User talk:Sergey Liverko

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Sergey Liverko!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

User:Flickr upload bot/upload

Hello,

I reverted your edit on User:Flickr upload bot/upload, because {{Autotranslate}} does not work here. It only works when parameters are unnamed, which is not the case here. {{Fallback}} should then be used, but it does not behave properly outside of the template namespace. I had to settle for a custom method (though a bit ugly ;-).

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, now the translation works! :) Sergey Liverko (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Adaptation request

Hi! I have seen your edit on [1], thank you. Well, I want request you to find some russian person (or good speaker) in order to adding this script n:en:MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover.js#Languages_available to wikt:ru:MediaWiki:extractFirst.xsl it is really important for every body. This script will work anywhere it is installed including commons! (see User:Otourly/hover). you could test it on the french wikinews more informations: meta:Wiktionary/Look Up tool kind regards, Otourly (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Well, I'm a native russian person myself, and at time I put in order description pages for many images from Commons, with adding russian description :) I've readed the info on the meta:Wiktionary/Look Up tool and agree that this is a really useful tool. But first: I couldn't test it on French Wikinews, because I didn't catch how to turn it on, and second - how exactly can I help? The page wikt:ru:MediaWiki:extractFirst.xsl currently doesn't exist and I dont' have button "Create it" (most likely because I don't have necessary rights). Sergey Liverko (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the tool is enable by fault on french wikinews. so you just need to double clic on any black word :) . Well we need to find a sysop on the russian wiktionary could you help us? Otourly (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Okey, I've written to the talk page of the russian Wictionary's admin wikt:ru:Обсуждение участника:Al Silonov#Подключение LookUp tool, asking him to write to your talk page about this subject. I'm sure that together you wiil make all necessary changes. Good luck! Sergey Liverko (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Хлубочепих

Hi! Please, can you state some source which translates the Prague district "Hlubočepy" as «Хлубочепих»? The standard transcription is "Глубочепы" and I know no source which uses any translated version of this name. --ŠJů (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Format changes

Hi! I think, it's no a good idea to reshape all descriptions made by other users to your personal liking. It's helpfully to correct clear errors and mistakes but you should respect that other users have their own mind and liking as well.

Just as you prefer to include the license template into the "permission" field, some other users can prefer to include the location template into the "description" field. Some users prefer to use parematers like "1=" and some users prefer to leave out them. Some users prefer to write template links with lower case and some users with upper case. Some users prefer to use {{Date}} template (it has some advantages: it makes possible to add some additional specifying text) and some users prefer to use the basic date format. To replace "Image:" with "File:" is needless, both prefixes are fully functional. Purposeless remodelling can evoke needless controversies. Do your images after your liking and do keep images of others by their own liking if possible. As far as as the different version is functioning, it is fruitless to remake it back and forth.

Original upload log is usually located in a separate section. To move it to "other versions" field is very nonstandard idea. Perhaps may be acceptable in case of your own files but it is utterly inconvenient to rebuild in this sense some completed description.

Please, try to better distinguish between profitable changes and needless or controversial changes. --ŠJů (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

CC licences suppose that the granter can specify some special conditions. The license tag cannot supersede such conditions, they have to be kept as the supplement of the license template. --ŠJů (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! As I can see, you've read instructions (which are really just a memo for my own) on my user page. OK, I try to describe this. The only target of my changes - is to standardize descriptions of images in the way, which is most convenient for editing and expanding by others (for example, to translate information to other languages). This is not the question of my personal likings. And I believe that this is necessary, because Commons contains huge of images and some uniformity of descriptions will be useful.

This point implies that wiki-code of the description page should be clear, structured and compact. The things that "1=" in template arguments, additional sections like "licensing" don't get bring to this target - for example, field "Permission" in "Information" template made exactly for licensing details. Like the field "Date" is designated especially for containing date (and format with dashes is recommended on the Commons:First steps/Quality and description#Good file descriptions), not for other details - for them exists field "Description". And for tagging your own photos especially was developed Multilanguage template {{Own}}, which allows not to translate phrase "own work" into couple of languages.

But this doesn't mean anyway that I don't respect the authors - if I see, that photo contains special author templates, of course, I'll preserve them (for example, File:Bigos.jpg or File:Zwickau Bockwa - Matthäuskirche (aka).jpg). But I believe that in most cases uploaders don't attach value, for example, in which way licensing will be described - in separate section or inside the Information box. My experience confirms it - in more than 300 images, edited by me, no author was disagree (although they've seen their image after me and, in some cases, added/removed categories) - well, you've been the first :) So why do not to lead these descriptions to some kind of standard form? Of course, if any author will cancel my edits, I'm always ready to discuss with them - to explain the target of my changes and to find consensus. I'm not going to begin the holywar for the uniform description format - the most correct wording is that I suggest my variant as far as there are no objections from authors.

