Lounge

From Shared

[edit] Images imported from gral

Gral: is the name of the secret organisation wiki. It is maintained until we have registered the internet domain (whose name has to be secret, of course) and set up the new domain. Unfortunately, some articles on gral seem to be there by mistake, there is nothing secret on them at all. In order to make it easier to transfer articles from gral: to the public, I have copied most of the images from gral to shared. -- Hansm 17:09, 10 October 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Import Image talk: pages from WT?

I wonder if we should import also the Image talk: pages from WT/shared or WT/de, respectively. Sometimes, there is some usefull Information about licensing or notes about further use etc. At the first run, I had decided to skip them, but now, I'd rather like to import them, too. Opinions? -- Hansm 17:50, 11 December 2006 (CET)

We should import these pages. Even today I needed the talk page. I linked to the WT page but it's better to have the information in our database. -- DerFussi 18:18, 11 December 2006 (CET)

Done. But there are only very few Image talk: pages. -- Hansm 17:12, 12 December 2006 (CET)

[edit] Import Categories from WT/shared?

There is a whole lot of Categories on WT/shared, now. Should we do a mass import to our shared:? I could run a script that checks for existing categories on WV/shared and prevents to overwrite them. -- Hansm 17:50, 11 December 2006 (CET)

No. After having had a closer look on WT/shared categories, I'm not for downloading them. There are almost 50,000 categories on WT/shared, most of them automaticaly created from the UNLOC-list. If we ever need this categories, we better make them ourselfs. -- Hansm 17:47, 12 December 2006 (CET)

It's really true. You will have a lot of categories without any touristic interest but a lot of categories missing which are not in the UNLOC data base. We can use the data base to select uniform site names. -- Roland 18:41, 12 December 2006 (CET)

[edit] Spelling of categories

Shouldn't we use the domestic spelling like on de: to name categories? Hội An instead of Hoi An. At the moment the category is called Category:Hoi An. I think it's a contradiction to our rules on de:/general: -- DerFussi 22:30, 22 January 2007 (CET)

We should use the same rules on all wikis. I agree as shared should be a image repository for all versions. --Der Reisende 10:15, 24 January 2007 (CET)

So what spelling is obligatory - I am mega-puzzled: Category:Muenster, Category:Gütersloh; Category:Czestochowa (loc.Częstochowa), Category:Świnoujście (as locally). LukeWestwalker⇔ 23:57, 29 October 2007 (CET)

Some categories came from WT, and the spelling was not consistent -- sometimes there are identical categories of the same destination with and without diacritics and in different languages. Therefore we did not imported all the WT categories to prevent confusion. I by myself prefer the local names. I think the different names came from keyboards with missing letters. But since a long time we have implemented edit tools to overcome this problem.

The import of images, the check and edition of them was a huge work, so I didn't found all misspellings. Today in the morning I corrected Muenster to Münster, Duesseldorf to Düsseldorf and Czestochowa to Częstochowa.

There is another problem with the search algorithm of the Wiki software. In case of other name spaces than that of the main name space you will find entries directly only if you add the name space id like Category. That's the reason why we do not use now redirects. I spoke with Hansm about this problem a few days ago and I hope he will find a solution to overcome this problem. --Roland 07:45, 30 October 2007 (CET)

Am I right that the current rules (that you partially expressed aboved) are the same as on khm, khm...? If so, should it be (altered or exactly) input anywhere? Should I make a page Help:Naming conventions (no question mark as there is already one;) LukeWestwalker⇔ 18:44, 30 October 2007 (CET)

[edit] Spam blacklist activated

Forced by repeated spam attacks during the last days, we have installed a spam filter for weblinks. The blacklist is maintained on Wikivoyage:Spam blacklist and only editable for admins. If you get a spam filter message when trying to save your legitimate edits, please contact an admin, preferrably on his de: talk page. -- Hansm 10:19, 13 June 2007 (CEST)

