User talk:Enhancing999/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

File:A1RSwiss.png >> File:A1RSwiss.svg

Dear user, I saw that you uploaded File:A1RSwiss.png. I was checking it and saw, that it was a *.png instead of *.svg, that the text was not centred and that the font of the R is not Frutiger. So I created File:A1RSwiss.svg, which seesm to be more suitable for use in Wikipedia or elsewhere. Regards --Pechristener (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Template Railway stations in Switzerland

This is a very interesting and useful template. However, I don't understand everything. Can you please explain what station=y means or does?

Further on, can you explain what you understand from a "Terminal station"? I ask, because you put Turgi in this category. -- Gürbetaler (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"station=y" doesn't do anything for now, but it could be good to have a way to check for that.
For "terminal station", I went with what I found at Category:Terminal train stations. The end of a line can obviously change or the end of one line be the beginning of another. Maybe we can change "terminal" to "terminus". Enhancing999 (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next point: what is disused and what is "former" station? What other categories are there?

  • We have many station buildings that no longer have a function, but trains stop there and they look as if they were real railway station buildings. Example: Wabern bei Bern
  • We have stations, with or without building, no longer served by passenger trains but still in function as a station, maybe as passing loop, for freight, for a museum railway or to store service trains etc. Examples: Kerns-Kägiswil, Affoltern-Weier, Schwarzenbach SG, Därligen
  • We have stations, with or without building, that still look like stations but aren't stations any more. Infrastructure and buildings might or might not disappear in the future. Examples: Gilly-Bursinel, Trey, Gübsensee (which never had a building)
  • We have station buildings without tracks, but they might still serve as stations (for bus lines). Examples: Unterägeri, Menzingen, Kriens, Engi
  • We have station buildings no longer standing at the tracks, but the station still exists at a new place. Example: Châtel-St-Denis

The question also depends a bit from the question, what makes a station? That trains stop, that there is a building or that there are points? -- Gürbetaler (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. I couldn't make much sense of the existing categories either. There is also "abandoned". I tend to use "disused".
Except when the entire line is closed, I find "no more tracks" and "no regular passenger service" easier to determine.
Should we make a category for the building once it's used for something else?
For "moved" stations, like "Châtel-St-Denis", I find two distinct categories useful. Each can have coordinates. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think disused is said about a thing that exists but isn't used any more. Former is something that was but is no longer what it was. Maybe it's gone, maybe it's disused. And to be more exact, we have disused station buildings (Wabern bei Bern), disused platforms (Mattstetten), disused station tracks and we have removed platforms, removed station buildings and removed station tracks (Melchnau, Beromünster, Unterägeri). Gürbetaler (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway_stations_with_overpasses_in_Switzerland

Category discussion warning

Railway stations with overpasses in Switzerland has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moritz Conradi

Category:Moritz Conradi (Switzerland)‎‎. Je ne comprends pas vraiment votre point de vue. La proposition serait de lui attribut la catégorie Category:Killers from Switzerland ? La Category:Killers existe et elle renvoie à Category:Murderers !!! Ces catégories n'ont pas pour objectif de décrire le résultat légal d'un procès, mais tout simplement un acte, dans ce cas reconnu par tous. Toute personne qui s'intéresse à son cas trouvera les détails dans les articles dans chaque langue. Veuillez s.v.p. revenir à la solution simple et triviale, ce monsieur était un assassin, même si, tout comme Guillaume Tell, c'était pour la bonne cause (avec les lunettes de l'époque). MHM (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Langendorf mistake

Hi Enhancing999, thanks for your many enhancements to categories! I think there has been a mistake among these, though: You moved several files from Category:Langendorf railway station to Category:2021 in tram transport in Switzerland. As there aren't any trams in Langendorf (it's a railway station), I took the liberty of moving these files back into the Langendorf railway station category. You might also want to have a look at the other files in Category:2021 in tram transport in Switzerland - these Biel/Bienne photos don't seem to have to do a lot with tram transport either, I think. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Occasionally, I click on the wrong + in the tool. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories

