User talk:ŠJů/archiv03

Infantry barracks of Austria-Hungary in Sanok[edit]

Hello! You added Category:23 Mickiewicza Street in Sanok to the Category:Infantry barracks of Austria-Hungary. I have a question: was it Category:21 Mickiewicza Street in Sanok part of these "Infantry barracks of Austria-Hungary" as well? Both buildings are part of one whole in the past (only today they have different owners). Besides i see there is a separetely category Category:Austro-Hungarian Army barracks in Sanok, what do you think about it? Greetings. --Lowdown (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know. I had only transfered the category (added by Steinbeisser – formerly Erwin Lindemann) from an individual photo to the whole category. However, as I see, both buildings are categorized under Galizisches Infanterie Regiment "Erzherzog Joseph Ferdinand" Nr. 45 which should mean that both were infantery barracks. Steinbeisser seems to be more familiar with this theme but he is not very communicative. --ŠJů (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kategorie podle data[edit]

Ahoj,

mohl bys mě prosímtě pomoci při standardizaci subkategorií v kategorii Death of Václav Havel (Wenceslas Square).--Juandev (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zatím mě nenapadá, jak to vyřešit. Ty kategorie beru jako provizorní, definitivní názvy by asi měly vypadat jinak a být výstižnější - ne jako kdyby Václav Havel umíral na Václaváku každý den znovu. --ŠJů (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jistě.--Juandev (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jedinou srovnatelnou kategorií je Category:Death of Michael Jackson, ale ta má mnohem méně fotek a podkategorií, takže tam se inspirovat nelze. Nanešel jsem žádné analogické kategorie pro vzpomínkové akce podobné těm havlovským svíčkovým místům u nás. (A koukám, že asi nikdo nefotil na té plavbě do Děčína.) --ŠJů (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co něco ve stylu Pietní shromáždění u příležitosti úmrtí Václava Havla, nebo Pieta za Václava Havla, nebo něco v tomto duchu ?? Jedudědek (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Něco v tom duchu určitě, ale mělo by to být anglicky a co nejvíce odpovídat obsahu těch fotek. --ŠJů (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tak že by to mělo být anglicky mi je vcelku jasné, jen má angličtina nedosahuje takové úrovně, abych ti tu ty kategorie navrhoval rovnou v anglickém znění;-) Jedudědek (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tak to jsme na tom stejně. Právě proto se většinou snažím najít nějakou již existující kategorii s podobným námětem a udělat to podle ní. Což se v tomhle případě nepodařilo. V případě Václaváku bych si nevěděl rady ani s českým názvem, protože zezačátku tam šlo spíš o shromáždění (ale fotkám už dominovaly ty svíčky) a v dalších dnech už to byly hlavně ty svíčky. --ŠJů (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dřevěný kostel sv. Mikuláše divotvorce[edit]

Ahoj. Dík za tyto fotky z Hradce Králové. Jen jednu poznámku bych měl. Ten kostelík byl původně opravdu pravoslavný. Vznikl 1502-1510 v obci Habura zasvěcen archandělu Michaelovi. Po roce 1740 byl odprodán do Malé Poľany, kde byl zasvěcen řeckokatolickou církví právě sv. Mikuláši. Že se stěhoval podruhé v roce 1935 je už známo více. Možná bys to mohl nějak překategorizovat - nechám na Tobě vyznáš se v tom víc.--109.80.234.129 12:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj. V současné době jej užívá pouze pravoslavná církev (a patří městu). V tomto případě bych nepovažoval za nutné zohledňovat v kategorizaci i to, že kdysi také nějakou dobu patřil řeckokatolické církvi. --ŠJů (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:P4243910.JPG[edit]

Ahoj, soubor můžeš klidně přejmenovat. Moc často na Commons nenahrávám, tak se mě někdy podaří uložit to jako číslo. Zdraví --Bohemianroots (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Interier furniture[edit]

You say "made by the Czechoslovakian company 'Furniture'", but shouldn't that be "made by the Czechoslovakian company 'Interier'"? And, for that matter, is it from the era where it should be called "Czechoslovakian", or is it something present-day that should be called "Czech"? Also, for that matter, glancing at cs:Interiér it would seem it should have an accent mark. - Jmabel ! talk 05:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the description was mistaken. And the added interwikis was nonsensical. I corrected it now.