[edit] Votes for Deletion

Please check the Votes for Deletion page for all files that need to be deleted. Some have been on the list for month now. Cheers, Africaspotter 20:56, 23 July 2007 (CEST)

[edit] svg/png trouble

Sometimes I am a bit slow with understanding something. This time I'm having trouble with uploading svg files. So far, I always uploaded them as png files without noticing so that Unger had to change them back to svg format - this happening because when I downloaded the svg file from its location (generally Wikimedia Commons) to hard disc, it got automatically saved as svg.png, never understood why. When I try during saving to change the extension, i.e. to take away the png again, this works, but I can't upload this picture to shared, I get the following error massage:

Die Datei ist beschädigt oder hat einen falschen Namen. Bitte überprüfen Sie die Datei und laden Sie sie erneut hoch.

Last file with which tried is located here on Wikimedia Commons and now as well here on shared. Same trouble if I download the image as proposed by the browser in svg.png format and then try to upload it to shared dropping the png extension, I get the same error message. Only way it works is to upload it with the svg.png extension.

If anybody can figure out what I'm doing wrong, I would be really thankful. --Mulleflupp - Беседа 22:52, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

Unfortunatly I have no idea. I did it in the past without any problems. Nevertheless I try to sort it out in the next days.--Der Reisende 17:07, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

Don't worry about it anymore, problem has been solved and the guide on de: for uploading pictures updated accordingly. But thanks nevertheless :-D --Mulleflupp - Беседа 22:17, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

[edit] Bilder von picswiss.ch

[edit] Admins on shared

I have a few essential questions: Who are the admins on shared? Are they still checking the site? Where/How can I nominate someone/myself to become an admin? (I guess this will be the same process as on the German language version?) --Felix 20:11, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

You can find the list of admins on this special page, for the moment, it's the same 5 as on de: before the last 3 admins got elected. --Mulleflupp - Беседа 21:33, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

[edit] Renaming the Pub to Lounge

What do you think about renaming the pub into Lounge, Shared: Lounge or Wikivoyage Lounge like on de:? This would differentiate us from other wikis where the term "pub" is often used and provide a certain coherence with the German language version (same topic posted on general:). --Mulleflupp - Беседа 12:18, 3 October 2007 (CEST)

You got my vote! --Felix 13:08, 3 October 2007 (CEST)

O.K.--Der Reisende 15:45, 4 October 2007 (CEST)

My accordance to renaming pub into lounge have you. Bobo11 16:31, 4 October 2007 (CEST)

Pub renamed into Lounge, links redirected, sidebar adapted, redirect from pub to Lounge. --Mulleflupp - Беседа 10:15, 5 October 2007 (CEST)

[edit] Image:Skorpios.jpg

I uploaded that image from World66 so its licence should be OK. Although somebody says that there are not Cc-by-Sa-1,0 on World66 gobbler

[edit] Vorlage It

Sollten wir vielleicht auch eine Vorlage It (wie die En und De) für die Beschreibung der Bilder auf italienisch Anlegen, und diese in die Vorlage für Stadt / Region mit aufnehmen? Dann können die Italiener auch in Zukunft ihre Beschreibung auch auf italienisch angeben. -- DerFussi 09:53, 17 October 2007 (CEST)

Die Vorlagen für Sprchen wie {{de}} sind für zahlreiche Sprachen schon vorbereitet, so auch für It. Siehe Category:Templates:Internationalization. Was noch fehlt, sind die Übersetzungen verschiedener Seiten wie die die für Upload. Dies werden wir den Italienern mitteilen. Ich werde mal eine Liste aller Systemtexte zusammenstellen bzw. erweitern (siehe auch User:Unger). --Roland 10:46, 17 October 2007 (CEST)

