User talk:Torsch

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Babel user information
de
en-3
fr-1
Users by language
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Torsch!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | Català | Нохчийн | Čeština | Cymraeg | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Ирон | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Scots | සිංහල | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Please add license tag on Commons Archive[edit]

See [1]. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Polytope graphs[edit]

[2] please, explain the reason for the category merger. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The following reasons led to my redirection:
  1. The category contained only one file and two categories.
  2. The redirected category contained no definition what to place in there: only mathematical graphs or graphical images which includes all non-photographed images in my understanding (see also the disambiguation).
  3. Consequently it would be necessary to restructure the whole parent category Category:Polytopes as shown in the box below. IMHO this very sophisticated structure reduces the overview, means more work and confuses people in which category to place a file.

In the case of mathematical graphs and kept category Category:Polytope graphs:

  • Polytopes
    • 5-polytopes (contains no files)
      • Graphs of 5-polytopes (ca. 50% of files)
      • Wire-frames of 5-polytopes (ca. 50% of files)
      • Photographs of 5-polytopes (very few files)
    • 6-polytopes (contains no files)
      • Graphs of 6-polytopes (ca. 50% of files)
      • Wire-frames of 6-polytopes (ca. 50% of files)
      • Photographs of 6-polytopes (very few files)
    • ...
    • Polytope graphs
      • Graphs of 5-polytopes
      • Graphs of 6-polytopes
    • Wire-frames of polytopes

...
In case of meaning graphical images the categories for wire-frames and mathematical graphs would merge.

  1. [4] The two categories and the file are already categorized in sister categories:
  • Polytopes
    • Cross-polytopes
      • Cross-polytope graphs
    • Hypercubes
      • Hypercube graphs‎
    • Polytope graphs
      • Cross-polytope graphs
      • Hypercube graphs‎

I must confess that one could also change categories like "Hypercube graphs" into a redirect in a later step. --Torsch (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not see even a single valid argument.
  1. "One file and two subcategories" is not an amount small enough to discourage a category's existence.
  2. Lack of the definition is a cause to think and/or ask, not to act boldly, especially if such action is heavy to be reversed.
  3. I know the adverb "consequently" and most of subsequent words, but cannot extract from that part of answer anything usable as an argument for the particular case discussed.
  4. "Already categorized" argument is void inherently: categories do not organized as a tree, but as something else, so multiple supercategories are usual and useful.
3-cubePetrie.svg

I agree that some images like this are present in category:Hypercube graphs (BTW use wikilinks next time to reduce steps needed to browse your own proposals) which are not different essentially from file:3-cube graph.svg and this blurs the distinction, but these images may be removed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So what do you propose? Recreate the category? With what kind of items should it be filled then? Should then a categorystructure as shown in the box above be created? --18:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Category change[edit]

This is unnecessary; you don't change categories due to spelling differences between the Anglophone countries. The language used on Wikimedia Commons is English, not American English. If a category is using the British spelling, it should be left as it is. odder (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello,
I have noticed that there are two identical categories (except one is American and one is British English). So I thought it's better to move all images into the "American" category and redirect the "British" category to the "American" in accordance with Commons:Rename a category. I have chosen to keep the "American" version because it had more explanations and was sorted in more categories. The alternative would be to keep two independent and incomplete categories instead of one complete category and one redirect.Torsch (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 21:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:SNCB_TGV_TMST[edit]

J'ai réparé l'erreur (confusion avec les TGV PBKA), si cela te convient tu peut retirer le bandeau d'erreur!

TGV TMST number 3001 to 3022 from EUKL takes (category:British Rail Class 373)
TGV TMST number 3101 to 3108 from SNCB takes (category:SNCB TGV TMST)
TGV TMST number 3201 to 3232 from SNCF takes (category:SNCF TGV TMST)
TGV TMST NOL number 3301 to 3314 from EUKL takes (category:British Rail Class 373)
TGV TMST no identify takes (category:TGV TMST)

Cordialement--Jossfc (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello,
let me answer in English because I understand French to some extent but I am not good in writing it. Thanks for the fix. However, the problem with this category is that the former SNCB takes are now operated by Eurostar International Limited and thus are no longer distinguishable from other Eurostar trains. And the category contains two images, and one of those is a 32xx, thus not SNCB. So I will keep the discussion open but add a comment to the discussion page.Torsch (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Digital circle constructions[edit]

[3] good hit. Probably, my life would be not long enough to discover this category unless you managed to fix and use it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. 19:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Pentagram with one point up (de Guaita).jpg[edit]

Why are you putting in "Category:Pagan pentacle" things which are clearly not pagan? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have simply put it there because similar images are also in this category.

All these images should be put into the same categories, but I don't know exactly into which. Any suggestions? --Torsch (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know why they all "must" be in the same category. The Agrippa pentagram is somewhat astrological (neither markedly Christian nor pagan as far as I can tell). The de Guaita pentagram has quite overt Christian symbolism. AnonMoos (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, for me both types of pentagrams were the same. Thanks for the explanation.--Torsch (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

to hard tough[edit]

is it only me who think that the tone in contrast to wikipedia, wiki commons is too hard? eg. says North North West Licence that if you forget to send him an email and mention his name and attach a long and ugly link where you use it so he will sue one. If one for example. to use the image in a news article or report, I also believe it would be violently marred if you wrote more than eg. Source: Wikipedia. how can wiki media be free when you have to start to honor afraid to use material from there? I certainly would if I were risking identify ear to be tried by a user because there just was no room under the picture to write specific name of his user page, and just wrote source wikipedia. --109.232.72.49 21:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Duplicates need to be different file types[edit]

Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates does not allow speedy deletion of files of different type, so I am going to revert the requests. If you think that the files should be deleted, it will need to follow a Commons:Deletion request process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

To my understanding, this policy refers to vector and raster images, in my opinion it is not applicable if both files are raster images.Torsch (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, after reading the policy carefully: You were right. Torsch (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Category Dive sites of Table Bay and shipwrecks of Table Bay[edit]

Hi Torsch, Please note that there are shipwrecks in Table Bay which are not dive sites. Your recategorization does not allow for this. This is a general case - not all shipwrecks are accessible for diving for a variety of reasons. Please revert inappropriate changes. This may include a large number of your category changes to shipwreck in other areas. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will look into this after my vacation. Torsch (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
When do you expect this to be? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I am also having difficulty finding at what level some of these ships have been categorized as Wreck diving and Underwater shipwrecks. Is it possible that you have completely removed them from these categories? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I will correct this next week. Sorry for the inconvenience. Torsch (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Some shipwrecks are underwater, others are on the shore, and some are buried underground, either on the shore or underwater. Of those which are underwater, some are dive sites which would be considered wreck dives, but not all wreck dives are on shipwrecks. Sunken aircraft and motor vehicles are also considered wreck dives. Many shipwrecks are underwater but not in places where they can be dived. It is fairly complicated, and as far as I can tell most categories that I had added were appropriate, though there were cases where some were missing. There are some groups of wrecks which could be categorized as wreck dives, underwater wrecks etc at a higher level then the individual wreck, but that tends to become messy if another record which is not in one of the other categories category is added. I am fixing the wreck dive sites of the Cape Peninsula and False Bay, but leaving the rest to you to repair. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, one annotation: Please do not place those ships that are in the category Category:Wreck diving again in the category Category:Underwater shipwrecks, as the former is a subcategory of the later. For example, Category:Romelia (ship) is placed in Category:Underwater shipwrecks, Category:Underwater shipwrecks > Category:Shipwrecks in the Atlantic Ocean and Category:Underwater shipwrecks > Category:Wreck diving.Torsch (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
How do you propose to categorize underwater aircraft wrecks which are dive sites? These would definitely come under the category Wreck diving. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The correct categorization would be as follows
  • Wreck diving
    • Ship wreck diving sites
    • Aircraft wreck diving sites
  • Underwater diving sites
    • Ship wreck diving sites
    • Aircraft wreck diving sites
  • Underwater shipwrecks
    • Ship wreck diving sites
  • Underwater aircraft wrecks
    • Aircraft wreck diving sites
But this categorization does not yet exist. If you agree with the new categories "Ship wreck diving sites" and "Aircraft wreck diving sites" (and if they are written correctly) I could add these two categories. Torsch (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
It looks like this may work. I don't know if any of the aircraft wreck diving sites have images on commons yet, but you may as well set up the categories. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you know if there is a way to display category trees? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This might be what you are looking for. If you want to include this on a category page, further information can be found at this help page. I've already found three aircraft wreck images on commons.Torsch (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2013 (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.

File:Alice Behind Her Knees.jpg[edit]

Hi, I moved File:Alice Behind Her Knees.jpg from Category:Alice Liddell to Category:Unidentified artists because there appears no evidence that this is intended to be the same person as Alice Pleasance Liddell (born 4 May 1852). I also could not find any source for the depicted person, so I asked the uploader for more information about her here. -84user (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

duplicates and file type[edit]

jpg and png are different file types and one cannot be speedy deleted for another in normal circumstances. If you believe that a deletion is in order, then it will need to progress via a normal DR.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Temporal_population_graphs_of_Greece[edit]

Demmo (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

File:UserInterface Ribbon general.png[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:UserInterface Ribbon general.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

File:UserInterface Ribbon general.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:UserInterface Ribbon general.png 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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Didym (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Contravention of no colour on colour[edit]

Many of the images in that category are correct representations of a blazon which violates a theoretical rule of heraldry (sometimes deliberately violated, as in the coat of arms of the Crusader kingdom of Jerusalem). This is not the same thing as "Wrongly colored coats of arms"… AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I really couldn't say specifically why most images were put into "Wrongly colored coats of arms" (a category whose existence I was not aware of until yesterday). That’s a separate issue to what I discussed above. You should really ask those users who classified each image into the category. For File:AUT_Stoob_COA.jpg, this is User talk:Kontrollstellekundl (see [4]). I already left a somewhat related message on his user talk page on 14:03, 11 July 2016… AnonMoos (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I have now added a more detailed description to this category explaining for what it is intended. And I removed some files from this category which have more or less the correct colors. And I proposed some coats of arms for deletion which are too wrong.Torsch (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I'm also active on heraldry and I also was not aware of the existence of this category. I see here some more problematic. (@AnonMoos) It can never be the goal to ask every user who set this category to why. So I strongly suppose to put this category "Wrongly colored coats of arms" only with a template as this is the very common way for problem categories on Commons (e.g. Template:Fictional) with a reason/evidence parameter. The second thing is, it is a bit stupid if every user plays his own game here, that means such things should be published/centralized more prominent, e.g. on the Commons:WikiProject Heraldry. (Another thing is, in times of Echo, the method of spreading one discussion over several user pages should be over). Greetings User: Perhelion 10:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Discussion now on mentioned User talk:Kontrollstellekundl #Entkategorisierung von Wappen as part (in German) User: Perhelion 06:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)