Borrowed terms in Czech have varying spelling as regards the vowel-length marks. If the company chose the short variant, it should be written short (without length mark). Only one bookcase from the depicted furniture was made by the Prague company Interier (File:Výrobní štítek knihovny od firmy Interier.JPG). (Here about them)

However, the second of the depicted furniture - as seen on the manufacturing tablets - was produced by "UP závody Rousínov" which was privatized and transformed to Tusculum a. s. in 1992 and merged to JITONA a. s. in 2003–2007 ([1])

Most of Czechoslovak companies can be simply identified as Czech or as Slovak. Only several biggest companies (Czechoslovak Post, Czechoslovak Railways etc.) operated in both countries of the Czechoslovak federation (or semi-federation before 1969). Rousínov is a town in South Moravia. I suppose, they have no facility in Slovakia but only in Rousínov, Třebíč and Brno-Královo Pole ([2]). Prague is a Bohemian city. --ŠJů (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 02:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're now a filemover[edit]

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

Hi ŠJů/archiv03, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one.
Please do not tag redirects as {{Speedy}}. Other projects, like InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Výzkumný a zkušební letecký ústav[edit]

Hi! About Category:Výzkumný a zkušební letecký ústav, I found its English name is "Aerospace Research and Test Establishment" - http://www.vzlu.cz/en/news/actual-events/ - So I filed a request to have the category moved to its English name WhisperToMe (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Generally, i prefer original official proper names of places, companies, national organizations etc. Original names are more unambiguous and more reliable and identifiable than unofficial translations even if they exist. English exonyms should by used only in they are very widely used. --ŠJů (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The official website uses this English name, so in this case the translation is official. When a organization refers to itself in English using its original name (such as the French BEA) then I use the original name. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The company is officialy registered only under its Czech name, see here. The translation used by the institute itself should be taken into consideration but it isn't an official name. Commons should use rather the real and official name than its English explanation. --ŠJů (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is officially registered under its native language name, for the category page Commons uses the English names commonly used. For the gallery pages we use the native name. I.e. Category:French Air and Space Museum for the category, but Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace for the gallery. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proper nouns are primarily identification, not explanation. Maybe, in medieval times, people names and predicates and local names were also often translated or they were variable and not formally stabilized, but nowadays, the verbatim form and wording of the official name is a fixed identifier of the named subject. Generally, original names are more unambiguous and more reliable and identifiable than unofficial translations even if they exist. That's why George Bush isn't (seriously) translated as "Jirka Křoví" into Czech, and "Škoda" company isn't translated as "Damage" but at most reduced to "Skoda" and a surname of the Czech president Klaus is not translated to the traditional Czech form "Mikuláš". Even names of the Czech companies "Student Agency" or "First Transport Lines" are not translated to Czech form even when they are used in Czech texts. Some proper names of people, places or organizations can be translated or etymologically explained but the translation is not fully equal to the official form of the real name. --ŠJů (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that with names of people today, they are not translated (the only thing is that non-Latin names are transcribed into Latin characters for person categories) - However, from what I see online, names of organizations are often treated differently. Some brand names like "Burger King" or "Pizza Hut" are not translated (a good analogy with "Skoda"). But names of some organizations are- for instance the en:United States Citizenship and Immigration Services uses the name "es:Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos" in Spanish, and it has a dedicated Spanish logo File:USCISLogoSpanish.jpg

Often the acronyms used are those of the original language. For instance en:Houston Independent School District is es:Distrito Escolar Independiente de Houston in Spanish (File:HoustonISDSpanishlogo.PNG) but the acronym HISD is used in both English and Spanish publications.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, notice that German Wikipedia use the original name in both cases you mentioned. --ŠJů (talk) 03:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I believe that's because the organizations in question never had significant German language audiences, so in Germany they are known by their original names. USCIS has websites in English, Spanish and additional content in Chinese, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. HISD has websites in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese and additional content in French, Arabic, Urdu, Persian, and Chinese.

Organizations may also treat different languages differently. If you look at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, their publications in Spanish, French (see address at bottom), and Italian (see address at bottom) translate the name. The German version uses the original name, even as it translated the name of the parent agency. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I think, this case is a bit similar to the Category:Budapest-Keleti pályaudvar. The translation (Eastern Railway Station) is good as an explanation but the real official name is better as the identifier. En:wiki uses a half-translated form Budapest Keleti railway station. --ŠJů (talk) 05:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify wording[edit]

What you wrote here isn't entirely understandable; could you please rewrite it to make it more understandable? I'm not sure if you meant "be" instead of "by". I'm also not sure which of the following options you meant:

"the...protection, but the included...protection"
"the...protection, and the included...protection"
"the...protection, or the included...protection"
"the...protection; the included...protection"

Thanks for your help! Nyttend (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Naturally, "by" was a typing error, it should be "can be excluded".

The logical relation between two parts of the sentence seems to be quite evident. The form can be copyrighted, the information isn't. Do you realy mean that there exist more possible meanings? --ŠJů (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pozor, úchyl.jpg[edit]

File:Pozor, úchyl.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Prosfilaes (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pozor, úchyl.jpg 2[edit]

Hello ŠJů,

it would have been nice if would you have at least told me about your undeletion request so I could have commented. You didn't, so I'll have to ask you here where you did get the idea that my deletion decision was based upon a “translation of the Czech act made by Google Translate”? I never wrote anything like that. What I did write was “I had the text translated by Google Translate, and this is definitely more than just a few simple sentences which we could say were below the threshold of copyrightability.” The text I was referring to was the text written on the poster shown in the image, as is quite obvious in the latter part of my sentence describing my assessment of said text. If you had notified me, I could have corrected this erroneous description of my actions which you presented as a fact. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 12:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rosenzweig. I also have not received some special notice from you that you have rejected my arguments and deleted the file. Everybody can verify whether and how much my summary of your reasons and your handling with my arguments is correct and exhaustive.