[edit] CC Attribution license

In the upload file licences listbox there is only choice of any CC-BY-SA license. Are images licensed with CC Attribution (no SA!) allowed to be uploaded for WV purposes (you can not modify them)? LukeWestwalker⇔ 18:56, 30 October 2007 (CET) I also noticed these templates (Template:Cc-by-1.0, Template:Cc-by-2.0, Template:Cc-by-2.5) are marked as bad license. LukeWestwalker⇔ 19:16, 30 October 2007 (CET)

Its right CC-SA is a license, are illegal for German users (is only for user unther anglikanic court). So was a bad idea do give this licence do uploade. The point is in German (D-A-CH) can't disclaim the copyright. PD are also illegal for German users. Bobo11 20:29, 1 November 2007 (CET)

Of course, there are a lot of free licenses, but some of them are illegal in some countries of the world or are improper to use. The entries of the upload dialogue are selected to support a proper use of the articles including these images -- and only these licenses should be used. The existence of templates like Template:Cc-by-1.0 is only for backward compatibility like in the case of a fork, not for new images. Incompatible images should be substituted by other ones. --Roland 08:48, 2 November 2007 (CET)

That's clear. But can the image licensed Cc-by-1.0 (for backward compatibility) be included in some new article? Or is just stored but not meant to appear in articles? Secondly are Public Domain pictures really (Template:PD) illegal for Germans? LukeWestwalker⇔ 14:10, 2 November 2007 (CET)

[edit] GFDL images - uploading, storing and usage

GFDL is free (and allowed to store) but inconvenient to use (see also de:Wikivoyage:Warum_Wikivoyage_nicht_unter_GFDL_lizensiert_wird). CC-by licenses can be changed to other ones, so a derived work can have illegal or improper conditions -- which should be prevented.

It is not forbidden to store images with a GFDL license or other free licenses. OK -- the usage is inconvienient, but it is not necessary to delete them.

In case of new own images we prefer -- like Mediawiki Commons -- double-licensed images (GFDL + all cc-by-sa). --Roland 08:48, 2 November 2007 (CET)

So the question is: what are we storing GDFL images for? It is not the question of new own images, but the question of GFDL images transferred from WMCommons. I understand that we don't want them to be uploaded unless they are double licensed as there is no GFDL entry in the upload dialogue (that you mentioned above), so I suppose GFDL images don't guarantee "proper use of the articles including these images" (also above).

Sorry if the following example is trivial for anyone, but I would like to mention it so as everyone be aware of the subject of discussion: I am printing, let's say, Munich guide with a GFDL image in 99 copies. No problem till that moment. One person of the group lost their copy so I quickly xerocopy one more for them. Now this is a violation of GFDL license. Did you mean such situation as inconvenient? But my knowlegde of GFDL is very limited, correct me if I wrote anything wrong above.

The problem arises with the copies. On the web the GFDL images are connected with links to the license conditions. This is not the case of paper copies. In any case -- also for one sheet of paper -- you must give of complete set of the GFDL license documentation to your copies -- this is unconvenient. --Roland 15:22, 2 November 2007 (CET)

But if I have not mistaken ih the Munich guide example, in such case one of the goals of WV [printing guides] becomes seriously close to copyright violation encouragement. If so, is it sensible to include GFDL images in articles? LukeWestwalker⇔ 14:10, 2 November 2007 (CET)

The problem for a comercel printing Version is by all pictures the samme (with corect Licencing) . Whe musst by all picture import the photografer form the pictures in the text version. That dont't goining automaticly, so the whe can in the same moment, exclude all only GDFL pictures. From the online Virsion is this never e problem then the Licenc ist on the picture side. In the online vesion from wikivoyage is a only GDFL pictures practical, clear a multi-licencet Picture or CC-by-sa is better, but not necessarie. Bobo11 22:50, 2 November 2007 (CET)

[edit] Image:Verlauf_Blau.png

Is it possible to copyright or attribute such a horizontal line in changing colors? What do you think? LukeWestwalker⇔ 20:48, 31 October 2007 (CET)

