User talk:LX/Archive/2016: July to September

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Re:

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Rodtico21#File:Traditional chair. Costa Rica.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Description instead of a comment, please

Your changes of categorizations often contain a comment rather than a factual description of your change. I would prefer to see a description of the change. Thank you. Bengt Nyman (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

And I would prefer if you followed the advice in those comments and didn't flood top-level categories with files that don't belong there. I'm guessing neither of us is going to get what we want. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Jerry Siegel 1939

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:BaronBifford#Please do not recreate deleted content. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally when I upload images....

It takes me so much time, even using the uploader, to pick a name for each image file, to write a description of the image, the time of the image, copyright notices, and so forth. Then, for each image, I am supposed to choose categories. This is something I am not good at and am unlikely to get good at. For me, to have to wade through tons of categories (which change regularly) to try to select the perfect categories for each one would be exhausting. Let me do what I'm good at -- uploading images -- and let others do what they're good at -- choosing categories -- that way, it's much better all around. There are contributors such as yourself who know that categories such as sand and hotels are inappropriate and that walking persons is a better one. So, kudos to you, but please don't expect too much from me in terms of categorization.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that we already have more than 750,000 completely uncategorised files, and we probably have an even greater number of files in overly generic top-level categories that aren't going to help anyone find them. There simply aren't enough volunteers to handle these volumes. Unless uploaders take a few minutes to pick relevant categories, the chances of the files ever ending up in categories where they're actually likely to be found are slim to none. It doesn't take many clicks to find your way from an overly generic top level category like Category:Hotels via Category:Hotels by country→Category:Hotels in the United States→Category:Hotels in the United States by state→Category:Hotels in New Jersey to Category:Hotels in Cape May County, New Jersey – and there's nothing special about me that enabled me to find it. It's just that I made the effort, just like anyone else could. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally, each contributor chooses how he or she will contribute here. I've chosen to upload images. You've chosen to categorize them better. Yes there are many uncategorized images or ones with generic categories, but it is always possible that in future new volunteers will come along to categorize them better. You, asking me to do what you do best, is kind of like me, asking you to upload more images. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Let's all do what we do best. Further, it is possible that in the future, new bots or programs will come along that will re-categorize images automatically, so no, I'm not too thrilled about the idea of spending even more time on each image trying to get the exact categories down.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we're all volunteers here, but if you could take just a few seconds to drill down from the top-level categories that you're currently using, that would be very, very helpful and increases the likelihood of your uploads being found. That's all I'm saying. After all, you're in a better position than anyone else to know what it is you've photographed and where. But if you don't want to be that helpful and don't care about your photos being found, that is, as you say, entirely up to you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Will try.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No source tags

Hi, please stop removing 'no source' tags from DWs of unsourced base maps, unless you can provide a source for the base maps which shows that they are free. You are causing unnecessary work, leading to nothing. Jcb (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you had simply not read or understood the authorship assertions in Swedish. To me, your edits just looked like blind tagging of files that just had its source information somewhere other than the source field, especially since you skipped over all the other files in Category:Election maps of India attributed to User:Soman, where the only difference seems to be that File:Rjdelectionmap.PNG and File:Rldelectionmap.PNG had an empty source field because the source information was in the description field instead.

I would argue that these files do have source information, and that if you think that the source information provided is not credible, a deletion discussion would be more appropriate. Similarly, if there is source information, but you think that it is not sufficient for some reason, a deletion discussion would be a much clearer way to raise that concern than to erroneously tag the file as having no source information, which is just likely to cause confusion. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No, this is exactly what the tag is for. "This media file is missing essential source information." is exactly what's wrong with these files. The choice of these two files may seem a bit random, the cause is that I an going through files alfabetically. Jcb (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Aiadmkelectionmap.PNG comes before both those files alphabetically, and all the files I've seen you tag lately were ones that had blank source fields, so it still seems to me like that was the sole criterion. Anyway, I can only explain what my reasoning was, and I think you're likely to confuse others the same way if you keep tagging files with source information as missing source information because you suspect that they are derivatives of some undisclosed original work. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

The strawberry fruit (which is not actually a berry) is widely appreciated for its characteristic aroma, bright red color, juicy texture, and sweetness. Thanks for your daily hard work :-) I appreciate it. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It hasn't been so daily lately – I've been busy with a trade show. But thank you, and same to you! —LX (talk, contribs) 16:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Montenegro champion cycling jerseys

Hello, can you upload Montenegro champion cycling jersey? Or can you tell someone else to upload? -- Vux33 (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please use Commons:Picture requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)