User talk:Apalsola

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Babel user information
fi-N Tämä käyttäjä puhuu suomea äidinkielenään.
en-2 This user has intermediate knowledge of English.
sv-1 Den här användaren har grundläggande kunskaper i svenska.
de-1 Dieser Benutzer beherrscht Deutsch auf grundlegendem Niveau.
fr-0 Cet utilisateur n’a aucune connaissance en français (ou le comprend avec de grandes difficultés).
Users by language
Info non-talk.svg
English: Welcome to my talk page!
Suomi: Tervetuloa keskustelusivulleni!
  • Please write in English or Finnish.
  • I like to keep discussions in one place, so:
    • I will respond on this page to everything left on this page. Either
      • add this page to your watchlist or
      • ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page.
    • If I leave a message on your talk page, I will look there for a response. You do not have to notify me on my talk page.
  • Please post new messages at the bottom of the page.
  • Please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~).
  • Ole hyvä ja kirjoita suomeksi tai englanniksi.
  • Haluan pitää keskustelut yhdessä paikassa, joten
    • Vastaan tälle sivulle jätettyihin kommentteihin tällä sivulla. Voit joko
      • lisätä tämän sivun tarkkailusivullesi tai
      • pyytää minua ilmoittamaan keskustelusivullasi, että olen vastannut viestiisi.
    • Jos jätän viestin keskustelusivullesi, seuraan sitä vastausten varalta. Sinun ei tarvitse ilmoittaa vastauksesta keskustelusivullani.
  • Ole hyvä ja kirjoita uudet viestit sivun loppuun.
  • Allekirjoita viestisi neljällä tildellä (~~~~).
Sdm.svg Add topic Sdm.svg Aloita uusi aihe
––Apalsola tc 12:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 46aa0b6bfa93c10faa712e9fc758c4d9[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! --Apalsola tc 19:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Finnish military aircraft registrations[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you proposed to move the categories I recently created for some Finnish army helicopters. I have left a comment on the talk pages of these categories, e.g. at Category talk:NH-215 (aircraft). Regards, De728631 (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Categories of Switzerland[edit]

Hi Apalsola. I remember you that Categories of Country by something are maintenance categories, like a flat list, (they are little local flat list!), so it's important that all categories of that type are there for the general maintenance. For this reason they have no overcategorisations. In fact generally they are hiddencats. So it's not correct and not useful what you have done, to delete someone of them because "overcategorizated". Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Where is it stated that Categories of Country by something would be maintenance categories or flat lists? Flat lists have "(flat list)" in their name (like Category:Categories by country (flat list)) and that is not the case with the sub-categories of Category:Categories by country by city. I also checked contents of some of them and they all seemed to be just ordinary, non-hidden, non-maintenance categories. So, yes, I think my edits were correct and useful. Best regards, ––Apalsola tc 16:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC) –– (fix) Apalsola tc 16:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
There was important discussions about it when this categories was created. They are archieved in CFD. --DenghiùComm (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide a link? ––Apalsola tc 19:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't remember. You need to search it. But it was in 2010. --DenghiùComm (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@DenghiùComm, I did search (already before I asked you to provide a link) but I did not find such discussions. Anyway, I don't think it is my responsibility to find them because I am not the one who refers to them; I have only referred to Commons:Categories and it is quite clear about overcategorization. Best regards, ––Apalsola tc 20:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Finnish aircraft[edit]

Hi Apalsola. Can you check the categories on these files uploaded on May 15? Cheers --Helmy oved 06:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

How to gategorize?[edit]

I created category Category:Manors in Finland by city under the category Category:Manors in Finland. This was primarily, because in Category:Salo there is a vast amount of buildings, and they have to be tackled somehow, and to create category:Manors in Salo was one step and it seemed to requier the Category:Manors in Finland by city.

The question now, however, is, can the categories be like this, i.e. so that the same item is both in the category Category:Manors in Finland and, for example, category:Manors in Salo? Or should there be a category something like Category:Manors in Finland by name or is the current situation ok? Of course, finally there were not so many images of the manors of Salo in the first place, so that the whole existence of the category may be somewhat querstionable. But because of the great amount of pictures in Category:Salo this seemed helpful.