CC-by-sa allows to change the image (it is a derived work). The derived work must have the same license. --Roland 08:50, 2 November 2007 (CET)

I see. From what what licensed source is that image then? There is no source at the image description page... LukeWestwalker⇔ 13:28, 2 November 2007 (CET)

It's my own work -- DerFussi 14:02, 2 November 2007 (CET)

Just wanted to say you can not attribute or copyright work that in my opinion is not original. In German it is called Schöpfungshöhe. If it so it should have some PD or compatible license. LukeWestwalker⇔ 14:21, 4 November 2007 (CET)

[edit] Image page layout

Well, are not those two Template:Information «» Template:Image presenting contradictory layout? LukeWestwalker⇔ 20:48, 31 October 2007 (CET)

Template:Image should be used only as a template for empty image descriptions. It consists of both the description (with Template:Information) and license chapters. --Roland 08:25, 2 November 2007 (CET)

Exactly - Template:Image consists of Template:Information+License. However license (as permission/erlaubnis) is already included in one row of Template:Information. Please scroll to the bottom to Template:Information to see the example with license box in the "permission" row. Therefore I consider these two templates contradictory. What for is the license chapter in the Template:Image when there is already place for license in the Template:Information? I am asking because I would like to correct incomplete descriptions and I am not sure what to follow (Template:Image is in my opinion repetitive). LukeWestwalker⇔ 13:39, 2 November 2007 (CET)

The "permission/erlaubnis" of the Template:Information template is only for addional information and for compatibility reasons with Wikimedia Commons. Normally this line is empty or shows "See below". The license is shown by a special template like Template:Cc-by-sa-1.0 -- we need such templates for an electronical analysis of the licenses. If you upload an image this license template will be automatically added by the software. If you import an image without any information then you should use Template:Image in the edit section because it adds both templates (Information, and license). At least the problem arises from the software because if makes difference between description and license. --Roland 15:10, 2 November 2007 (CET)

May be I should change my question: Is it OK when I upload file with the description layout like on the bottom of the page Template:Information or Image:Bielko Biała Castle.jpg? LukeWestwalker⇔ 18:21, 2 November 2007 (CET)

Both is both possible. If you use the upload dialogue the license information is added by the software automatically behind the Information template. So it is more convenient in the most cases to let it behind. But you can change the text in the edit dialogue. --Roland 20:25, 2 November 2007 (CET)

[edit] What was that?

Can someone please take a look at the edits from 2 November 2007 from 15:14 to 15:28. What was that? I had impression I was fighting some gremlins. Was that the revenge of the empire? LukeWestwalker⇔ 19:24, 2 November 2007 (CET)

At this time I made some additions to the Lounge. If we worked together at the same time at the same chapter there will maybe edition conflicts. But the software will inform you about this. --Roland 20:32, 2 November 2007 (CET)

No, it is not at all what I meant. Once more: Please take a look at changes on WV Shared from 2 November 2007 from 15:14 to 15:28. LukeWestwalker⇔ 21:19, 2 November 2007 (CET)

1. (Datei-Logbuch); 15:40 . . Stilfehler (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) (uploaded "Image:Upper East Side.jpg": {{Information |Description=Map of the Upper East Side in Manhattan, New York |Author=Stilfehler |Date=Nov. 1st, 2007 |Source=self-made |Permission=See below |other_versions= }} [[Category:New )
2. (Unterschied) (Versionen) . . K Lounge‎; 15:22 . . (+358 Bytes) . . Unger (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) (→GFDL images - uploading, storing and usage - )
3. (Unterschied) (Versionen) . . K Lounge‎; 15:12 . . (+4 Bytes) . . Unger (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) (→Image page layout - )
4. (Unterschied) (Versionen) . . K Lounge‎; 15:11 . . (+71 Bytes) . . Unger (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) (→Image page layout - )