You are right that i misunderstood your explanation. I'm sorry. I supposed that you reacted to the discussion and to the core of the discussion – what is and what isn't a literary work in sense of the Czech legislation and Bern convention. That's why I supposed that you analysed primarily the law. Maybe, I was confused by the fact that translations of the act were discussed above.

Thus, your opinion is that "few simple sentences" are not a literary work and any longer text definitely is a literary work. I can see no base for such interpretation. Also very small text can be a literary work, and a very large text can be not a literary work in sense of the European copyright law. If you had notified me or participate in the discussion before closing it with your own undiscussed reason, we can avoid such needless revision and revision of revision. --ŠJů (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there already is a deletion request, everybody who is interested can put it on his watch list. You as the uploader of the file were notified of the DR (at least you should have been, all the automatic procedures do that), and anyway you were aware of it, as your posts there show. So no further notice is necessary, as any edit there shows up on your watchlist. Participating in the DR discussion would have prevented me from closing the DR as an admin, so your notion that I should have participated in the discussion is rather strange. It seems you do not know much about how deletion requests are handled here.

An undeletion request, on the other hand, does not show up on the watch list, that's why it is considered helpful to notify people involved, like e. g. the closing admin of the DR. You're not absolutely obliged to, but it is often helpful to clear things up. Like it would have been in this case.

I stand by my assessment of the legal situation as far as copyrightability of texts is concerned. The Czech republic is a EU member country, and notwithstanding some differences, the fundamentals of copyright were harmonized all over the EU. This is not some exotic opinion, as the further discussion shows. If the Czech republic really had such a high threshold of originality, this would be quite different from other European countries and should be well and properly established with court sentences etc. before it can be applied here. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 21:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody who have his interest in undeletion requests can put the page of undeletion requests in his own watch list. I saw that you closed the discussion, negelecting arguments from the discussion, and your own opininon which led you to your decision was not properly discussed. It's surely not a fair way. You have closed the discussion instead of participate in it – that's why i supposed that you haven't any special wish to participate in the next discussion. Everybody participating in the undeletion discussion could read the previous discussion as well as your rationales. Czech Republic is (still) a sovereign country with its own Copyright Act and this act contains also a definition which is covered by copyright. I suppose, it's not very different from most of European continental countries. Your interpretation is not less "exotic" than the mine. If you wish to participate in the real discussion, you can. However, you squandered this chance closing the first deletion request. Your main argument was very shallow and too baseless. And I see no serious constructive contribution in these your complaints yet. --ŠJů (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not neglect any arguments from the discussion, I just chose to see things differently. And yes, making decisions based on my own best judgment of the case is my prerogative and my job as an admin, that's what admins are for (among other things). --Rosenzweig τ 22:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To see things differently is a role of e regular participant of the discussion. The closing admin should evaluate arguments from the discussion, that's his task and obligation. If you want to enforce your own argument or objection, you should join the discussion, not to close it. --ŠJů (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. My role as an admin is to make a decision according to the rules of Commons as I assess them in a particular case. Of course I read the arguments in the discussion, but if I think they're wrong, I'm perfectly free to reject them (explaining why I reject them) and make another decision. --Rosenzweig τ 16:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Betonový most přes Rokytku[edit]

Myslíš, že je za tento most vhodné považovat jen ten historický betonový most nebo i překrytí Rokytky na Elsnicově náměstí, které na něj plynule navazuje? --Dezidor (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Myslím, že pokud fotek máme už tolik, tak by mohlo mít smysl to nějak oddělit (např. aby historický most byl podkategorií celého mostu). V článku je to pojato tak, že původní most byl "rozšířen", takže si nevím moc rady s tím, jak ty kategorie nazvat. A možná ani nynější název kategorie není ideální, protože jako památka se to tak sice označuje, nicméně betonových mostů přes Rokytku je dnes mnoho desítek, takže jako vlastní jméno mostu to moc funkční není. --ŠJů (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nějak nám nehrají historická data. V řadě zdrojů - počínaje webem městské části - se uvádí, že celé náměstí bylo zakryto již v roce 1909, ale Pražský uličník uvádí až rok 1945, což se mi zdá pravděpodobnější. Tipoval bych, že roku 1909 byl o něco rozšířen původní klenbový most, jinak si ten rozpor neumím vysvětlit. --ŠJů (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pivovar?[edit]

My nevíme, ale asi ví Honza chodec. A vzhledem k poloze a podobě stavby mi to připadá celkem pravděpodobné. A když se to pokusím ověřit lehkým zagooglováním, tak se to celkem potvrzuje. --ŠJů (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanglewood tales[edit]