(Juu, juhannusaatto, siivous menossa, tiskit likoamassa. Viime juhannuksen olin mettässä.) --Urjanhai (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Urjanhai, vähän myöhässä tämä vastaus, mutta kuitenkin.
Minusta Category:Manors in Salo on aivan hyvä ajatus. En tiedä, onko tästä mitään virallista ohjeistusta, mutta omissa muokkauksissani olen pitänyt periaatteena, että luokan voi luoda, jos siihen tulee vähintään kolme alaluokkaa tai samaan alaluokkaan kuulumatonta tiedostoa (eli sellaista tiedostoa, joita ei voi yhdistää yhteen alaluokkaan). Kaksikin alaluokkaa voi olla aivan OK, mutta yhden alaluokan tai tiedoston luokissa ei mielestäni ole mitään järkeä: ne vain vaikuttavat kuvien löytymistä ja ovat siten pikemminkin vahingollisia.
Osittain em. syystä erilaisia "by city", "by country" yms. luokkia pitää luoda vain, jos ko. asia on mahdollista (tai järkevää luokitella) alaluokkiin useammalla perusteella. Tästä on hyvä (tai siis huono...) esimerkki vaikkapa luokat Category:Saint Luke churches ja Category:Saint Luke churches by country. Kaikki Pyhän Luukkaan kirkot on luokiteltu maittain jälkimmäiseen luokkaan, joka on sitten ensiksi mainitun luokan ainoa alaluokka. "By country" -luokittelutaso on tässä tapauksessa aivan turha, koska kirkot olisi aivan yhtä hyvin voitu luokitella maittain suoraan luokkaan Category:Saint Luke churches. Sen sijaan esim. luokan Category:Churches in Finland "by jotain" alaluokat ovat hyvinkin järkeviä (noh, kirkkojen luokittelua valokuvausajankohdan mukaan en oikein ymmärrä...), koska luokitteluperusteita on useita.
Em. vaara on myös luokalla Category:Manors in Finland by city, koska ainakaan toistaiseksi kukaan ei ole keksinyt luokitella Suomen kartanoita muuten kuin sijainnin perusteella. (Nimen perusteella luokittelu voi toki olla toinen peruste.) Koska kaupunkikohtaisia kartanoluokkia on (ainakin toistaiseksi) vain kahdelle kaupungille (Hamina ja Salo), voisivat nämä yhtä hyvin luokitella suoraan Category:Manors in Finland -luokan alle.
Varsinaiseen kysymykseesi vastaukseni on, että samaa kuvaa tai luokkaa ei koskaan pitäisi luokitella yhtä aikaa johonkin luokkaan ja sen alaluokkaan. Eli koska Category:Hirvilahti Manor on jo luokassa Category:Manors in Salo, ei sitä pidä luokitella luokkaan Category:Manors in Finland. ––Apalsola tc 13:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Osuin tänne takaisin vasta viiveellä. Pikainen kommentti tuohon viimeiseen, että tuossa näköjään en-wikipedia ja commons taitavatkin soveltaa eri käytäntöä. Fi-wikipediassahan on vanhastaan tapa, että mitään ei koskaan luokitella samanaikaisesti sekä ylä- että alaluokkaan, kun taas en-wikipediassa joissain tapauksissa näkee luokiteltavan ja kehotetaan luokittelemaan sekä ylä- että alaluokkaan, mutta käsitteet, joita näiden tapausten määrittelyyn käytetään, ovat niin monimutkaisia sivistyssanoja (ja niitä käsitteitä on useita!) ettei niitä ole lukion englannin laudaturilla tai edes Ofxford advanced learner's dictionarylla juuri mitään toivoa hahmottaa. Mutta jos tuollainen luokittelu commonsin puolella onkin virhe, niin kuin on totuttu vanhastaan fi-wikpediassa, niin se on näihin fi-wikipedian käytäntöihin tottuneelle helpotus. Noiden miuiden osalta täytyy tsekata, ellei joku ehdi säätää jo ennen. Commonsin luokkaan Salo on ladattu paljon arvokasta sisältöä, mutta järjestelytyö on suuri ja vaatii käytännössä hyvän paikallistuntemuksen.--Urjanhai (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Joo, tässä asiassa Commonsin ohje on itse asiassa aika selkeä ja tosiaan poikkeaa englanninkielisestä Wikipediasta: "The general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those." Ja Salosta olen tismalleen samaa mieltä. Aika monessa kuvassa on kyllä koordinaatit, mikä jonkin verran helpottaa työtä ilman paikallistuntemustakin. ––Apalsola tc 10:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Jirayu Laongmanee[edit]