This is the list of the edits of Nov 2, 2007, 15:11 to 15:28. These are three usual additions of me to the lounge and one edit of Stilfehler. What's your problem? --Roland 18:01, 4 November 2007 (CET)

Maybe this one:

1. Category:French Polynesia‎; 15:14 . . 148.167.202.141

Look at this [1] --Airin 18:44, 4 November 2007 (CET)

Yes, for example like the one above. You've pasted changes from 15:11 to 15:28 GMT. I meant from 15:11 to 15:28 CET. Look what happened an hour earlier - so 14:11-14:28 GMT. LukeWestwalker⇔ 18:52, 4 November 2007 (CET)

This is a special type of vandalism -- this type of changing charcters only occurs in case of vandalism. The user uses an editor or a browser which cannot work with Unicode-UTF characters. You will see the ASCII code of UTF-8 charcters. This is not a problem of the Wiki software. For instance, German Ä gives as ASCII Ä. To do it is very simple: Copy a text to an Unicode editor, save it and open it with an ASCII code editor. I think this is really a special kind of vandalism. --Roland 20:12, 4 November 2007 (CET)

[edit] Improved search

We made a change in the MediaWiki search engine to make searching easier: Now you can enter Categories without entering "Category:" before.

You can make also redirects to categories with names with diacritics but you should not forget the colon : before Category:. Example: #redirect [[:Category:Da Lat]]. --Roland 20:40, 4 November 2007 (CET)

[edit] Problem with PD

To build the new Template BdM (Baustelle des Monats, construction site of the month) I uploaded a image from commons.wikimedia.org. This image is there licenced under public domain. I uploaded it and chose this licence. Still it is licenced under GFDL and CC although I chose PD as the corresponding licence. How can I revert that and bring things back into order? --flöschen 12:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You can edit the image description page and change {{dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any}} by {{PD}}. A similiar image Image:RoadConstruction.svg is available, too. See also the Category:Road signs. --Roland 15:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kategorien - Unterkategorien

Habe heute Bilder hochgeladen und dabei gemerkt das ich für Island keine neuen Unterkategorien anlegen kann/darf. Einige sind ja schon da, aber es wäre vielleicht sinnvoll wenigstens noch die Regionen und Nationalparks wie in Island WV dazu zu nehmen. Wobei man beim Skaftafell-Nationalpark vielleicht noch etwas warten sollte, weil da noch eine Umbenennung kommt, wegen Vergrößerung und Umbenennung des NP. Randbemerkung; ich weiß das meine Bilder keine gute Qualität haben, weil eingescannt. Aber ich denke zum auflockern der Artikel reichen sie vorerst mal aus. Gipsyqueen 21:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hat sich dann erledigt Gipsyqueen 13:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CC-by again

Kann mir jemand genau den Sachverhalt rund um die CC-by-Lizenz erklären? Hier steht ja weiter oben, das diese im deutschen Sprachraum nicht genutzt werden darf. Da aber jemand, der sich im englischen (oder wo auch immer) Sprachraum befindet, die Lizenz laut den Bestimmung der CC-by ausdrücklich ändern darf (sonst wäre es ja CC-by-sa), wäre die Lizenz damit automatisch mit jeder freien Lizenz kompatibel, die den Namen des Autors nennt, also auch mit allen CC-by-sa-Lizenzen. Warum ist dann die Lizenz hier trotzdem nicht erwünscht?

Es geht im Moment um folgendes Bild: Image:Vineyard in Mendoza, Argentina.jpg, das von den Commons stammt.--Kkkr 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hier ist übrigens die deutsche Version der CC-by-Lizenz zu finden. Über die Nichtgültigkeit steht da nichts dabei.--Kkkr 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ich spekuliere mal noch etwas weiter (hab n bisschen was dazu gelesen, v.a. auf den Rechtsseiten der Wikimedia Foundation, muss aber gleich dazu sagen, dass ich kein Rechtsexperte bin). Vermutlich ist die in Deutschland ungültige Lizenz die CC-SA (Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen ohne Autorennennung), nicht die CC-BY (Weitergabe unter beliebigen Bedingungen, solange der Autor genannt wird). Soviel ich nämlich weiß, darf der Autor in Deutschland nicht auf das Urheberrecht verzichten, wohl aber auf alle Nutzungsrechte. Da bei der CC-SA ja der Autor nicht genannt wird, wird das "Band zwischen Urheber und Werk" ja zerschnitten, d.h. die Lizenz könnte in der Tat in D ungültig sein (und ist ja sowieso inzwischen bei CC veraltet). Bei CC-BY bleibt das Band aber bestehen, der Autor verzichtet nur auf einen großen Teil der Nutzungsrechte. Ich sehe also eigentlich keine Probleme mit dieser Lizenz ;-) --Kkkr 00:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

CC-by und CC-by-sa können beide im deutschen Sprachraum eingesetzt werden, da das Urheberrecht nicht abgetreten wird, sondern nur Nutzungsrechte. Das sieht bei Public Domain anders aus (Alternative Template:Copyrighted free use). Ärgerlich im Falle von CC-by ist, dass das Werk zwar weitergegeben werden darf, aber nicht unter gleichen Bedingungen verändert und weitergegeben werden darf. Selbst eine Verkleinerung wäre wohl eine Transformation, die nicht erlaubt ist. Roland 08:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Doch, CC-by erlaubt Veränderung. Die Lizenz, die du wohl meinst ist CC-by-nd (Attribution No Derivative Works). Die CC-by ist insgesamt gesehen die "unrestriktivste" Lizenz. Siehe auch den Link oben, da isses genau erklärt. ;-) --Kkkr 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As there are no more votes in the discussion I will try to summarize. I think the subject is extremely important to WVShared and we need the highest possible competence in handling image licenses here to ensure safe future of the project (Yes, Hans I know gained a credit from you on the last sentence...). So the differences between CCby and CCbySA:

• CCby [2], [3]: you can share, remix, adapt, you must attribute
• CCbySA [4], [5]: you can share, remix, adapt, you must attribute and use the same license for whatever you create using this work.

To clarify: CCby allows you to license your created work under any license you like, provided you attribute the author (however you like). Like Kkkr wrote above - CCby is the least restrictive. If you ever have problem collecting work from sources under different licenses, check here [6].

(Roland if you meant above (Ärgerlich im Falle von CC-by ist, dass das Werk zwar weitergegeben werden darf, aber nicht unter gleichen Bedingungen verändert und weitergegeben werden darf) In case of of CC-by it is annoying that the work may be distributed, but may not be changed and distributed under same conditions, this must have been misunderstanding.)

Practical implications:

• CCby image may be used as a part of any project: Wikivoyage licensed under CCbySA, Wikipedia licensed under GFDL, a commercial guide book, daily newspaper, fishing magazine, if the author of the image is attributed - which is possible in all the projects I mentioned. You violate (break) this license only when you don't credit the author.
• CCbySA image may be used as a part if the project licensed under the same or similar (compatible [7]) license: you can not use it in a commercial guide book, daily newspaper, fishing magazine because they are usually copyrighted. You can use CCbySA image on Wikivoyage licensed under CCbySA and most people think you can use it on Wikipedia, because most people think CC is comptabile with GFDL in crediting the author.

So are those diffrences really important to Wikivoyage? Not really. We attribute authors of images in both printed and on-line distribution (I hope we print link to details of the image). End of the story. CCby images (and other works) are welcome to any CCbySA project.

Therefore (if I didn't make mistake above) I suppose some actions are obvious:

• remove Template:WrongLicense from Template:Cc-by-1.0, Template:Cc-by-2.0, Template:Cc-by-2.5, Template:Cc-by-3.0
• add to upload dialog an entry Any attribution (1.0 or above) for newly uploaded pictures.