Hello,

Could you please explain your message here ? All the contents that are inserted directly into Category:Tanglewood Tales should be moved to Category:Tanglewood Tales (1921) because they are all from that version, the one illustrated by Virginia Frances Sterrett. Is there a way to do that ? Teofilo (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Move cat}} is intended for rename (move) categories, not for move their content to any subcategory. You can use Cat-a-lot instead. You can activate Cat-a-lot in your preferences. --ŠJů (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is intended so, but it can also work for other purposes. Anyway thanks for doing the change. Teofilo (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sraz popelářů[edit]

Ahoj, tušíš, co byla tahle akce? Nějaká předváděčka? — Jagro (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Netuším. Najeli tam všichni během jedné minuty. Buď nějaká předváděčka, anebo tam třeba mají pracovní porady nebo výplatní místo, fakt nevím. --ŠJů (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proč to nešlo ;-)[edit]

Ahoj Šjů. Tak si nahrávám fotky z výletu do Brd a najednou koukám, fotka "File:Jíloviště, manipulační.jpg" se mi nechce nahrát. Si říkam to je divné. A koukam, ty si vyfotil stejnou zastávku, dal ji stejný název jako já a nahrál na commons. Tomu říkam teda už fakt síla. A to mi ten označník přišel zajímavý a při jeho focení jsem si vzpoměl na tebe a tvoje dopravní fotky :-)

Příště radši budu očekávat, že si už na místě byl a cvaknul ho. :-) --Aktron (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj. Předpokládám, že po 6 letech už ty tabulky asi budou vypadat zase jinak. Třeba jsou ještě víc vybledlé. Někdy bývají zajímavé fotky jednoho místa s odstupem pár let. --ŠJů (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ano. Ulomila se ta levá cedulka s linkou 360 a kus toho kovu, na kterém je nápis "manipulační". Ale počítám, že to není tak důležité, abych to sem na Commons dával. O tom, že jsou některá místa s odstupem let zajímavá, především v dopravě, sporu není (nedávno mě Jagro požádal, abych nafotil demolici rozšířené části autobusového nádraží Na Knížecí). Event. je dobré fotit věci, které jasně působí dojmem, že brzy zmizí (viz např. rožák Plzeňská/Duškova). Ale i každodenní věci jsou třeba, protože si na ně většina lidí nevzpomene a když je napadne, že o ně má zájem, tak už je pozdě (např. interiér stanice Jinonice je jediný dochovalý svého typu a jakmile příjde rekonstrukce, už se s něčím takovým nesetkáme). --Aktron (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Za mnoho let budou nejcennější fotky takových míst a věcí, které dnes nikoho nenapadne fotit, protože všem připadaí příliš obyčejné a nezajímavé. A věci z oborů, které nemají žádné své fan kluby. Doprava je na tom ještě dobře, šotoušů je celkem dost. A přitom je na světě spousta věcí, které nefotím dokonce ani já. --ŠJů (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Songsblame (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More categories[edit]

Hi ! Thank you for adding more categories to my previous uploads of Prague. I was almost 4 months there but I don't know the name of the differents places :D Have a nice day ! Kevin .B ^{[Let's talk about it!]} 08:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I do understand. However, if you want to give better description, http://www.mapy.cz can be a good helper. --ŠJů (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tram 2091 (Prague)[edit]

Ahoj, bacha, jedná se o 2051, nikoliv 2091. --Harold (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dík. --ŠJů (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Police segways[edit]

Capitalization error? It's a corporation's brand name, no? Jim.henderson (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Segway" is originally a corporation name. However, the company name or the brand name can be only in singular. When the word is used in plural, it is likely a derivative common name denoting a type of device (independently on current or future number of its producers). Such derivation is called "appellativisation" of proper names. The contrary process is proprialisation of common nouns. Do you think that English doesn't use appellativisation in such cases? --ŠJů (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

en:Segways#Uses shows correct usage. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see there no serious linguistic source referring that (only) this form is correct. Do you know some sources dealing with the problem how it is with appellativisation in English? --ŠJů (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; that's the problem with native speakers. We feel what is normal and can find examples, without doing the studies that would be necessary to understand the rules. In my case, I never heard of "appellativisation" until now, as it isn't customary in English or Spanish. However, Cadillacs, Flexible Fliers, Rolexes and other trade-named plurals are commonplace and capitalized. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I know, "appellativisation" (as well as the synonyme "deonymisation") are really terms used primarily in Slavonic onomastics (see Basic system and terminology of the Slavonic Onomastics, Appelatvisation and proprialisation: the gateways between the appellative and proprial spheres of language, Current processes of appellativisation of proper names (in Czech), The Position of Appellativisation in Contemporary Linguistic Research (Polish language) but also in French linguistics (Champs associatif des noms propres et mecanismes de la compréhension textuelle) etc.