You have twice reverted the addition of a category without explaining why it should be wrong. It is a basic logic of WikiCommons that Category:S-Bahn Zürich stations is a subcategory of Category:S-Bahn Zürich. Many other cases are debatable but not this one. Otherwise please tell me which rule of Commons:Categories would prevent the S-Bahn stations to be a subcategory of the S-Bahn!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the revert, but you didn't address it. If you query the parent category including the stations and you will get totally unrelated files, e.g. about ICE calling at the same stations.
That page seems cover it under simplicity and selectivity principles. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see what sort of query you mean. On the other hand, it you want to restrict S-Bahn stations strictly to S-Bahn content, then it would be necessary to divide each station showing S-Bahn-content etc. So we would have to create categories for S-Bahn-trains in station xy and freight trains in station xy and long-distance trains in station xy. Similar things happen in other category trees. But the fact remains that S-Bahn Zürich stations must be a subcategory of S-Bahn Zürich. Gürbetaler (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the category isn't well named. They are not "S-Bahn" stations strictly speaking, but stations also used by these. ICE images are included in railway stations categories. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a Swiss realitiy, that you see an ICE at the same platform as an S-Bahn-Zug. So there is nothing wrong when this ICE appears under Zürich S-Bahn. However, there are many pictures where the station is just a location of the photo but not a visible part of the picture. For such cases we should open categories of the type Category:Trains at railway stations in the United Kingdom. We have very few in Category:Trains at railway stations in Switzerland Gürbetaler (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you have usecase in mind that isn't covered by this approach or some other part of the page you think requires it? Enhancing999 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which approach? Which page? Gürbetaler (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The approach of using "related category". You refer to the page Commons:Categories, but don't explain why these categories need to be subcategories, whereas I explained why they shouldn't. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The related category is only visible as a cross-reference when opening the category. But the idea of the category tree is to show all dependent categories. I'm not very happy with the given examples in Common:Categories of the churches in Russia ... for known reasons. However, I can't reproduce your "query problem". When I search for "S-Bahn Zürich" I find what looks like S-Bahn trains, except for the odd Wetzikon-Meilen-Bahn picture of the 1940ies. I can't find a query problem caused by the subcategories. Gürbetaler (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gürbetaler: Special:Search/deepcat:"S-Bahn Zürich" (if it worked) shouldn't show ICE trains. We could have two different categories for stations used by S-Bahn: those specifically built for and used by S-Bahn (subcategory) and all others (older ones, related category). It's in the nature of a category tree that not everything is always visible. Enhancing999 (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it is possible to build the category tree to fully comply with deepcat . I tried "S-Bahn Bern" and the first picture shows Le Châble railway station. Why? There is a "NINA" train and most NINAs built worked for some time in the S-Bahn Bern network. Now some NINA ALSO work the S-Bahn Luzern. But if you divide the category for all these aspects and possibly also for the colour, you won't find NINA pictures any more... Gürbetaler (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gürbetaler: it doesn't work there either as you added the category for any station part of the network. Remove it, and you will be fine. It's the selectivity aspect that isn't taken care of. Enhancing999 (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you think should be removed. Gürbetaler (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Borders should be removed template

