User talk:Slaunger/Archives/2012/2

Geo-coding and licence

Hey Slaunger,

OK well I think I'm more or less ready to ask you to put your bot to use. If you weren't able to find an existing CC-BY-NC 3.0 and GFDL 1.2 template I'd be happy to modify my current personal templates (eg Fir0002/400-5D to include the NC licence and then you could use that with your bot).

Also, as mentioned, can we do the geo-coding with the bot? If you could do the search for "Swifts Creek" and then give me a list of all the files it has edited, I can then go through each and double check whether the co-ord needs tweaking (but as I say the vast majority are taken within a 2 or 3km radius -> you need to remember much of my photographic work was done when I only had a bicycle for transport!). And while on the topic of geo-coding, do you have any tips on the best way to do it manually? I was thinking of using Google maps but it's not that straightforward as the easiest way I can see is to centre the map and then go to "send a link to email" and copy out the co-ords from the URL -> is there a better way?

Cheers, --Fir0002 www 11:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I use G-maps. Right click and choose "What's here?" then it gives the digital coords. --99of9 (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Fir,

Yes, we can start the process. For these kinds of things I prefer to proceed slowly to make sure we have a good mutual understanding of the task at hand. I know the issue regarding licenses is of high importance for you (and me), so I want to make sure I get it right. A couple of points

1. Concerning the license, I prefer that a {{GFDL 1.2 or cc-by-nc 3.0}} dual license tag is made in the main template space. It is best to separate the license tag template from the user-space transcluded credits/equipment template. I have already requested the creation of the dual license tag here. You can still have user-specific templates which combines a user-specific credits-equipment template with a dual license tag template from main template space. In the future you will then have to subst this in on your new upload, which will leave a transcluded user-specific credits/equipment template (which you can still maintain and change centrally) and the dual license tag template from main template space on each file page. This is to make sure that any future license changes will lead to a change on each file page, such that watchers can be notified about that proactively. Confused? No worries. It will all become clear...
2. Concerning geocoding. Sure, I can add a default {{Location}} to all file pages containing "Swifts Creek". I can also generate a list of those files for your possible geocoding refinement. What should the default location be?
3. Concerning tools for geocoding there are listed quite some options at COM:GEO. I can warmly recommend the Geolocator Tool. This is the swiss army knife of geocoding for wiki! With a few click you get a copy of the location template including a lot of neat optional parameters like camera heading, scale, region. If you have many photos from approximately the same area it is easy to rapidly process al the geocodes by dragging and pointing the geoloactor marker, direction and range ring around. The additioanl parameters help in the display on, e.g., Google maps.
4. I am a little busy with work currently, so the work will be done in small chuncks with ample of time for you to check out intermediate results and confirm we are heading in the right direction. I guess we are not in a hurry anyway? I plan to create a subpage on my bot as a mutual work sheet. Will keep you informed. OK?

Looking forward to our cooperation. Cheers, --Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Slaunger - yes I'm very happy to proceed slowly because as you say it's something that needs to be done right. To get back to your points:

1. The template you made up looks perfect, I'd be happy to use it. I think I understand what you're saying about the subst and transclusion - essentially the dual licence will be hard coded into each of the files but my user-specific credits (excluding the licence) will be like a flexible template which I can change by editing the one template page. Correct? If so, that's fine by me
2. Default location is {{coord|37|15|47.31|S|147|43|17.72|E|region:AU}}
3. Geolocator is great - thanks for pointing it out! Took a bit to find out the "alt click" thing -> should really be a little clearer (rather than buried in point 3).
4. No that's totally fine, I'm reasonably busy myself IRL so slow is good for me too. Let me know when you get the process started! I'll probably need to make some new custom user templates which exclude the licence bit yeah? --Fir0002 www 10:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh also Slaunger, can you generate for me a list of all my other uploads with a link to edit the file description? Just saves me having to open each image up separately and hitting the link on the image page to add in the geodata... Thanks, --Fir0002 www 12:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not "alone in the scope" any more

Hi Slaunger, in this talk (the title is a Frensh-English mix), Archaeodontosaurus advised me to ask your advice. In April 2011 I imported File:Philepitta castanea 1868.jpg, then the only one illustration of Velvet Asity. But yesterday I found two others, and I don't know what to do. Should I look to the "sets"? Regards, Totodu74 (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• 
    Breeding male, non breeding male and a young
• 
  Male
• 
  Young

A second problem came up here, because someone asked me to create a gallery for a scope who have a single file, and then another says that « a Commons Galleries with only a single image such as Hapalopsittaca amazonina are not permitted ». I've no opinion on the subject, but if you have some experience of this... Totodu74 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Regarding the birds, I personally think the current VI is still a good stand-alone VI. As long as you or anybody else do not contest that, things could stay status quo. Alternatively, an MVR could be opened where they are allowed to "compete". Personally, and I must emphasize that this is personally I am not a fan of putting a set like this together for a set nomination. In my opinion there needs to be some extra touch to a set. Of course you could say that there is, because the three of them are in the same style and in that manner coherent. I also know that quite a lot of the members of the VI-circuitry does not share my view entirely on this, and that is OK for me. In principle, the new photos could also be nominated as subscopes for the species emphasizing the plumages speficic for the gender and age, but (again) personally I think it is a bit too narrow scopes and "overkill". --Slaunger (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Sigh. I understand your confusion. I just checked Commons:Galleries and indeed there is such a rule. (I was not aware of that). I do not think the rule is good and I have initiated a discussion about it on Commons talk:Galleries. Personally I do not think such a gallery should be created prior to nomination. If promoted, I do think it would be relevant (but apparently against our current guideline). Let us see if we can change that or find another useful solution. --Slaunger (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

1. You're right, the picture presenting three forms of the bird is better than others (I find some others again yesterday), probably the best in scope, even if the reason of the nomination is not valid any more.
2. Thanks for launching this talk, I will wait a bit before launching other proposals ;) Totodu74 (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert

Hello and thanks for the explanation. I had no reason to think that you would have done it on purpose anyway (that's why I didn't protest). Best wishes, Zunkir (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)