However English language employs evidently such process too, although more rarely. wikt:xerox (see also [3]) (plural xeroxes) is a typical example. Maybe, the generalized meaning of the word "segway" is not so reflected as in the case of xerox/Xerox. --ŠJů (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there are a few others like "kleenex", and of course there are common nouns that derive from names, like "boycott", but "Segway" is definitely a proper noun in English, hence capitalized. - Jmabel ! talk 23:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Věznice Pankrác[edit]

Dobrý den, nemáte náhodou nějakou fotku věznice Pankrác, kterou byste mohl dát do Commons? Děkuji, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs taken in Czechoslovakia[edit]

Hello ŠJů, Sergio here, an Italian-speaking administrator on Commons. I noticed you've uploaded a lot of photos scanned from black-and-white negative film related to former Czechoslovakia, hence I created the category Black and white photographs of Czechoslovakia where you can store them if you have more; you can also place colour photographs in the category Photographs of Czechoslovakia (of course those taken until 1992 :-) ). -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hudlice[edit]

Ahoj. Chtěl bych ti upřímně poděkovat za takovouto práci. Je dobře, když někdo skutečně zkvalitňuje obsah Commons takovýmto způsobem, namísto botů, kteří po tisících dělají zcela zbytečný úpravy a jen zvyšují počet verzí. Mám prostě radost. --Aktron (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravím. No jo, než začnu nahrávat svoje fotky, tak jsem se pokusil popsat ty tvoje (resp. všechny stávající z Hudlic). A na boty nežehrej, spousta těch robotických úprav má taky nějaký smysl. :-) --ŠJů (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move request issue[edit]

When trying to move the file you requested a rename for: File:Děčín, Dlouhá jízda, pivovarský komín.jpg I got this error: "file is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends". Maybe you know how to fix this, or someone who does? INeverCry 06:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This error is the reason why i didn't moved the file myself but only marked it with the rename template. I have no idea what lies the problem in. --ŠJů (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just ran into another file with the same issue. I had removed the rename template from your file so that every filemover who comes along wouldn't sit there and keep trying to move it, but I guess there's probably no avoiding that if this is affecting multiple files. INeverCry 17:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the rename temp again. Since the file has a bug problem which could take a while to fix, there's no need to have other filemovers trying to move this day after day. You could try moving this every few days to see if the bug is fixed. INeverCry 20:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ŠJů: such errors can only be fixed by software developers (admins might know some unlocking tricks like delete/undelete the file, etc., but they work very rarely), i.e. ask assistance, but avoid edit warring. I have posted your problem here. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Yes, I understand. The file cannot be moved before the software problem is resolved. That's why the file need to be marked for moving until it can be moved. As you can see, the bug report doesn't contain any complete list of affected files requested for move with complete move reasons and proposals - the bug report cannot substitute individual request moves. --ŠJů (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kategorie podruhé[edit]

Ahoj, nevím, budeš-li mít náladu, když Ti pořád přidělávám práci u kategorií .. narazil jsem na Category:Cultural monuments of the Czech Republic by region a myslím, že by mohla být dál členěna na kraje -> okresy -> města a městyse resp. vesnice. Do nich pak zatřídit všechno z Category:Cultural monuments of the Czech Republic. Beru to podle struktury Category:Municipalities in the Czech Republic by region, může to tak být? --Krochoman (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nemám nic proti, ale já se do toho hned tak pouštět nebudu. --ŠJů (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, myslel jsem na sebe ;) Protože je toho ale víc, nechtěl jsem to dělat bez porady, aby to pak nemuselo být všechno předěláváno; díky --Krochoman (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Já v tom nevidím žádný problém. V každém okrese je těch památek tolik, že rozdělení po okresech určitě není nepřiměřené. A seskupovat takové věci v rámci jednotlivých měst je taky rozumné. --ŠJů (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Písek[edit]

Hello!

Thank you for your recently uploaded images of the town of Písek. Did you also photograph the Zdravotní Pojišťovna Ministerstva Vnitra in Písek? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This assurance company should reside in the police building Na Výstavišti 377/1 at the Prague Suburban (Pražské Předměstí) in Písek. However, I found no photo where the building is visible. Maybe, at File:Písek, Kamenný most, k Pražskému Předměstí.jpg allmost on the left, behind the tree, should be the building - but it is very poorly visible. --ŠJů (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is this building -

Object location	49° 18′ 32.12″ N, 14° 08′ 34.98″ E	View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap

. Do you have a single photograph of it? --High Contrast (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't take and didn't find such photo. --ŠJů (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks anyway. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Germany - Stadt Polizei Stuttgart (defunct 1970s).jpg crowded Category[edit]

Hello ŠJů,

the category Stuttgart has become too crowded. There are to many files.

Please help Wikipedia to sort the File in a category or creat a new category. Only to place the File in the main category is not the way from wikimedia commons.

Best regards Duke Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke Q (talk • contribs) 14:06, 17 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you understand what is a "subcategory"? Do you mean that Police of Stuttgart has no relation to Stuttgart? This should be a moving to subcategory, in your view? --ŠJů (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no one of the other Files in the Category:Police patches of Baden-Wurtenberg has a Category by city. Is it relevant to stay in the main category?