Hi. I'm wondering why you mass added the template to images of railway stations. Most images that are uploaded by GLAM organizations have them and it's not really something that is an issue. Especially with scanned images. In fact it's probably better to have a border for most scanned images, for instance postcards, because it shows they are physical objects and what the objects diameter is. As well as other information. Otherwise, your cropping something that wasn't meant to be cropped. Just to be clear, I don't think digital images should have arbitrarily borders, but with scans of physical objects they are usually necessarily. So I'd appreciate if you removed the template from the images you added it to. Thanks. BTW, postcards are also never scanned completely straight. So there's no way to crop them without potentially losing important information. Like with File:SBB Historic - F VARIA 00002 011 Chemin de fer du Jura-Simplon Bern.tiff the publisher information is on the extreme edge of the postcard. So there's no way to crop it without losing who the publisher is and it's extremely important to keep that type of information in the image. Adamant1 (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you discuss this somewhere (possibly with SBB Historic) or is that just your personal view? Please have a look at Commons:Overwriting_existing_files
I can't think of a place where File:SBB Historic - F 116 00001 107 - Castione-Arbedo.tif would be used with the border on Wikipedia (or elsewhere). In the image you mention, the publisher information isn't in the border to crop.
If you think any of my crops are problematic, please bring it up on Commons_talk:Overwriting_existing_files. Enhancing999 (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few things. First of all the template isn't really necessary to anything. So in no does removing it "damage" anything. People can still crop the images without it. Secondly, a lot of the images you cropped had important details cropped out of them. For instance with File:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SBB_Historic_-_F_116_00001_109_-_Caux.tif you cropped out like 10% of the bottom of the image. You also cropped out the publisher and serial number from File:SBB Historic - F VARIA 00002 028 Gütschbahn Luzern.tiff. The template clearly says "any image where information would be lost....DO NOT NEED their borders cropped; a cropped image of this type generally will violate the original artistic intent of the image." Are you really going to argue that the original artistic intent wasn't to have the publisher information, serial number, or bottom 10% of those images? That's just a few examples to. So if anything your the one causing damage by cropping out the images in a way that gets rid of important details.
Secondly, why would I discuss this with SBB Historic? Did you discuss it with them before you started cropping their images or did they request the images be cropped somewhere? Also, why would I bring up you needlessly cropping out the publishers, serial numbers, and other important information from images on Commons talk:Overwriting existing files when it's your issue? My issue isn't with cropping in general. It's with cropping in this instance and how your doing it. As a side to that, I'd be interested to know what your cropping the images for and why you think they need be cropped in the first place. Because in most of the images the border isn't even super intrusive. If anything it adds to the overall image and there's nothing wrong with images having borders. Nor is there a mandate anywhere that says images should be borderless. So at best what your doing is needless busy work that has zero benefit and at worst your massively degrading the quality/details of the images your cropping. I'd also say that goes for postcards in particular since the publisher information and serial number is often around the outer edge of the image so you need as much room after it possible, but also slides, cabinet cards, and similar printed, scanned media have the same issue. There really isn't any room to crop anything without losing information. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing File:SBB_Historic_-_F_116_00001_109_-_Caux.tif. This was indeed an error. I fixed it now.
I don't think the template on File:SBB Historic - F VARIA 00002 011 Chemin de fer du Jura-Simplon Bern.tiff would imply that the publisher information should be deleted. Why do you think so? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you agree that its current cropping meets Commons:Overwriting existing files?" I was pretty clear that my issue isn't with cropping general, but the specific doing it and to what files. I really don't appreciate the deflection. This isn't about the general practice of cropping. That said, Commons:Overwriting existing files says "minor improvements should overwrite the previous version." In no way does cropping out parts of the image including the publisher or serial number "improve the previous version." I'd probably be fine with you cropping the images in a way that reduces the borders and isn't destructive to the original image, but that's not your doing. Plus the borders are already pretty insignificant anyway. That said, the existence of something like Commons:Overwriting existing files doesn't negate the need to follow other reasonable practices. Like someone can't just chop arbitrarily chop an image in half for no reason, overwrite the original, and then cite Commons:Overwriting existing files as excuse for why it's fine.
"Wouldn't the image without the border fit fr:Gare de Caux (Suisse)?" Sure, but so would the image with the border. Like I said on Commons talk:Overwriting existing files no one cares if an image on Wikipedia has a barely visible 1mm border around it, but they would care if 15% of the image is gone because you cropped the bottom of the photograph off. If you look at the thumbnail of an image like File:SBB Historic - F 116 00001 290 - Les Pleiades.tif you can't even really see the border though. If anything it just adds to the overall image because it provides space between the image and white background of the article. In general it's hard to tell where the border between and article is. Especially when a large part of the background in the photograph is white. So whatever helps.
I don't think the template on...would imply that the publisher information should be deleted. That's probably not the best example. Although I don't think you could crop it without either leaving a small part of the border or cropping out "St. Gallen." If you want a better one though, checkout File:SBB Historic - F VARIA 00002 009 Gotthardbahn-Gesellschaft Luzern.tiff, which you added the template to. There's essentially no way to crop that image without losing the publisher information because it's already on the far edge of the postcard and the image is extremely slanted. It's either you crop the publisher information or keep a slight border around the postcard, but then I'd want to know why your cropping it in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It don't really appreciate your implication that my crops are destructive. Do you have any other sample than File:SBB_Historic_-_F_116_00001_109_-_Caux.tif you think I messed up? As mentioned above, this is an error and has been fixed. From the discussions I have seen, this qualifies as "minor improvement", but if you think the default approach for File:SBB_Historic_-_F_116_00001_109_-_Caux.tif should be to upload it under new name, it's probably something to seek wider input on, especially as you seem to say that borders should always be kept. This would be a change to Commons:Overwriting existing files. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It don't really appreciate your implication that my crops are destructive. Just don't take it personal then.
Do you have any other sample than... There's plenty of the examples out there. Including the slide that you cropped some of the bottom off of that I mentioned on the other talk page. I don't really have the time to look through all your edits to find them though. It should be on the user to make sure they are using the tools properly, I shouldn't have to provide 45 instances of where you cropped out part of the image before you acknowledge the points I've made for why cropping the borders out aren't necessary and/or can be a problem.
