User talk:Plettman
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Stop vandaliusual categzing pages[edit]
Location categories are part of the usual category work and essential part of WikiCommons. Be warned. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Cccefalon, I removed the category "Quality images of Finnentrop" because in my view it's misleading: they may have been shot in some massage room in Finnentrop but the pictures do not contain any features of the town Finnentrop. So why should they be categorized accordingly? --Plettman (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, it is not misleading, as the Location Catecory is not intended to show town images. If it is necessary to create a, let's say, specific citiscape category, then photos will go to the appropriate subcategory. However, as there aren't yet very much images in the main category, it is not really necessary to have subcategories. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, looks like I got the sense of location categories completely wrong. Does that mean that all pictures in Wikimedia Commons (if categorized correctly) will have to be categorized into the administrative region that they have been taken in? Let's say I shoot a picture of a Boeing 767 after take-off in the sky of New York City (no buildings to be seen), will I have to put that into the New York City category? To me that doesn't make any sense... --Plettman (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I looked a bit through the documentation on categories and found that it says on Commons:Kategorien#Kategorisieren_deiner_Beitr.C3.A4ge: wo? Wo wurde das Bild aufgenommen (wenn das für den Bildinhalt relevant ist): z.B. Category:Saxony. So the location information must be relevant for the picture-content. In this case I would say it doesn't matter where the massage-scene took place, and that's why I would remove the location category. Otherwise we'd be filling the Finnentrop-Category with irrelevant pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plettman (talk • contribs) 13:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Why should the massage saloon of Ostentrop be irrelevant for the category? It is part of the life in that town. Or e.g. File:Ostentrop_Germany_Paper-delivery-boy-01.jpg - what makes you think that the category was wrongly choosen? It is not a good idea to start a category war on the QIC images, especially as you did not take part in the QIC process so far. Well, what about removing the location categories from the many location-categorized photos of other QIC photographers, for example the horse photos of User:XRay (File:Merfeld,_Wildpferdefang_--_2014_--_0638.jpg)? I suggest, you discuss the whole topic in QIC talk, if you want to go further with that. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it's not sufficient that the scene is just "part of the life" of a town. If that would be the case, all objects/scenes would be admissible. To be relevant, it rather has to be part of the (broader) public life of a town. People looking at the Finnentrop-category would expect to see pics of the Finnentrop appearance there (like all other pics in that category). The massage scene just doesn't fit into the rest because it's not associated specifically with Finnentrop, it's not typical. I'm fine with leaving the paperboy and the forwarder in if you'd argue that it's a typical picture for Ostentrop (which I cannot deny). Looking at your horse-photo example, I have to say that it's in my view perfectly relevant: the horses of Merfeld are the main attraction of the town (there's even a separate article on them), so here it makes a lot of sense to attribute it to the Merfeld-category. On the contrary I'd like to give you an example of a (QIC) pic that doesn't have a location category, although it could have had one: File:Curlew (Numenius arquata) in flight.jpg was taken in Argyll district. I'm far from starting a category war (that's why I discuss here with you) but I also think I didn't vandalize when removing the Finnentrop-category. And to make sure: it doesn't have to do with the question whether a pic belongs to QIC or not but it's about pics in general. So how should we go about it? Ask an admin? --Plettman (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Discuss it in QIC talk. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ich möchte mich nicht in die Diskussion einmischen, aber mein Bild wurde genannt. Deutsch fällt mir leichter, ihr versteht es ja. Uwe möchte ich in zwei Dingen zustimmen und damit meine Meinung kundtun: Die Diskussion gehört eher zur QIC-Diskussion und die Bilder des Massagesalons gehören für mich zu den QI von Finnentrop. (Ich will hier aber nicht diskutieren.) Der Grund ist einfach, die Kategorie, in der die Bilder einsortiert sind, gehört zu Ostentrop und damit zu Finnentrop. Die Suche nach guten Bildern (oben rechts) würde sie auch entsprechend anzeigen. In den QI-Ortskategorien müssen keineswegs nur Bilder aufgenommen werden, die den Ort zeigen, sondern die QIs, die man in der dazugehörigen Ortskategorie findet. (BTW: In manchen Orten gibt es auch "Quality images of buildings/sculptures/events/etc. in ...") Das können halt auch Personen aus dem Ort sein. Oder Tiere aus einem Zoo, wenn sich der Zoo in dem Ort befindet. Oder, oder, oder. Nur eine Bitte meinerseits, wenn ein solches Thema diskutiert werden soll, dann nicht auf einer User-Seite. Danke. --XRay talk 11:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Discuss it in QIC talk. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it's not sufficient that the scene is just "part of the life" of a town. If that would be the case, all objects/scenes would be admissible. To be relevant, it rather has to be part of the (broader) public life of a town. People looking at the Finnentrop-category would expect to see pics of the Finnentrop appearance there (like all other pics in that category). The massage scene just doesn't fit into the rest because it's not associated specifically with Finnentrop, it's not typical. I'm fine with leaving the paperboy and the forwarder in if you'd argue that it's a typical picture for Ostentrop (which I cannot deny). Looking at your horse-photo example, I have to say that it's in my view perfectly relevant: the horses of Merfeld are the main attraction of the town (there's even a separate article on them), so here it makes a lot of sense to attribute it to the Merfeld-category. On the contrary I'd like to give you an example of a (QIC) pic that doesn't have a location category, although it could have had one: File:Curlew (Numenius arquata) in flight.jpg was taken in Argyll district. I'm far from starting a category war (that's why I discuss here with you) but I also think I didn't vandalize when removing the Finnentrop-category. And to make sure: it doesn't have to do with the question whether a pic belongs to QIC or not but it's about pics in general. So how should we go about it? Ask an admin? --Plettman (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Why should the massage saloon of Ostentrop be irrelevant for the category? It is part of the life in that town. Or e.g. File:Ostentrop_Germany_Paper-delivery-boy-01.jpg - what makes you think that the category was wrongly choosen? It is not a good idea to start a category war on the QIC images, especially as you did not take part in the QIC process so far. Well, what about removing the location categories from the many location-categorized photos of other QIC photographers, for example the horse photos of User:XRay (File:Merfeld,_Wildpferdefang_--_2014_--_0638.jpg)? I suggest, you discuss the whole topic in QIC talk, if you want to go further with that. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, it is not misleading, as the Location Catecory is not intended to show town images. If it is necessary to create a, let's say, specific citiscape category, then photos will go to the appropriate subcategory. However, as there aren't yet very much images in the main category, it is not really necessary to have subcategories. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
_in_flight.jpg){kind=link}