Duke Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke Q (talk • contribs) 16:21, 17 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is this file related to Stuttgart? Undoubtedly. Did you find or create some suitable subcategory this file can be moved in? If yes, move it there. If no, keep the file in the main category. Nothing difficult.

If you noticed that some files from Category:Police patches of Baden-Wurtenberg are deficiently categorized, you can fix it. I fixed two such files now.

P.S. please read also this. --ŠJů (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "CatDiffuse" template add the pages it is transcluded on to Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion so I have used the "Tl" to link to it instead. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 21:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move Category:Deaths from murder to Category:Victims of murder[edit]

Hello. You may want to vote at this talkpage (now reopened and commented). Orrlingtalk 20:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Děčín, Dlouhá jízda, pivovarský komín.jpg[edit]

Hello. Rename is waiting 7 days. You have filemover rights. You can do it yourself. Rzuwig^► 19:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As you can see at the discussion page, this move request is waiting for fix of the software bug. --ŠJů (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Památky[edit]

Začal jsem původně označovat kategorií Cultural monuments in Teplice celou kategorii, ne jen fotku památky. Pak jsem si všiml, že jeden kolega pod kostel dal i hospodu 200 metrů daleko, protože se mu nechtělo hledat ulici. A tak jsem začal označovat jen konkretní použitou fotku. Českolipsko si hlídám, tam lze celou kategorii památky vždy propojit, u Teplic si tím nejsem jist. Celé Teplice by po editacích onoho kolegy Mocsekretovaného chtělo znovu roztřídit.--Zákupák (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commonscat links[edit]

Hi ŠJů, to make it easy for users and bots to navigate I have been adding Commonscat links to lists of monuments (cs:Speciální:Příspěvky/Multichill). I add links to both the categories and the lists. There is still quite some work. Do you want to help? When this is done my bot can sort out the images in Category:Cultural monuments in the Czech Republic. Multichill (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UL[edit]

Vím kde to je, ale nevím jak si představuješ tu identifikaci.--Juandev (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Třeba klasicky, souřadnicemi a azimutem pomocí šablony {{Location}}? Popisný číslo trafostanice asi nemá, a parcelní číslo by se tobě i uživatelům hledalo hůř než souřadnice, které lze najít na každé dobré mapě. Kdyby to byla nějaká starší stavba, tak by ji s pomocí fotomapy a GoogleStreetView asi mohl najít kdokoliv, ale tady se to trochu komplikuje tím, že ta trafostanice na ortofotomapách ani Googlestreetview zřejmě ještě není, a navíc silnice I/20 asi vede už jinudy než v roce 2009 (nepodařilo se mi najít, ve kterém roce byla přeložena, ale podle fotky krajnice mi to připadá spíš na starou silnici než na tu novou - nová má po celé délce svodidla). Na levé straně snímku za halou vyčnívá věž, která vypadá dost podobně jako věž na 49°19'49.486"N, 14°6'44.251"E, ta hala má na sobě stejný název firmy jako objekt v ulici Stanislava Maliny č. 452/5, ale tvarem mi ho z žádné strany nepřipomíná a stejně se nějak nemohu dopátrat, z jakého místa by to mohlo být zabíráno a kde by jako měla stát ta nová trafostanice. --ŠJů (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tak zatím jsem našel jakýsi návrh změny územního plánu města Písku, datovaný březnem 2009 (půl roku před pořízením fotky):

http://pisek.advice.cz/modules/dokumenty/soubory/vyznamne_dokumenty/vyhlasky/doc/1211.doc

Transformovna 110/22 kV Písek – sever bude z původně navrhované plochy v těsném sousedství upravované silniční křižovatky přemístěna o cca 1 km severozápadně do nové lokality poblíž průmyslové zóny Písek – sever mezi stávající místní komunikaci (dříve I/20) a nové těleso silnice I/20 a železniční tratí č. 200.Zároveň bude upraveno napojení transformovny na dvě dvojitá přívodní vedení VVN 110 kV, která povedou z větší části mimo řešené území, dále zde bude dvojité vedení VN 22 kV - do TR v úseku cca 150 metrů v souběhu s navrženým vedením VVN, pak se odkloní a povede přes lokalitu „U Oldřichova“ k ohybu stávajícího VN vedení. Vývody od nové transformovny směrem k městu Písku budou řešeny jako kabelové, a to v trase současné komunikace I/20 a dále přes lokality „U Robinzona“ a „U Kuchyňky“ pod lokalitu „Na cvičišti“. Vzhledem k novému řešení odpadá potřeba VN propojení kolem nově navrhované komunikace od křižovatky U Kuchyňky směrem na Tábor na stávající dvojité vedení VN. Do stávající průmyslové zóny, která bezprostředně sousedí s budoucí transformovnou, budou zaústěny dva až tři kabelové vývody. Trasa a počet vývodů bude záviset na požadavcích konkrétních investorů v zóně.

