User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 1
I've made you a sysop here on Commons. Very happy you're thinking about getting involved in this splendid project. Welcome and congrats ! villy 21:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll try to use my new broom responsibly for sweeping up. :-) -- Infrogmation 00:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting that; yes it was an oversight on my part. I've added the GFDL template, like the rest of that batch I uploaded yesterday. For the record, any photographs I take myself uploaded here can be assumed to be GFDL unless I state otherwise. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi again. I tagged Image:MustangMG05Night.jpg, Image:OAK05BOystersBannerStreet.jpg and Image:OAK05HeadFloats.jpg as GFDL, because they were listed on Commons:Untagged_images#I. I tagged Image:OAK05BOystersBannerStreet.jpg though the description page does not explicitly state that you are the photographer, but it seems to be very likely. You should state it there so that there is no doubt about the source and license. --Baikonur 18:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Eeep, thanks. I thought I'd caught all those. You did right. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Brazil or Brasil?Edit
It seemed to be the better choice, since there were scattered references to categories Brazil and Brasil, making everything a mess. All the descriptions in the page were in English, so people were thinking about contributing in English. Since it's better to stick to only one language version when categorising (nobody wants redundancy here, because this will just make people give up cateogorising), the Brazil choice seemed the one that everyone was intending to use and could not find. Indeed, I don't se any advantage in separating the knowledge at commons in several different language categories, because the resulting information becomes fragmented, unstandard and (very) difficult to find. You can notice that in the main page (now Brasil...) there are only two reference to categories including Brasil and several including Brazil. Which one you think contributors prefer? (comment left by User:Grndmrcs)
- I guess I'm open to whatever option in categories, as looking around there seems to have been little opposition to making English the default language in categories exept for Latin for plants & animals. The article names, however, I feel strongly that we should stay with local names for places, as the Commons:Language policy says. Having article "Brasil" and "Category:Brazil" seems a bit messy to me though. Your thoughts on the language policies? -- Infrogmation 19:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hello Infrogmation. I have answered to you on my talk page. Arnomane 10:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed the link to your user page in Image:CopanNSouthCatherwood.jpg because (I think) I collected it with other images you put on the english version of Wikipedia to save them in Commons, and I didn't know if you had a user page with the same nick on Commons (I had this problem with other users).
I apologize for the time lost.
El Comandante 01:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, for all. Marb 20:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I see you added "Category:Unknown subject" to some of my images. I thought that category was for images that do not have identifying information or categories already. My images (mostly of Hurricane Katrina destruction) that you added this tag to already had information and categories, so I don't understand you adding that tag. Wondering, -- Infrogmation
- Yes, but the brand (preferable also model) of car pictured is unknown. I have managed to identify some of them, the rest I marked as unknown. // Liftarn
- Ah, I see. For these cases, I suggest we start a new category "Category:Unidentified automobiles", which would be a sub category of both "Category:Automobiles" and "Category:Unknown subject". Ok, or other ideas? Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Good. I've created Category:Unidentified automobiles and made a start on it. -- Infrogmation 18:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I've made a go at categorizing all Commons images of parade floats into Category:Floats. The vast majority of these are in subcategory Category:Floats of New Orleans Mardi Gras. If you can think of any logical ways to subcategorize that category, have at it (it's not overfull yet, but it could easily get that way in a year or two). And if you know of any other float images hiding out somewhere, please tag them or let me know. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 16:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Baton rouge - capitolEdit
You are right ! Sorry for confusion. Real identification : cathedrale Saint Jean à Lafayette - Louisiana
Can you change the name of the picture ? Thank you. Or delate it.
Greetings from France PRA 13:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded Lafayette cathedral's picture again with the right name. Please delete the old one. Thank you for all .
Salut. PRA 14:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done. -- Infrogmation 15:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Duomo di MilanoEdit
Please tell us why do you what to add a category if there is already a page. Thanks.
- There are many similar examples of famous buildings for which we have many photos with their own category, even if a gallery page was already started. Discuss on Talk:Duomo di Milano. -- Infrogmation 14:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please have a look on italian page and how they are constructed. Why do you want to impose your point of view? Your photo is in the right page in the right category. Thanks for your comprehension.
- Please have a look on italian page and how they are constructed. Why do you want to impose your point of view? Your photo is in the right page in the right category. We're not lemmings, so if somebody does something it is not a rule or the thruth. Simply we decide to standardize italian categories this way; only pages belongs to a cat, and cat can contain other cats or pages. If there is more there one page for an argument a cat will be put in place, but this is not the case for Duomo di Milano. So now it's your turn: why don you want to impose your view? Why it's so urgent to have such a category? Thanks for your comprehension.