Can you be the one who can edit the article of Jirayu Laongmanee?? I just wanted to replace his photo there,if you insist, i dont know already yet how to edit articles.so i hope you will accept my request,by the way,i'am a newbie here.. Jayveeaguilar83 (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean article Jirayu La-ongmanee in English Wikipedia? It is not protected, so you should be able to edit yourself. ––Apalsola tc 12:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Events in Europe by decade[edit]

Hi Apalsola. Since more than a week I am making a big work on MetaCats, to bring order, consistency, correction of mistakes, etc. Now you rollbacked all my corrections in the subcats of Category:Events in Europe by decade. I can understand that you don't like that I add a category where it works only a template. But this template has a mistake. If you open a subcat of Category:Events by continent by decade, you will see that the Events of Asia, North America, etc. are located on the right, at the bottom of all subcats, while the Events in Europe are located on the left side, at the top of all subcats. Absurd! I try to correct this stupid mistake due by the template. Now you rollbacked all my corrections. Is this useful? If you don't like that I add a category, then please correct the template! I will be very grateful to you. Thank you very much! Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The proper way to fix this kind of problems is indeed to fix the template. That is what you should have done in the first place instead of manually adding categories. I fixed the template anyway. ––Apalsola tc 10:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have no knowledge how to do, neither how to correct a template, different way I would have done it myself. Anyway thank you very much again ! Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Categories for discussion[edit]

Hi Apalsoloa, I just wanted to give you a heads up that I have responded to your inquiry here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this revert of yours, please see Category:Meta categories which says "This category is used for administration or maintenance of Wikimedia Commons." Therefore, every subcat of Category:Meta categories is also used for administration or maintenance, no?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
No. It only applies to Category:Meta categories. {{Global maintenance category}} is used for categories containing categories or files with some problems and thus needing some maintenance. For example, Category:Media missing infobox template contains files that need {{Information}} template to be added. (You probably get the idea by looking at the list here.) Generally, there is nothing wrong in composer categories nor files in them, so they do not require maintenance. And technically {{Global maintenance category}} is used in categories "used for administration or maintenance of Wikimedia Commons" which is not the case here because you are using that category for maintenance of English Wikipedia, not Commons. ––Apalsola tc 21:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Category:people by name is a meta category. Is it used for administration or maintenance of Wikimedia Commons?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Probably not because it is not tagged as such. Not all meta categories in general or "by name" categories in particular are maintenance categories; actually very few are. ––Apalsola tc 21:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
What is the purpose or meaning of a "meta category" other than for administration or maintenance of Wikimedia Commons? In any event, I think administration of Wikimedia Commons includes analysis and utilization of data within Wikimedia Commons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)reply
They are just categories by some criterion. For example, Category:Buildings in the United States by state contains buildings in the United States sorted by the state they are located. Category:Buildings in the United States by material sorts them by the material they were built, and Category:Buildings in the United States by function by their function.
Basically, they are meant for finding the files, such like any other category. Their only difference from "ordinary" categories is that they only may (directly) contain other categories while ordinary categories may also contains files. Nothing to do with maintenance. ––22:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, if "Meta category" at Commons merely means the same thing as "container category" at Wikipedia, then it might be a good idea to mention that here at the Commons category.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, their purpose is quite clearly described with {{Metacat}} template that is (or should be) placed in every meta category. ––Apalsola tc 22:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
We all agree that categories here at Commons may be merely for administration or maintenance of Wikimedia Commons. Why rule out categories here at Commons that are merely for administration or maintenance of Wikimedia more generally? If a category is very useful for that purpose, then it should be accepted. I will never persuade a bot programmer to write a program for something that could easily be accomplished by simply creating a category. I am very sad that this whole Sound project at Wikipedia is now collapsing due to this issue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

As I already replied to this one in Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/08/Category:Composers by name, no, we do not agree. Let's keep that discussion in one place. ––Apalsola tc 22:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)