Moudrý z toho nejsem. Ha! Že by tohle? [4]

No jo, fakt, tam nejsou svodidla! [5]

--ŠJů (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catsort ke kostelům[edit]

Ahoj, prosím tě o takovou drobnost - vím, že toho máš už takhle strašně moc, ale právě proto, ať se to vezme při jednom: Mohl bys u těch nově zakládaných kategorií jednotlivých kostelů rovnou vyplňovat i catsort (název sídla) pro kat. okresu a zasvěcení?

Category:Churches in Prague-West District|Tachlovice

Category:Saint James the Greater churches in the Czech Republic|Tachlovice

Až na výjimky se to bude shodovat s rozlišovačem, rakže žádné lámání hlavy navíc by to snad nemuselo znamenat. Jinak poklidil a rozchodil jsem teď konečně Category:Churches in Archidiocese of Prague, takže výhledově si budeme moci zahrávat i s touhle linií kategorizace. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pokusim se na ten sortkey pamatovat. Kategorizaci kostelů podle diecézí, vikariátů, seniorátů atd. budu asi spíš zanedbávat. --ŠJů (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subkategorie - názvosloví[edit]

Poslyš, moc se mi nelíbí názvosloví těchto subkategorií. Jak by to mělo vypadat? Já osobně bych to pojmenoval Hrádek (nevím, jestli přesný překlad je Little Castle) s rozlišovačem do závorky. Takže pak by bylo:

Hrádek (Kutná Hora)
Hrádek (Český Krumlov)

--Juandev (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obecně, pokud není anglický překlad vžitý, nebo pokud není jednoznačný, pokud název nelze přesně přeložit nebo pokud si překladem nejsem jist, tak zůstávám u toho českého názvu, pod kterým lze objekt nejpravděpodobněji nalézt na internetu, na mapách, v literatuře atd. Ovšem v tomto případě se pro Hrádek i Horní hrad anglický název používá na webu hradu (http://www.castle.ckrumlov.cz/docs/en/zamek_3nadvori_horhra.xml, http://www.castle.ckrumlov.cz/docs/en/zamek_2nadvori_hradek.xml), takže bych se tomu nebránil.

Tyhle krumlovské kategorie sice nejsou úplně ideální, ale zase se mi nezdají tak zásadně špatné, abych měl nutkání je hned přejmenovávat. Renonců tam vidím víc - třeba velké "b" u těch medvědů, jako by šlo o nějaké vlastní jméno, a názvy kategorií s pomlčkami taky nejsou úplně preferované, pokud lze použít obvyklé předložkové vazby "in" či "of". --ŠJů (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ocenení[edit]

		The Historical Media Barnstar
		Sice s "mirnym" zpozdenim, ale prece, udeluji hvezdicku za unikatni serii "historickych" fotek z doby vystavby metra. Dnes foti kdekdo, ale do archivu a po scanneru sahne jen malokdo. Jklamo (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Děkuji. --ŠJů (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denkmalgeschütztes Objekt Südtirol[edit]

Hey, I saw that you are the main author of the Template:Cultural Heritage Czech Republic. Since I am engaged in the South Tyrolean monuments project, I wanted to kindly ask you, if you could provide a translation for our Template:Denkmalgeschütztes Objekt Südtirol. The Google Translator makes me believe that it should be something like Toto médium/Táto kategória zobrazuje chránenú pamiatku s číslom ... v Jižním Tyrolsku. But I'd really like to have a native speaker to rivise that ^^. Cheers, --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not the main author, I modified the text only. I think, the text Toto médium/Táto kategória zobrazuje chránenú pamiatku s číslom ... v Jižním Tyrolsku. is meaningful in Slovakian language. But the Czech text would be a bit different. --ŠJů (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes, sorry, the Google translator's fault... And what would be a good Czech translation? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toto médium/tato kategorie zobrazuje chráněnou památku číslo ... v Jižním Tyrolsku. (or "v Jižních Tyrolech"). I think, we can use rather "Tento obrázek" (this image) instead of "toto médium"; audio and video files of monuments are very rare. --ŠJů (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Slovakian text should be "v Južnom Tirolsku". --ŠJů (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Mai-Sachme (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Information displays at train stations in the Czech Republic[edit]

Hello
why did you revert my edit here? I removed Category:Information_displays_at_train_stations cause the categories by country (like this) are listed in Category:Information_boards_at_train_stations only, not in the other category. And Category:Information_boards_at_train_stations is a sub-category of Category:Information_displays_at_train_stations, so it's dispensable in my opinion.
Cheers, --Fabian³¹⁸ (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The original relation was that categories "information displays" were subcategories of "information boards" (the current cyclic mutual subcategorization of this two categories is not the ideal solution). "Information boards" was intended for all types of visual informatical elements, the subcategory "information displays" is intended specifically for variable (dynamic) boards, in contrast to static boards. I'm convinced, it is useful to select dynamic boards (= displays) to their own subcategories. I think, this meaning of the word "display" is generally understandable, in that context. Do you have some better solution? --ŠJů (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Your edits are great. :) Now the structure of the categories has become clearer. There is still a lot work to do (categorizing the pictures), but, however, now I know how it should looks like. --Fabian³¹⁸ (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black and white photographs of the Czech Republic[edit]