it's probably something to seek wider input on, especially as you seem to say that borders should always be kept. Where have I said that borders should always be kept? I've said like five times that I have zero issue with images being cropped in general, just with how your doing it. I'm not going to wider input about something that I don't have a problem with. I really don't appreciate being treated like I just dislike cropping or something. Commons:Overwriting existing files explicitly says files shouldn't be overwritten if they used in Wikimedia projects where the use requires the file to remain unchanged and I've said Wikiproject Postcards prefers borders. Hell, you can even look at where Commons:Overwriting existing files says files shouldn't be overwritten if they are being overwritten as part of "Controversial or contested changes." I don't think you can argue that cropping the image to remove the photographer and year the photograph was taken isn't controversial. Otherwise you wouldn't have started a discussion about it. Not to mention, I've contested your changes. So what exactly would I need to seek wider input about when what I'm doing exactly follows what Commons:Overwriting existing files says? If anything your the one that needs to seek wider input to make the edits your making. It's not my responsibility to ask the community if you can crop out parts of the images or remove the publisher/publication dates from them. Get real. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bad weather today I guess. Your comments are really confusing as you seem to mix different types of images. I don't recall adding the template to any slide of Wehrli's. If you want to participate in the discussion about them, do it the relevant section. I note that you are fine with cropping borders in general then. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to mix different types of images. You added the template to different types of images and my issue has nothing to do with what type of image you cropped. I could really care less if your cropping a slide or a postcard, it's still a problem to cut out the bottom of the image and remove the publisher. That doesn't mean we can't walk and chew bubble at the same time by saying that you adding the template to postcards has it's own issues separate from slides because Wikiproject postcards prefers borders though. Although the way cropped the images is still an issue regardless, just more so with postcards.
I note that you are fine with cropping borders in general then. Yeah like I've said like 6 times now, I'm fine with cropping the border of an image if it doesn't involve also cropping parts of the image out or getting rid of important information like the publisher. There just doesn't seem to be a way to do that in cases where the scanned image is slanted or like with the slides. Really though, you repeatedly acting like I have an issue with in general and not just how your doing it seems like a ridiculously bad faithed strawman. Someone can generally be fine with guns but still not want to be shot in the face by one. I'm sure you get the difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get how you think File:SBB Historic - F 116 00001 109 - Caux.tif should be cropped correctly. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say I have an issue with how you re-cropped it? If you were able to crop it without removing the bottom of the image, cool. I could really give a crap and I've never said otherwise. But sure dude, make this about examples that I don't care about and have nothing to do with my original issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the example you brought up, I fixed, but I couldn't really understand your lengthy answer to my yes/no question. I hadn't thought that your point is that you don't give a crap, but I will bear that in mind. So can we restore the template to similar images? Enhancing999 (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought that your point is that you don't give a crap. I don't give a crap about that single example that I didn't bring up and you fixed. That's it though. I still have an issue with everything I've said I have an issue with though. And no, I'm not restoring the template to postcards or other images where cropping the file would come at the cost of the image or otherwise be inappropriate. Like I've said, if you disagree with that then your free to discuss it on Commons_talk:Overwriting_existing_files or whatever. That said, I'm sticking to my removal of the templates until you get a consensus that it's OK to crop out either parts of the photograph or the publisher/date of publication though. It's not like I've removed the template from every image you've added it to, just the ones where I think removing the borders would be inappropriate. It's not on me if your unwilling to discuss things reasonably or compromise in the meantime. If you want to make this all about how I just hate images being cropped, cool. Have fun with that. I'm more then happy to revert myself once you get a consensus on Commons_talk:Overwriting_existing_files that Wikiproject Postcard's preference for images with borders doesn't matter. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the diff for Caux one: [1]. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And....Your point is? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "I don't give a crap about that single example that I didn't bring up". Enhancing999 (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I cared about it before you edited the file to fix the issue I had with it. I didn't care about it after you edited the file to fix the problems, which is when you asked me how it should have been cropped. Sure, for like the hundredth time I don't care about files that don't have parts of the image or important information cropped out of them. Got me. Man your really hung up on making this about how I just hate cropped images aren't you? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it and then ask you whether it was done correctly.
Somehow you managed to pick the one that went wrong from hundred that went fine. We still we a few to do. If that was the first one you came across, bad luck. The template isn't about doing incorrect crops. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were other ones that went wrong though. All the postcards you cropped were wrong. The slide you cropped was wrong Etc. Etc. I'm not going to waste my time listing every single file you incorrectly cropped just so you can strawman me about how I just hate images being cropped or whatever though. At the end of the day this is pretty simple, don't add the template to or crop the borders from images of postcards or any other files where cropping them would damage the image by removing important information. That's it. Anyone who is cropping files should be able to do so without damaging the original image or removing borders that are suppose to be in the image. Seriously, stop making up excuses and just don't crop the borders from images of postcards or remove photographer/date of publication information from files. It isn't super complicated. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The slide was done correctly. Stop making baseless accusations. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a "minor improvement" because you removed the photographers name and the date the photograph was taken when you cropped it. So no it wasn't done correctly. It's not an "improvement" to crop out information from an image. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please seek input from other users. I can't really help you. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I've said it's on you to seek out input from others if you think removing such information is OK. I'm not the one going against the consensus here. You are. Your seem unwilling to listen and get the point about it though. It's not like you can't just upload a new version of the image instead of over writing the original if having one without the publisher or whatever really matters that much. That's exactly what someone on Commons_talk:Overwriting_existing_files says to do if someone if somebody disagrees about cropping away something from the image. -Adamant1 (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to the upload of the slide you disagree with? Otherwise, please stop commenting here. I find this harassing. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BSicons in Category:Dead-end train stations

I am sorry, but you are mistaken. This category is for photographs of single-ended stations. This should have been obvious from the fact that of the hundreds of icons for stations at the end of a line, there were only three miscategorized here. Useddenim (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's about a special type of station. Where did you get the idea from that it should be for photographs? I don't think I specified that when creating the category and none of the 5 images then actually were. It's possible that other icons are undercategorized as well, but that isn't a reason to remove more specific, applicable categories. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get the idea from that it should be for photographs? From the fact that the sub-categories contain hundreds of photographs of dead-end train stations. Useddenim (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's not a requirement, otherwise the category would have "photograph" in its name.
There are a few track diagrams as well (ideally we would have more). Enhancing999 (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those are stand-alone diagrams, not icon tiles. Useddenim (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would this be relevant? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who put irrelevant (icon) images into an inappropriate category. Useddenim (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I explained to you why it's relevant. You haven't provide a valid reason for undoing my edit. Which is not ok. Enhancing999 (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, you are choosing to ignore my explanation. So, once again: icons belong in their OWN SEPARATE CATEGORIES. It's that simple. Useddenim (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are more general, separate categories, doesn't preclude it from being in precise categories. Even requiring each icon to be in a separate category violates Commons:Categories#Simplicity_principle. Enhancing999 (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And how does that principle apply here? As far as I can tell, you want to complicate the category by adding unrelated items. Useddenim (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the principle or the addition of icons (of the appropriate station type) implies that. You seem to say that I have to create a subcategory for "icons for dead end stations". You haven't really demonstrated how this is "unrelated". Maybe there is some guideline you have in mind. BTW, please don't add other users comments to this talk page. I If you want to discuss with them, you can do that elsewhere. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me any other category that contains just a few en:WP:RDT diagram icons alongside otherwise-unrelated images? Useddenim (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why should there be? Supposedly you would remove them even if there were related, such as an icon for a dead-end station in the category for dead-end station. For other types of icons, we do have an icon for Norwegian stations, in the category for such stations.
Can you respond to my comment above? "You haven't really demonstrated how this is "unrelated". Maybe there is some guideline you have in mind". If categorization creates a problem for you, could you outline it so it can be looked into? Enhancing999 (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Train station in Zürich

