Tip: Categorizing images edit

Afrikaans  العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  Esperanto  español  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  magyar  íslenska  italiano  日本語  ქართული  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/−


Hello, KAMiKAZOW!
 
Tip: Add categories to your files

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.

Here's how:

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]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Word-Icon edit

Hi,

klar ist das evt. das App-Icon, aber die LIste in Wikipeida zeigt doch gar nicht die App-Icons sondern die Programme. Das neue Icon präsentiert die Programme wie aif der aktuellen Webseite. Was da im Repository ist, ist doch nicht relevant! Auf der Webseite wird ausschließlich das neue Icon verwendet und da is auch von KOffice nichts zu sehen. Das ist schließlich die aktuelle Calligra-Seite und nicht koffice.org. Also bevor ich das jetzt wieder reverte, wäre es schön, wenn du das selbst machen würdest. Danke :) Oder noch Kritik? --Pietz (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Was du da ständig hochlädst, ist das KWord-Icon, bei dem du selbst sogar noch das KOffice-Logo in der Ecke entfernt hast. Das ist altes KOffice-Material, das nicht aktualisiert wurde und als Calligra-Words-Icon lediglich in den 2.4-Alpha-Versionen genutzt wurde (dort mit dem K-Logo in der Ecke). Das grünliche Icon ist das aktuellere und selbst Calligra Words 2.5.1 (kürzlich erschienen) nutzt dieses. ICH habe die geltenden App-Icons hochgeladen und vollkommen bewusst „icon“ in den Dateinamen mit aufgenommen und mich interessiert nicht, ob du das als optisch passend empfindest, denn deine visuellen Präferenzen ändern am Programmicon nichts. Wenn du das 2.4-Alpha-Icon hochladen willst, mach das unter anderem Dateinamen (Calligra_Words_promo_logo.svg oder so). Wenn du in die deutsche Wikipedia veraltete Icons einbauen willst, kannste das gerne tun, aber nicht auf eine Weise, dass die englischen Artikel davon geschädigt werden.
Ich weiß ja nicht, wer du bist, dass du dich für besser qualifiziert hältst, aber ich habe die englischen Artikel von den Calligra-Entwicklern gegenlesen lassen, um sicher zu gehen, dass keine Falschaussagen drin stehen und dabei gab es keine Beschwerden über das Words-Icon. Auch ist einer der Calligra-Entwickler zumindest in sofern beim englischen Artikel aktiv, dass er neue Veröffentlichungen in der Infobox einträgt. Auch da kam niemals eine Beschwerde oder Bearbeitung zum Icon.
Wenn du dich wirklich nützlich machen willst, lade nicht ständig veraltete Grafiken hoch, sondern übersetze mal die ganzen KOffice-/Calligra-Artikel, die ich für die englische Wikipedia geschrieben bzw. erweitert habe. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Icon bedeutet doch nicht gleichzeitig, dass es ausschließlich ein Programm icon ist. Icon hat allgemeinere Bedeutungen im Englischen. Meinetwegen lassen wir das Icon halt so. Ich frag mich eben nur, warum auf der Webseite ale Icons ein Look and Feel haben und das Application-Icon im Programm eben nicht. Da kann doch was nicht stimmen. Wenn es das KOffice-Icon ist, dann verstehe ich halt dann nicht, warum es auf der neuen Calligra-Seite auch überall ist und das grüne W dort nicht zu finden ist. Da hat sich derjenige vom Webdesign sicher auch Gedanken gemacht. Es gibt keine Regel, die in Wikipedia festlegt, ob man in so einem Artikel das Programm-Icon oder das Icon der Webseite darstellen soll. Ich gehe nicht soweit, zu behaupten, das du unrecht hast. Gut, das grüne ist Programm-Icon und das gelbe das Website-Icon von Calligra. Ich finde, da gibt es kein falsch und richtig und kein alt oder neu. Es sind scheinbar dummerweise zwei Icons im Umlauf. Basta. Sollen wir jetzt in den Artikel beide einbauen? --Pietz (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Denk doch mal ein paar Minuten nach. Calligra ist ein Communtiy-Projekt ohne fest angestellte PR-Abteilung. Die Webseite wurde ein einziges Mal kurz nach dem Split von KOffice gestaltet. Seitdem ändert sich praktisch nur noch der Text. Die Calligra-Leute haben keine Zeit oder auch einfach keine Lust, die Webseiten-Grafiken stets aktuell zu halten. Deswegen haste auf der Unterseite für Karbon auch ein völlig veraltetes Bildschirmfoto von der ersten Alpha-Version: http://www.calligra.org/karbon/
Kannst dich ja als ehrenamtlicher Webmaster bewerben, wenn’s dich stört. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Template:Flora License edit

 
Template:Flora License 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 template, 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.

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!

ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement edit

Critically evaluate Flickr licenses
File:Jason Goldberg, Soleil Moon Frye, Eric Dane at 7th Annual Chrysalis Butterfly Ball 2008.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid. Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.

Deutsch  English  magyar  português do Brasil  italiano  norsk  norsk bokmål  português  français  македонски  slovenščina  suomi  українська  svenska  sicilianu  中文(臺灣)  +/−

LX (talk, contribs) 21:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Critically evaluate Flickr licenses
File:Eric Dane at 7th Annual Chrysalis Butterfly Ball 2008.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid. Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.

Deutsch  English  magyar  português do Brasil  italiano  norsk  norsk bokmål  português  français  македонски  slovenščina  suomi  українська  svenska  sicilianu  中文(臺灣)  +/−

LX (talk, contribs) 21:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Neo-Nazi Skinhead.jpg edit

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Neo-Nazi Skinhead.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Zxmt (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Neo-Nazi Skinhead.jpg edit

 
File:Neo-Nazi Skinhead.jpg 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

LX (talk, contribs) 13:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Tej.png edit

 
File:Tej.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

A.Savin 00:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:MAPS.ME logo.png edit

 
File:MAPS.ME logo.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

File:Rubens Barrichello 2008 (cropped).jpg edit

 
File:Rubens Barrichello 2008 (cropped).jpg 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

NaBUru38 (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply