User:Frank C. Müller/Discussion 2008

Category sorting

Hi - I have partially reverted your change to the sorting of Category:Culture of New Zealand by city. The intention of using a sorting key of " Culture of New Zealand by city" (note the extra space ahead of the text" is that this places the city subcategories at the very top of the Category:Culture of New Zealand - as you would want it too, and as is standard practice (categories that have the terms such as 'by city', 'by country' or 'by subject' are always to be listed first.

You may also ask, why then not use " city" as sorting tag (this would list it first too!). The reason is that in some other categories (doesn't currently apply here), it is preferrable to use the space to ensure it is listed first, but then list absolutely by alpabetic sort of the FULL category name. In categories that have lost of categories, the 'first' categories (those sorted with empty spaces) may be quite numerous too - so the full name should be used.

Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson 08:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Opus proprius

Hallo, in latin "Opus" is neuter, therefore the correct mention in your author credits should be "opus proprium", not "opus proprius". --User:G.dallorto 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I immediately corrected my template. --Frank C. Müller 06:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

deprecated function in your monobook.js

Dear user, I noticed that you use the includePage function in your monobook.js page.

This function is now obsolete, as the importScript function was introduced with rev:35064 to the MediaWiki Javascript core library wikibits.js. It also keeps track of already imported files.

To allow us to remove includePage from Mediawiki:Common.js I'd kindly ask you to replace its use with importScript (same syntax!). Thanks! --Dschwen 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Ok, done. --Frank C. Müller 12:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Media needing categories

Category:Media needing categories you have removed Category:Media needing categories from many images without add new Category. That is wrong.haabet 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Dear Haabet! I don't think that it's wrong. The Category:Media needing categories is only needed if the picture yet has no categories. The pictures you mean already are well categorized, so they don't need this meta-category. --Frank C. Müller 11:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Those images have need of categories.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

haabet 21:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Dear Haabet!

I don't understand you. All these pictures have categories like Category:Le Corset (1908) or Category:Le Corset de Toilette. These on their part have the Category:Corset books, and Corset books is categorized with Category:Corsets. So, because our categorization system is a hierarchical one, all these media are (at least over several stages) categorized as Corsets. Admittedly in some of these cases the categorization as Corsets is not optimal, e.g. in the picture Image:EmanuelLarsenKanonbåd.png, but without doubts they are categorized. So if you want to have them categorized better, it is on you to improve them. Because I am not very interested in corsets or their history, I shall not categorize any of these pictures, unless by chance.

--Frank C. Müller (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have need of help by the categories. Category:Le Corset (1908) and Category:Le Corset de Toilette are sources and not true categories. Perhaps you can make a Category for images which have need of more categories. haabet 19:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC) haabet 19:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Dear Haabet!

What is your aim? Wherefore are you scanning such books and putting them into Commons? Why don't you put them e.g. into Wikisource? As far as I know, Commons is not the place for complete book-scans. And this is also the reason, why it's so complicated finding appropriate categories.

If you nevertheless want to keep these pictures in Commons, I propose:

• Remove the category Corsets from the book-categeories Le Corset (1908) and Le Corset de Toilette, because the books are no corsets. If not, you will provoke misunderstandings like the on e with the picture of a ship, mentioned above.
• Of course you can add to all the pictures the template {{uncat}}. But this would only be an auxiliary construction. The better way would be finding appropriate categories for every single picture, e.g. Historic anatomical plates and drawings, 19th century fashion, Bones, 19th century drawings, Ships...

Regards, --Frank C. Müller (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I putting them into Commons and not into Wikisource, because Wikisource is for text and not for images. Anybody inspect the copyright of images on Wikisource. It is correctly as books not is Corsets, but how do I find the images again? Can practical consideration dominate strict logic?haabet 21:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi Haabet!

I have a similar problem. From time to time I want to look the photos I've uploaded on Commons. I created a Category:Images by Frank C. Müller, and every picture shot or edited by me gets this category; so I can find all my pictures in this category. In the category-page I put the lines:

Images shot or edited by [[User:Frank C. Müller]]

{{user category|Frank C. Müller}}

So if you make it similarly, perhaps it's also a solution for you.

--Frank C. Müller (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)