User talk:Jotzet/Archive/2018

rotation d'une image

l'objet en 1880 aprés les fouilles archéologiques.

Bonjour, vous avez annulé la rotation de l'image en référence, mais elle est présentée à l'envers, l'oenochoe est bombée vers le haut donc l'objet est sur cette image à l'envers. Remettez la à l'endroit, c'est bien mieux ? Cordialement Gérald Garitan (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Moin, ich verstehe Deine Idee. Eine Rotation des Photos wäre dennoch falsch, vielmehr ist seine Orientierung so korrekt. Dies ist nachvollziehbar, wenn in Betracht gezogen wird, dass es ohne Blitz ("Flash did not fire, compulsory flash suppression") aufgenommen wurde und der sichtbare Schatten des Motivs durch eine externe Lichtquelle (momentan von "vorne") hervorgerufen wurde. Nach einer Drehung des Bildes um 180 Grad fehlte dann der erwartbare Schatten des Photographen. Gruß --Jotzet (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jotzet (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"So don't waste your time trying to contact me these days."

Hi. (An attempt to contact you! :) Please do not bring empty cats to Categories for Discussion. Simply ask a friendly admin to delete them. If you don't want to ask favours, just write "empty page" within {} (couple). Bye. --E4024 (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I vaguely remember... :) In rare moments of competence this is how I use to handle such cases (works on poppets as well as on bummers). thx 4 wasting some time ;-) --Jotzet (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jotzet (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Orphée.jpg

File:Orphée.jpg 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 file, 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I've read but not quite understood your reply on several DR I made yesterday regarding FoP. I'm not a specialist of such regulations but it seems similar files uploaded by the same user have been deleted 3 months ago for such a reason and copyright issues. May you tell me more ? Thanks. Yours, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thx for your follow-up. My "keep" referred to the FoP templates you added which imho don't fit, but as I note yet, I probably did not pay sufficient attention to the argument regarding possible copyright infringements... Have a nice weekend --Jotzet (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jotzet (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Transferred from File talk:Lotyšské etnografické muzeum v přírodě (17).jpg

Jotzet, you do understand that each image features a different building with different function and a completely separate history? It's not like the image series features the same object in all of the pictures.. –Turaids (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose your question is a rethorical one but allow me to answer what you probably wanted to ask:

As part of a set of more than 100 related images this file has a propper title which describes the illustrated sufficiently. Renaming just one of those files in a way that ignores the goal "to harmonize the names of a set of images: so that only one part of all names differs", doesn't help anything. I'd suggest you better categorize such images (example) and add a supplementary description in your language. --Jotzet (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Currently the file has a name that makes it virtually unusable, unless you want to flood the article of the museum with 100+ images with no descriptions of what's actually in them. I'm in the process of sorting out all of the mess, but as you can imaging it's not a one day job. Quite a few images were already renamed, but you are the first one who seems to favor theory over practicality. –Turaids (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that ideally theory and practice are mutually supportive so I can not support the claim that a presumably badly chosen filename makes the file (virtually) unusable. BTW: I do not wanna flood anything either. ;-)

What I wanted to explain is that — in order to get it found — it is not necessary to rename such a file. Appropriate descriptions and unique categorizations lead the goal more effectively in practice. Likewise searches for "Latvian smithy" or "latvian smock mill" (now) lead to the expected results.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate your efforts in fixing indifferently named files though the purpose the filename is believed to have is not of less importance; contributors frequently categorizing files have different demands from those who create, process, manage and upload them. Uploaders often have schemas naming their files; moving files might break them. If possible, language and schema should be preserved (as well as possible camera or catalogue numbers). Accordingly — if one insists in renaming — a procedure in the way I suggested here would be more desirable. It should also be considered creating file redirects instead. They are cheap, usually do not break anything and are easily edited or deleted, if required.

jm2c --Jotzet (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jotzet (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Commons users and others

Please elaborate, why all this should be deleted. --A.Savin 16:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No response -- I'm going to restore them all, next time please discussion before making this kind of changes -- COM:CfD, COM:VP etc.. --A.Savin 18:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jotzet (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Posterized to reduce file size

Revision of File:Oklahoma_City_memorial.jpg
A posterized JPEG file? Do you hope to understand the meaning of what did you say here? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, yes, afaik there is. sometimes it is called "banding" as well. But I have to admit that these files are not well suited to illustrate the effect, so I removed the category. Your interest in other users' hopes is btw inappropriate. Unfortunately, you have forgotten a form of address too. Just do it better next time. yours --Jotzet (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jotzet (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your crops

Hi. Can't we just not delete the source file, File:Müjde Uzman.jpg; because it has a stupid TV announcement on it? I understand source files cannot be deleted? Thanks anyway. --E4024 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Everything can be deleted in the end ;-) but what for? Just derive images of the "original" when needed. --Jotzet (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jotzet (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Brewer's drays

Have reverted two of your edits and noted you are rarely around here but please discuss when you find this. Eddaido (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I reverted as well. You must create new categories if you don't want to see horses and oxes mixed up. --Jotzet (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You have managed to find an example. Would you drink any of the contents of that barrel? I doubt it contains beer. I say it is not a brewer's dray. Can you find another example? Should I copy you and revert your reversion without discussion? If you want ox-drawn brewer's drays build yourself a new category please and make sure you fill it with the real thing - when you find it. 05:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Eddaido (talk)