LukeWestwalker⇔ 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, as stated above. Template:WrongLicense should be removed.--Kkkr 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PD plus uneingeschränktes Nutzungsrecht

Wäre nicht ein Vorlage wie diese auch für Wikivoyage hilfreich? Sie vereinigt das "uneingeschränkte Nutzungsrecht" mit Public Domain und ist daher besonders für den deutschsprachigen Raum interessant.

Wie geht man sonst in solchen Fällen vor? Beide Lizenzen auf einmal? --Kkkr 20:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Template:Copyrighted free use? Do you still see any limits in this template for your purposes? (You may also browse the Category:Templates:License information for general outlook among present templates). LukeWestwalker⇔ 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know this template. But if I import images from the Commons with the template I mentioned above, I think it would not be correct to put it only under Copyrighted Free Use because in countries where PD exists they are too in the Public Domain, and if I put only the PD license in the article there are potential legal problems in Germany. A "double" template would solve this problem. --Kkkr 00:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Right - if you import PD images to put it only under Template:Copyrighted free use it would not be correct because you would lose Public Domain in countries where PD exists. For me they are practically the same, but...

If you need to distinguish between PD annd Template:Copyrighted free use, we would need both templates (I think Template:PD-creator is meant for this). But I understand that you rather need a template that would allow to:

• be used for imported PD images from commons
• be used for new images that users don't want to use PD for (Germany)
• be compatible with images that already use Template:Copyrighted free use

I hope I understand well. Then we could add a sentence to Template:Copyrighted free use releasing the picture to PD. I think you could do it on template dicussion page: Template talk:Copyrighted free use. I would only like to wait for opinion of someone who created licenses template system here, as I am afraid the concept could be different for German purposes... LukeWestwalker⇔ 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to add a new template, because it is possible that someone wants to put her/his images only to PD, or only Copyrighted Free Use. I will post an example at my user page. --Kkkr 01:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So there would be a template for CFU and a template PD/CFU. Should the PD/CFU template be added to upload dialogue list? And also a word of explanation to users importing PD or CFU images - which one to use? How about Template:PD-creator - only for PD? LukeWestwalker⇔ 08:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes this would make more sense, to replace Template:PD-Creator (in the license dialog) by the "double" template. In Wikimedia Commons they have done it this way, too (they added the CFU note to the PD-Creator template). But I would keep the actual "PD-Creator" template for images where Copyrighted Free Use was not explicitly allowed by the author. Or does PD imply CFU? I'm not sure of this, if this were so, we can replace the PD-author template without the CFU note completely. --Kkkr

[edit] Template for importing from WM Commons

As I saw Jensre and Bgabel importing images from WM Commons, you may find useful Template:wmcu for attributing authorship of commons users. Example at Image:Karte Pfälzerwald.png.

Als ich habe gesehen Jensre und Bgabel importieren Bilder von WM Commons, ihr können nützlich Template:wmcu für Nennung den Autoren von commons usersausfinden. Beispiel bei Image:Karte Pfälzerwald.png.

LukeWestwalker⇔ 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category names

I have just noticed redirection from English name to local (Italian) in case of Category:Milan. Regarding agreement form this discussion in a place difficult to find (de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Unger#Milan_vs._Milano), I am sorry to say that it is encouraging more mess among category names. Rules that I proposed (and hope Mulleflupp supported it) in Naming_conventions say that category names should be in English whereever possible.

What kind of mess is present among category names now? Two Examples: 1. France - Category:Picardie_(region) (en Picardy), vs. Bretagne (en Category:Brittany_(region), Bourgogne (Category:Burgundy_(region). 2. Italy - Firenza (en Category:Florence), Category:Roma (en Rome). Category names even in one country, are once in English, once in local version.

How is more mess introduced now? Redirecting from English name to local, making it more puzzling for anyone trying to understand in what language to make a new category.

