|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
Tip: Categorizing imagesEdit
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
- [[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
- [[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.
BotMultichillT 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Image:Kilroy Berlin Wall.JPG is uncategorized since 25 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Image:Hattiesburg Union Station postcard.jpg is uncategorized since 17 June 2009.
- Image:Stephen Lee House.jpg is uncategorized since 18 June 2009.
- Image:West Commerce Street Aberdeen.jpg is uncategorized since 18 June 2009.
No permission taggingEdit
I found a lot of images from Mississippi uploaded by a different user and started tagging images for having no permission. Unfortunately, I didn't check what I did well enough, so I accidentally tagged a number of images uploaded by you. I have now reverted these actions, so you don't need to worry about it. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
File:Meridian Baptist Seminary before 2007 fire.jpg 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. blocked from editing.
Ralgis 21:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
NRHP documents mapEdit
Hey there, If you're interested, can you paint TX yellow on the NRHP forms map? I found a link from the Texas Historical Commission for the more recent Texas NRHP nomination forms. 25or6to4 (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, I can add it tomorrow when I get off. I see that you've added this to the NRHPHELP page. Thanks! Also, in the future it is best to contact me on my en talk page if you don't mind. I still get messages here but I check the other talk page more often.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for leaving this message. Generally, though, you should try to contact me on my en wiki talk page. I'll respond much faster there.
- As to the page itself, I like it overall, but I have a few suggestions. You do mention that the base maps need CSS classes, but you don't give an example of how they should be implemented. In order for my NRHP map to work, each county/division in the base map has to have its own dedicated class, which is then listed in a big definition table at the top of the SVG file (e.g. these which are copied/pasted into the SVG files). Many of the base maps on commons include ID's rather than classes, which can't be handled in this method. It might be possible to use ID's, but that would require modifying the entire file rather than just the definition table because each path would need to be edited individually to include a fill parameter. The main advantage I see to using classes rather than ID's is that the actual base map is never modified, per se; all that is changed is adding this table to the top. This then is easier to update and reduces the possibility of messing up the base map by not modifying anything that is already there.
- Regardless of which labelling system is used, some kind of system is needed to label each of the divisions. For the state inset in the US file, I use the ISO 3166-2:US abbreviations as you suggest, but there is no such ISO standard for the county level divisions. For that, each county uses a FIPS code. If other countries' maps need divisions smaller than those covered by ISO 3166-2, they will need some kind of similar system.
- Another thing that should be mentioned is that if the class system is used, the base maps should not be edited with Inkscape or some other front end but rather as a text file. Inkscape doesn't like classes, so if the map is saved in Inkscape format, it will erase the class settings at the top and attach a fill color to each county individually like would be done if ID's were used. As I said before, I'm a proponent of the class method.
- Finally, you suggest that a color scheme should be chosen for each map individually. I guess that is fine, but I'm a fan of standardization, so I would suggest that the color scheme in use for the NRHP map be used for all of these. It is color-blind-friendly, and it has 12 divisions--one for 100%, one for 0/empty, and 10 for each 10% (i.e. 0-10%, 10-20%, etc.)--that I think would work fine for other countries. Giving people the freedom to choose their own color scheme is inviting accessibility issues.
- If you have any further questions or comments, please, as I said, send me a message on en wiki. Thanks! Hope to see something come out of this! I would like to be able to expand it to as many countries as possible!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)