And will take into account some good ideas from you - about special conditions of licensing and separate section for Original upload log - it looks reasonably. About translation - I've seen these variant on one of edited images (it was added before me) and recklessly accepted them as right. Thanks again for correcting and - can you advice some source in the WWW, where it’s possible to see the right translation form CS to RU? Sergey Liverko (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As regards date fields, some works (derivated or modified) need to distinguish what means the date. In case of painting reproduction, it's necessary to state whether the date is the date of depicted work or the date when was taken the reproduction. In case of modified photos, it's necessary to distinguish between the date of taken and the date of particular modifications and especially of the last version. Etc. "Date" template and "Ohter date" template are intended for this purpose and it's pointless and counterproductive to replace them with the less advanced format. Even the template "own" can be problematic in cases of derivative works (e. g. a photo of an other work).

Yes, I've met these cases and in every of them I've saved maximum of information in most clear form (but by the way: is the history of image in the bottom of description page not provides necesary information about all intermediate modifiations? Why use information date field for this purpose?). My guidelines are not strict laws - they're rather flexible (for example, here license was left outside the {{Information}} because tables don't work inside the temaplte and I don't have right to remove author's original design). Target is to bring all good and interesting images to mostly uniform description; this doesn't mean that all images must have absolutely identical descriptions like soldiers uniform.

I hope, you've understood my point of view and won't be object to my activity - as I said, in every case I try to save maximum of valuable information and respect author's unique design, if it's being presented :)

As regards transcription from Czech to Russian, the Czech letter H is traditionally represented by Г and the letter CH as Х. I didn't found transcription or transliteration table, but you can try [2] and [3] as an example. --ŠJů (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's good example and I completely agree in this case, but this will work only if you should choose between several variants, one of them is exactly right. But the good news in that I almost finished standatazing Czech photos (my main interest is the Czech public transport) - several categories left to view, so the problem will be inactual soon :)

I think, transcription from Czech to Russian isn't difficult. Every Czech letter except "h" has its almost exact equivalent in Russian. (ž = ж, š = ш, č = ч, c = ц, ř is transcribed as рж, ď is дь, ť is ть, ň is нь, e is э or е, ě is е, i is и, y is ы, j is й, x is кс, ch is х, ja is я, ju is ю, jo is ё, šč is щ, áéíóúů are transcribed as aeiouu). --ŠJů (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Position of license template

Hi, what is wrong with license template below text? Can you give up these changes in pictures, which I uploaded? In „my“ pictures I'm adding license template below the text, because I think, that it is better arranged, than with template in information box. Thanks a lot, —Jagro (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! OK, no problem. Due to our discussion with ŠJů above and watching a couple of photos on Commons, I realized uselessness of attempts to standardize image description pages. So I'll concentrate only on adding/fixing russian descriptions - I hope, that you won't object to this, if speaking about your photos :) Sergey Liverko (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Other_versions

Hi. I noticed that you deleted the field title |Other_versions= from the Information template. It isn't a good idea. Basic field titles should be included though some of them is empty. It makes it easier to fill in such field later when needed. It should be rather added if missing, not removed. --ŠJů (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As regards [4], in Czech language are names of stations and stops conceived as proper names. That means e. g. that the square is named "náměstí Míru" or "náměstí Protifašistických bojovníků", but the metro station and tram stop is named "Náměstí Míru" or bus stop "Náměstí Protifašistických bojovníků". Are you sure that in Russian language it isn't likewise? --ŠJů (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank's for advice with |Other_versions=, I won't delete it anymore. Well, about proper names. Of course, station and stop names in Russian are also capitalized, but in the [5] there's not the name of station (no quotes!) in brackets, it's positioned just as translation of the previous text. These two variants will be OK:

1. остановки «Чаплиново намести» (площадь Чаплина)
2. остановки «Чаплиново намести» («Площадь Чаплина»)

but next variant isn't OK:

1. остановки «Чаплиново намести» (Площадь Чаплина)

Sergey Liverko (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In Czech language, proper names are emphasised by upper cases only. Quotes aren't necessary (but they can help to distinguish a multi-word proper name within a text). I read Russian texts sometimes and I can see that the Russian language have similar rules and practices as the Czech language as regards this problem. Therewithal, the translation of a proper name keeps its character of proper name. When some name of a city, organization or literary work is translated into some other language, the translated name is conceived always as a proper name. --ŠJů (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Stellation images

Why are you putting those images in the topmost category of images that should be in SVG format? Polyhedra belong to geometry, thereby are—imho—ultimately math images. The top cat is crowded enough already, really. —Johannes Rössel (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Convert to MIDI/ru

Template:Convert to MIDI/ru 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 template, 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. 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!

/Leonel Sohns _{stop bugging me!} 13:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)