I've seen your edits at File:Zürich (Schweiz), Bahnhof -- 2011 -- 1386.jpg. Most of my edits where done with a bot. I'll fix my bot as requested and it will work. I've seen some other issues in the structured data and these will be fixed too. The updates may take a few weeks, but they'll done. Thank you for your suggestions. BTW: Please create your user page, especially with the babel templates. Some functions depend on these templates and in a multinational project like Commons the information of language skills are useful. --XRay 💬 19:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can only back this Gürbetaler (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obermatt

In fasct there had been two distinct station of this name, but only one of them was an official station. This is the Obermatt station of the former Stansstad-Engelberg-Bahn in the canton of Obwalden, where the cog locomotives were added. But it remained an official stop till the end of the old line (replaced by the Engelberg tunnel). I moved it to Category:Obermatt former railway station. Obermatt, DIDOK 85-08240 on the Entlebuch line still carries this name but has ever only been a service station. It is now unter Category:Obermatt service railway station . Gürbetaler (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please experiment in the sandbox

العربية ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ Frysk ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−
float 
An edit you made seemed to be a test, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Feel free to visit the community portal if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thank you!

A.Savin 08:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Photographer's Barnstar
Thank you Enhancing999 Frissonneherissonne2010 🔔 08:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Email?

I see you don't have email turned on, so there is no way to reach you confidentially. I really recommend turning it on. But your call, of course. - Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is this in relation to? Contributing to a Wikimedia project shouldn't require any confidential information. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, then, I won't pass you any. - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swisstopo

Hi, File:Swisstopo Landeskarte Arolla 283 1968 LT LK 283 1968.tif is an old map, while Category:Swisstopo 1:50'000 map sheets is for the most recent maps. They should not be mixed up. Yann (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get that (old, not mixing), but I don't think we can solve it with that category. Enhancing999 (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And Category:Swisstopo 1:50'000 map sheets should be at the same level as Category:Swisstopo 1:200'000 map sheets and Category:Swisstopo 1:25'000 map sheets. Yann (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Skiing maps are annotated versions of the 50'000 one. Categorization and category naming can be improved. I think it's a good idea to have a separate one for the map sheets (tiles), but grouping all crops in one maybe not.
Also, what to do with older sheets? Updates happens every year and the print versions include underlying map data from different years. Online tiles may differ. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For older versions, I would renamed them with the year in the title, and keep the plain title for the most recent ones. But why do we need update them? Is there so many changes?
I see some issues with the "Map" template. There is a message in red: Error in {{Map}} template: unknown parameter "adjacent_sheets". Yann (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the print version, they regularly published updated sheets, in 2023: numbers 1169 1170 1190 1191 1211 1251 1252
I made an edit request that should fix the template. Enhancing999 (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to duplicate the license. It is "projection orthogonale", and not "projection autogonale".
And I am going to upload JPEG versions, which are more useful for Wikipedia. Yann (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the Dufour maps, I fixed some of the input of the uploader. Also, I noticed they credit the engravers and, for the ski maps, fr:Swiss ski. I wouldn't remove that. Template:Map-Format for scale seems to be just a number (scale=50000). Agree that jpeg is preferable over tiff for Wiki purposes. Enhancing999 (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swisstopo maps by scale

