jiný identifikátor dříve něměly (snad kromě čísla pozemku). Až poslední dobou dostávají budovy svá popisná čísla, např. budova č.337 má od října 2013 číslo popisné 1256 (Plzeň-Skvrňany), ale adresa je stále Tylova 57/1. Budova dnešnáho planetária je v pravé dolní části areálu s číslem 56.

Budova bývalé kantýny, někdy bývá označována jako "ASAP" protože předtím sloužila společnosti ASAP (Akcivá společnost pro automobilový průmysl). je v Ústředním seznamu kulturních památek zapsána: strojírny ŠKODA, z toho jen: budova býv. kantiny č. or. 56, zde je tady to or. opravdu matoucí. Není to čo., ale číslo budovy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torf (talk • contribs) 16. 5. 2014, 12:28 (UTC)

Díky za upřesnění. Takže to vlastně v záhlaví kategorie bylo popsáno správně: že to je údajné číslo orientační 56, ačkoliv takové číslo orientační zde neexistuje a tedy ho nemá ani tato budova. --ŠJů (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Já jsem tuhle připomínku začal psát právě pod dojmem myšlenky: "Mě by nikdy nenapadlo považovat označení budova 56 za číslo orientační, tak proč psát, že to číslo orientační není!" Ale na závěr, když jsem ti doplňoval odkazy, abys věděl o čem píšu, se v odkazu na Ústředním seznamu kulturních památek tahle chyba vysytuje.
Teď je ještě otázka, zda nechat tyto obrázky v kategorii Category:Canteen of Škoda Works nebo je spojit se současnou Techmanií (Category:Techmania Science Center) pod kterou teď již dokončené planetárium spadá, asi jako podkategorii (ale označenou Kantýna, Planetárium, Planetárium ve výstavbě?)?. Tak dobře se v kategorizaci na wikimedia c. nevyznám. Brána do areálu Škodovky byla posunuta o pár desítek metrů dál a od února letošního roku dostaly ulice kolem Techmánie (dříve uvnitř areálu) nová jména: ulice "Emila Škody" a "U Planetária", tím se budova Techmánie a Planetária dostaly administrativně mimo areál Škodovky. Ale možná to jen zbytečně komplikuju a asi bych počkal, zda se objeví více fotek o Planetáriu. -- •Torftalk 15:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Prague Tramways No. 180[edit]

Zdravím, rád bych znal Váš názor na to, kam ji dát - udělat pro ni normálně subkategorii v Category:Trams in Prague by registration number, i když se nenachází v Praze? Octopus moldavicus (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

To je zase ta nešťastná dichotomie předložek "in" a "of". Pražské tramvaje bych řadil do kategorie pražských tramvají bez ohledu na to, jaká předložka byla zvolena do názvu kategorie a kde se tramvaj momentálně nachází. Pražské tramvaje z některých jiných muzeí či sbírek už tam máme. Mimochodem, to množné číslo a velké písmeno u druhého slova asi nemá v názvu kategorie opodstatnění, co myslíte? --ŠJů (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Safranek-interia.eu#Category:Duchcovská turistická Odyssea[edit]

Reakce přesunuta k původní diskusi. --ŠJů (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Pomoc[edit]

Ahoj, prosím Tě, jak mám nechat smazat svou fotku kvůli ochraně soukromí, omylem jsem vyfotil a nahrál hlídače v kostele a v tom množství mi unikla. Jedná se o toto - File:Kutnohorsko 2014 Barbora uvnitř 17.JPG --Hadonos (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Na stránce Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Removal requests je odkaz na doporučené postupy na stránce Commons:Contact us/Problems. Pokud bys chtěl volit diskrétnější postup, lze poslat e-mail se žádostí o smazání na info-commons@wikimedia.org. Také by ses mohl obrátit na některého z českých správců (viz Commons:List of administrators by language - tam jsou uvedeni Mormegil, Podzemnik a Zirland). Také bys mohl zkusit dát na obrázek šablonu pro rychlé smazání {{speedy}} s důvodem: General#7 (Author or uploader request deletion) a vysvětlením, jaké jsi napsal mně, ovšem raději anglicky. Teorieticky by se dala použít ještě nástěnka správců (nástěnka správců) (ale to asi není moc vhodné, protože se tam podobné věci většinou neřeší) nebo standardní návrh k diskusi o smazání (pomocí nástroje v levém menu), ale tam nebývá reakce vždy nejrychlejší. --ŠJů (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Díky, něco si vyberu.--Hadonos (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done, smazáno. --Mormegil (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)