Ahoj, nebylo by lepší vše přesunout do nové kategorie "Black and white photographs of Bohemia", které by mohla být v "Black and white photographs of the Czech Republic" i "Black and white photographs of Czechoslovakia"? Snad všechny současné fotky tomu odpovídají, tj. jsou z území Čech v době Československa. Podobně je Category:Bohemia in the 20th century v Category:Czech Republic in the 20th century. Nebo tu novou kategorii nazvat konkrétněji, tj. nějak jako "Black and white photographs of Bohemia during the existence of Czechoslovakia". --Gumruch (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj. Vycházím z toho, že v Commons se za základní geografickou úroveň kategorizace berou dnešní státy, a to i ve vztahu k historii. Proto jsem považoval za vhodnější upřednostnit v kategorizaci Česko a Slovensko před Československem. Podrobnější geografické členění v rámci Česka už je problematické, protože u současných fotek preferujeme krajské členění, které se nekryje s historickým zemským členěním (pro sladění je pak třeba vytvářet komplikované mezikategorie typu "moravská část Jihočeského kraje"). Obecně tu jednotnost a kompatibilitu časem u mnoha témat budeme muset řešit (trochu se nám oba systémy tlučou třeba u židovských památek), ale zrovna kategorii černobílých fotek vnímám spíš jako takovou pomocnou technickou, kde by snad stačilo to základní členění podle státu a není účelné vytvářet podrobnější geografické členění, kvůli němuž bychom museli řešit dilema mezi krajskou a zemskou kategorizací. Naproti tomu, hranice mezi Českem a Slovenskem je v podstatě (v časovém rámci dějin fotografie) nadčasová a má smysl i ve vztahu k období formálně unitárního Československa. --ŠJů (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Větrov[edit]

Ahoj, můžeš mi vysvětlit tuhle editaci? Větrov není součástí Krásného Lesa, nýbrž Petrovic. Jde tedy o nesmyslnou kategorizaci. --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj. Větrov byl 130 let (od vzniku obecního zřízení) součástí obce Krásný Les a společně s Krásným Lesem byl k obci Petrovice připojen. Možná už to by bylo dost silným důvodem přinejmenším k tomu, abys to neoznačoval za nesmysl. Obecně, je-li v jednom katastrálním území více "částí obce", je užitečné tento vztah v kategorizaci zohlednit. Ve vysídlených Sudetech či vydolovaných oblastech tomu bývá zase naopak. Větrov sice má vlastní katastrální území, ale zato není oficiální částí obce, ale (stejně jako Nakléřov) pouze základní sídelní jednotkou v místní části Krásný Les, viz číselník, tedy Nakléřov i Větrov by jednoznačně měly být podkategoriemi v kategorii Krásný Les (bonusem pro neznalé může být overkategorizace, že zároveň obě osady jsou i přímo v kategorii obce). Bohužel, v článku Větrov informace o katastrální příslušnosti úplně chybí a informace o místních částech jsou v článku o obci Petrovice rozporné (v infoboxu je uveden počet 2, ale v navboxu je seznam 4) a zmatené (osady, které jsou součástí obce, jsou společně s osadami mimo hranice obce uvedeny v seznamu osad přilehlých k Petrovicím). --ŠJů (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, vida. Zmátl mne web obce Petrovice. V tom případě beru zpět, mea culpa. Vím, že pod Krásný Les v minulosti spadal Adolfov a Panenská. O Větrovu vím historicky, Nakléřov jsem netušil. O KL v posledních dnech dávám dohromady článek, tak se tahle informace bude hodit. Nevíš, kde by šlo zjistit od kdy jsou Nakléřov a Větrov ZSJ Krásného Lesa? --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co se týče aktuálního stavu, obvykle se chodím dívat primárně do toho číselníku ČSS. a samozřejmě do nějakých map s katastrálními hranicemi. Informace ohledně historie se hledají hůř. V článku základní sídelní jednotka se píše, že tyto statistické jednotky byly zavedeny k roku 1970, tedy se zdá pravěpodobné, že většina osad či vesnic, které nejsou samostatně obcemi, se stala ZSJ k tomuto roku. Jinak se v článku Větrov píše, že součástí obce Krásný Les byl od roku 1850, což by znamenalo de facto odjakživa (od zavedení obecního zřízení) až do zrušení obce Krásný Les, avšak samostatné katastrální území by svědčilo o tom, že koncem 18. století mohl mít Větrov silnější pozici. Naproti tomu Nakléřov byl od roku 1850 samostatnou obcí a v článku Nakléřov se vůbec nepíše, kolik let po odsunu tato obec fomálně zanikla. Bohužel nemám k dispozici žádný zdroj, kde by se ala přehledně najít historie obcí. Co se týče Sudet, asi bych zkoušel hledat na webu Zaniklé obce. --ŠJů (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]