I responded to an old question of yours on my talk page Evilmousse
Let's continue this discussion here. I will watch your page for responses. (Mak)
Hi. I'm not sure what you're trying to do by adding the template to Image:OstrichCartJacksonville1.jpg. The image is already in the struthio camelus category. Interwiki links should show other wikis using the image, not ostrich articles in other wikis. (By the same token of adding interwikis to all the ostrich articles, I presume we could also add links to all the articles on carts, on postcards, and on Jacksonville Florida to the image-- but I don't see how that would be appropriate either). Explanation, please? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 00:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well- a lot of the rationale is discussed on Template talk:More. I'll lead in with this one. Once Google, MSN and Yahoo spiders crawl Commons the pages with links to the high resolution images are the Image: pages, not any of the others. Ask yourself how it could be that a search hit would ever land on a commons page. How does someone in Japan get a hit? Did you take the time to plug in all the terms for Ostrich in each of 20 major languages into each page? Are you going to copy paste into each page? What happens when someone wants to add the 21st language? Templates answer that. Of course, the text doesn't have to be visible- it can be off screen or whatever. My vernacular table doesn't have to be there.
- Secondly, ask yourself how if thousands of people are coming into commons via internet search every day as they do to wikipedia- ask yourself if they are easily able to navigate from what they see on their screen. For most, theis will be the first time they saw commons. If you are asking them to figure out how to navigate to a parent category, then I am afraid we have not done them a service. The primary retrieval unit for wikipedia is the article. For Commons, it is the image page. Each image page must have much more robust navigation. Interwikis and See also links do that.
- I've been through aspects of this with dbenbenn and others- not to say they agree or anything, but that I have been through the basics. I do understand basic current practice. I have no problem with folks adding links to image pages on encyclopedias. That will be helpful to maybe one of 2 thousand users who view the image, but I don't mind there being an extra link there. But for the other 1,999 folks, they will click on the interwiki link expecting further information about the primary feature in the image- not some archival/tracking information of interest to collections maintenance folks.
- -Mak 03:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the general practice that interwikis on Image pages be used for linking to other images, I have decided to withdraw my objections. I shall be moving the Interwiki links to the main body so there is no collision with direct links to image pages. I think that 99% of users will find no value in seeing a page with the identical image, but whatever- it is not my concern. There are other reasons why it is better that links to articles be in the body itself. Of course, if folks feel that such linking is cluttering the image page, it will be suppressable either by a flag or by default. Again I don't really care which the community feels is most desirable, just so that some pages can avail themselves of such information if they choose to. -Mak 19:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I wonder if you have additional thoughts on this subject. I have asked the general community the particular question about where to put interwiki links on an Image page. I proposed putting the interwiki links on the page as I described- rather than on the sidebar as in the Ostrich article. I did a language bar demo for Images of the Mona Lisa:
|Mona Lisa Wiki articles: Template:Lang-Mona Lisa|
The only person who stated a location preference was Arnomane, who surprizingly said it should all be back in the sidebar, counter to your POV that it should remain the traditional approach- only for links to image pages that have the same image on other wikis. If you would like to weigh in on the subject, the thread is here. Commons:Village_pump#Navigation_from_Image_pages
Anyway, To answer your earlier point about See also's to jacksonville, to carts, etc. Well- the guidance is the same for Wiki articles. Peripheral information not pertinent to the central subject runs the risk of being deleted by other editors. Where that balance of what the pertinent features of an image are and what features are unimportant- well that will be worked out between the editors. In this particular image of the ostrich cart- I would probably agree that having a link to all ostrich articles would only be of marginal interest to most viewers. Other pictures of ostriches, you bet. A picture of some warship in some naval action- you bet- links to more info on the ship, and links to the battle concerned.
-Mak 20:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The image Dando tumbos.jpg is not a copyvio, i have authotzation from the author as you can see in Commons:Authorization_to_use_material_from_http://www.ferminsolis.com. It is in spanish but I don't speak english very well and the author is spanish. Contact with him at email@example.com if you want. Re-upload the file, please. Hammer ortiz 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I've done some comparison of the stereo card you uploaded, which identifies itself as "Front of the Yakushi Temple at Nikko, Japan" with one of my photos of the Toshogu and concluded that the label on the card is incorrect. Have a look at Image:NikkoYakushiTempleStereoColor.jpg and I think you'll agree.
Fg2 05:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. Clearly the misidentification was with the stereo card publisher (a misplaced caption somewhere?) Thanks for the detective work finding the proper identification. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: about Image:Zoenen.jpgEdit
Where in the source (http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=profile&l=Webmonster) have the information that it's free? Thank you. FML hi 20:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Source website says "no restrictions"; see image talk page. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 00:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)