If I am wrong that category names rules are necessary, don't read further as it's unnecessary then. But if I am right that category names rules should be clear and simple to any user wanting to create it, I can see two choices:

1. we either keep category names in English, so as above French and Italian regions and towns are changed to English and redirects from local version to English are made.

or

2. we change all names to local, so ex. Firenza, not Florence, also Bretagne, Lombardia, and all regions in other countries, like Category:Poland and Category:Czech Republic are changed to their local version and redirects to local version from English are made.

And, of course theoretically 3. We keep it as various as it is now, not intending to make rules clear, discussing each case individually, probably inspiring conflicts between editors in future.

I'll be glad to help in either of the options above. I hope the choice and discussion is made here, not in another wiki. LukeWestwalker⇔ 09:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the solution cannot be only English or only local. Checking Wikimedia Commons, also Wikimedia Commons is not consequent as it should be. For instance, there is an article on Lombardia which is categorized into Lombardy. It's reasonable to give categories' names in a consequent way – at least at the scale of countries. So the question arise when to use English or local names.

1. Keeping category names in English is possible only downwards to countries and (their) regions levels. The English names are necessary because the local names are usually not known to all.
2. In case of towns or similar a mixture of English and local names will occur because not all of them have an English equivalent. To be consequent only local names should be taken in the latter case. Contrary to countries, the local names of cities etc. are known to the most users. Surely, it may be exceptions like Ho Chi Minh City but it should be only a few ones.

Redirects can be created in both cases. -- Roland 11:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for presenting your proposal. I wanted to ask a question about it, because I don't understand this proposal in one point and disagree with it in another point. But... as you already started making several changes at different levels ([8], [9], [10]), without waiting for opinions of others, I feel very sorry and understand that there is no place for discussion. And opinions appeared [11]. LukeWestwalker⇔ 12:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming of categories is not only a question of having a naming convention, but also a question of manpower. I hope we will have enough authors in future who can also check all namings on Shared and find usefull ways for individual regions. Now it is my everyday work to check all new photographs and categories and recheck older ones – upto now I am the only one who performs it. Today I made only changes on French and Italian names to have identical naming.

Of course you can discuss here. But we will not found a unique way to solve all problems -- it is also a big problem for geographers, the discussion will take a lot of time with maybe not so much results. And finally, nobody will make corrections now because of the huge amount of work (now 10,000 figures and 1,200 categories). If you will find mistakes please change them.

One of our main problems will be transliterations of names not written in Latin letters. I hope to solve this in collaboration with specialists in language and topics.

Normally all categories will be found using redirects so you will find them also with alternative names. I know that there is also a software problem with redirects of categories, but I hope it can be solved in future.

Now we have no uncategorized images and double categories like WT/Shared, this is the best base to make corrections in future.

Another problems will arise from forking additional branches from WT, because they are using about 50,000 categories on shared with different (parallel) styles of namings. --Roland 16:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it is not as problematic as you said, because it's not a geographic or linguistic organisation, shared: is just an image repository for wiki, and there is a lot of easy and correct enough solutions. Even "unique" ones. As the subject has drifted away from category names, I am not afraid that it is not only a big problem for geographers. I am afraid that it is also a problem for this wiki. It appears with the symptom of lacking manpower you mentioned. Wouldn't it be worth posing a question of reasons and our perception of this problem? I am convinced everyone appreciates your huge and invaluable contribution to all WV wikis, which is an immense amount of voluntary work. I suspect it may remain that way in future if larger community remains uninvolved because of repeated actions making collaboration difficult. Making changes without waiting for consensus is just one of examples of such actions. I have already asked for creating rules allowing larger number of users to correctly perform administrative tasks. May be I myself am not the representative example, but I would gladly help, but feel unable because of lack of clear rules. They may never be created unless there is agreement even among small group of contributors or unless one person creates them all. The latter seems to be difficult as you wrote above.

I know that doesn't move further category names discussion, but may be explains reasons of this problem being unsolved. LukeWestwalker⇔ 11:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)