  • Category:Swisstopo 1:50'000 maps
    • Category:Swisstopo 1:50'000 map sheets
    • Category:Swisstopo 1:50'000 map sheets (superseded)
    • Category:Swisstopo 1:50'000 crops

Category:Swisstopo maps by work

  • Category:Landeskarte der Schweiz 1:50'000
  • Category:Skiroutenkarten
  • Category:Topographischer Atlas der Schweiz

As for categorization, shall we try the above? Users can search by scale or by work. The advantage is that scale can vary in one work and the information from Dufour/Siegfried was updated or reused in later maps (ski routes). I used "superseded" instead "old" as "old maps" has a specific meaning at Commons. The exact names/spellings of the categories could be improved later. @Yann: Enhancing999 (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. Yann (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know SVG?

Hi, Do you know how to create SVG files? I made a request on COM:GL/M#Create a SVG version of File:Topo 25 sheets orig.jpg, but nobody answered. Yann (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, but beyond [2], I wont be of much help.
Usually, I ask for help on Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop. This might work for your question as well as the maps already exist and it consists mainly of adding the grid to a form with the right projection. Enhancing999 (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gave if a try for the grid part, cf. [3]. Enhancing999 (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:1223 Échallens.jpg

Hi, Échallens is the proper spelling. See en:Échallens. Yann (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop doing this. We usually adopt the spelling used in Wikipedia, unless there is a different consensus. Yann (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See COM:VP#Echallens‎ vs. Échallens‎. Yann (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of Switzerland

Hi, Thanks for creating the interactive maps. There is an issue with names for bilingual regions: File:1165 Murten Morat.jpg and File:1185 Fribourg Freiburg.jpg. File:Topo 25 sheets orig.jpg uses both French and German spellings. Shouldn't we follow that? Yann (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency with the other sheets, I requested them to be renamed. I noticed Swisstopo changed the names of these sheets in recent years. If you search for cover pages of printed maps, you will notice the current ones just use "Murten" and "Fribourg". A few others had bilingual names at some point, but currently dont': Matterhorn, Flims, Ilanz, Scalettapass, Albulapass, Sierre. The only sheet with a bilingual name now is "Glurns/Glorenza". Enhancing999 (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Yann (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SVG assembly map

Hi, See fr:Fichier:Sémhur.svg. Yann (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: nice. I see it uses the non-uniform squares of the printed maps. I'd include 1035 and 1056.
Not convinced that the font it uses makes it easier to read at smaller scales.
A thing I like about BSicons is that their SVG source code is often readable and can be edited manually to add squares, color them or change labels. Hopefully the SVG I made follows that.
BTW, I added a list of sheets and the SVG for 1:50000 at Wikipedia. Also, I made a colored version of the 1:25000 index with the tiles available at Commons. I wonder if you'd convert and upload the few (mostly partial) tiles we sill miss. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See File:Switzerland topo 25 sheets orig.svg. Yann (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template editor

Hi, I gave you the right Template editor. Best, Yann (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Carte d'État-major/grid

Splendid ! Great job. Thx a lot. Poudou99 (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source <> creator

Hello, I'll have no issue undoing the changes I made. You're correct. I made a mistake and apologize for troubling you about this issue. Best, nicolas talkpage★★★ 01:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign editor

Du kannst jetzt die Kampagne anpassen. Wenn du dabei Fragen hast, kannst du mich gerne fragen. GPSLeo (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INSA Karte

Thank you for the map with the locations. Delémont und Neuchâtel are missing on the map. For Grenchen und Sarnen, there is no text. Best. Jag9889 (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing the missing ones, this is slightly .. The tool skipped redirects. Labels are also determined by the tool/OSM. Eventually I might try to do a svg version. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enhancing999/Archive_1&oldid=852603245"