This section was archived on a request by: Jotzet (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Juni 1903 - Brewer's dray - Zell am See.JPG You are fortunate to have found this on a date Holy to all Mokopuna where e'er they may be. A remarkable coincidence. No accounting for remote Alpine villages like Munich unless (as I believe) they were moving a very large piece of disused brewery equipment to go on display at a garden bar in a leafy part of the city. That barrel, extremely heavy when full, is most casually perched on the ox-wagon — held there by a couple of "matching" logs. No way to distribute beer to retailers but I can't argue with Zell-am-zee even if "one swallow does not make a summer" (as they say). I'd go for an ox-wagon carrying a barrel in both cases but life's so short . . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddaido (talk • contribs) 00:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC) (UTC)

Nantasket Beach Railroad

Why are you adding incorrect categories to a number of inages related to this railroad line? If you don't have the expertise to correctly categorize them, them don't. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Be polite. Revert yourself where you did wrong. --Jotzet (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I was correcting your errors. You added Category:Nantasket station (1880) to a number of images which are not of that station (most were already correctly categorized under the later station). You added Category:Nantasket Beach Railroad to an image which is totally unrelated. And you added Category:Nantasket Beach to several maps that do not show or discuss the beach itself. One of those alone could be an honest mistake. Making all those errors in a short period, and then refusing to admit your mistake, suggests to me that you are not familiar with the subject. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, whether you realize it or not, you should have at least tried to be polite. Then I would not have had the impression that you wanted to distract from your bad conscience with exaggerated accusations. Assigning a file to an additional, possibly inappropriate category while work in progress does not break anything and is certainly not reprehensible. So leave me alone.

Otherwise, I'll bother you with explaining the basics of what you didn't understand right away:

First of all: Maps on which objects or data corresponding to them are mapped may very well be assigned to the corresponding object categories, because this makes their use in other projects practically possible in the first place.

Then: I didn't claim to have made no mistakes, only I hadn't yet started with viewing, sorting and creating any new categories needed (as you might have noticed, I used hotcat to get most likely suitable images from the file search into the categories I'm working on, leaving the chc template intact). Afterwards I would have probably also noticed for example that the Category:Nantasket station (1880) itself is sloppily categorized and therefore useless (in which place on which planet in which solar system should the station have been?), only your "suggestion" unfortunately got in my way.

JFTR: Nantasket Beach is (the bigger) part of the town of Hull (formerly called 'Nantasket') and not only a "beach" — which does not facilitate the assignment of the former railway stations either.

I may be better off when we've slept on it — or after we've slept and corrected "our mistakes". Or should I let the timetable experts be in Nerd's peace. ;-) --Jotzet (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I do apologize for being ruder than I should. Editing on the way home from graveyard shift may not have been the best idea. However, it is your responsibility to be clear what the intent of your actions areby leaving clear edit summaries. (A few manual edit summaries amid the automatic HotCat summaries would suffice, as would creating a clearly named temporary category.) When I checked my watchlist, all I saw was a number of incorrect category moves with no obvious motive.

Yes, we categorize maps according to what is in them. But the categorization I reverted was not helpful. This map is not a map of Nantasket Beach; it only labels it in tiny font, and there is no need to categorize it there. This map has nothing to do with the Nantasket Beach Railroad whatsoever.

I don't understand your claim that Category:Nantasket station (1880) is incorrectly categorized or useless. As is common for railroad stations, it is a subcategory of the station that replaced it. Can you please explain? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed that file is mapping a lot including the topography of Nantasket Beach and this map shows Boston's former interchange in the direction of Nantasket in 1900. I still have a problem with Category:Nantasket station (1880) since the two files it currently contains obviously show different buildings. I think it is doubtful that there was a Nantasket Beach train station in 1880. The postcard with the tram station is of 1909 and — taking into account its original description — File:Nantasket station, circa 1900.jpg is likely showing today's station Nantasket Junction. But I'd like to leave further research to an expert on the field. regards --Jotzet (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jotzet (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion request of my own images

Hello Jotzet,
I submitted a deletion request for this and this image, and it was denied. However I would really appreciate it if they could still be deleted. These two images are both uploaded by myself and I just want them to be deleted off Commons, as I don't want them appearing and being associated with my username on Google and Wikipedia. In the deletion requests I also outlined why these images are inferior and I also provided several alternative images that better cover the subject so that no value is lost. I hope you understand.

Jonathan35is (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC) :This section was archived on a request by: Jonathan35is (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Bad recategorisation

For some reason, you recently moved a sequence of screenshots of BBC Snippets software, starting with File:BBC Snippets screeenshot 1.jpg, from Category:Screenshots of software to Category:Screenshots. Please undo those moves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 04:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem - feel free to revert such mistakes without notice. --Jotzet (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You appear to have misread my post, in which I asked you to: "Please undo those moves". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

And another: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fremont_Solstice_Parade_2008_-_Susan_Harper_01.jpg&diff=321288600&oldid=168023153. Not every photo is monitored, and it is important not to turn accurate categories into inaccurate ones. I know you do a lot of good work, but this would have been better left alone rather than trying to guess at the gender of someone where clearly you couldn't be sure. - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

So girls can wear slacks?... At 07:54, 21 September 2018‎, I accidently emptied Category:Men with acoustic guitars into Category:People with acoustic guitars by "hitting the wrong button" and your "monitored" file was probable "the one" (upon several hundred) where my mostly successful collaboration with cat-a-lot failed in trying to correct the mistake. So you think it's necessary to show up here just to point out to me that it's important not to turn exact categories (?) into inaccurate ones? Don't get me wrong, but this would have been better fixed professionally rather than trying to guess about the intention of someone whom you clearly know better. --Jotzet (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jotzet (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)