How should we call myself meme pics

User talk: Herzi Pinki

Please keep discussions together:

  • If I was starting a thread on your talk page, please answer there. I will watch your talk page.
  • If you started a discussion here on my talk page, I will answer here.

2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019

  • 1TUSC token 317fe9d7362d198301a28275f50871f1
  • 2 Some questions
  • 3 note
  • 4 file mover
  • 5Commons transfers via bot
  • 6 Problems with a Flickr image
  • 7Thank you again
  • 8Alpin passes
  • 9 General question concerning satellite image providers and webcams
  • 10Template: Doo and WLM
  • 11Categorization of Deutschlandsberg
  • 12 English articles
  • 13 Connection monument
  • 14 Some questions
  • 15 progress
  • 16Quality check
  • 17inscription
  • 18 Thank you
  • 19question
  • 20 Flat category Alpine passes
  • 21 Postponement
  • 22File: A4490-Nepomuk-Marktplatz-1 09-2011 02.jpg Squirrel mozzetta
  • 23Bad pictures replaced
  • 24location
  • 25Hello Ch.
  • 26Categories: Tyrol (state)
  • 27File: Hollersbachviadukt 02, Feistritztalbahn.jpg
  • 28SPÖ
  • 29File: Cycle lane Längenfeldgasse, Vienna.jpg
  • 30File: In the hospital before 1919.JPG
  • 31 Thank you
  • 32 Category names of churches
  • 33 Unfortunately, lb Herzi Pinki, quality image up or down
  • 34WLM
  • 35question
  • 36 Container categories
  • 37 Why are you removing headings from {{Object location}} templates
  • 38 Immaculata
  • 39 Innovations
  • 40 Today's pictures
  • 41When I insert an object coordinate
  • You probably already know this work
  • 43question
  • 44 categories
  • 45Category: Mountain_puzzle
  • 46 Thank you
  • 47 Salzburg file
  • 48 Locator tool has been added to the gadgets
  • 49 Incorrect links in a template
  • 50 Thank you
  • 51 Common Conference project
  • 52Definition and differentiation of inns and restaurants
  • 53 Vienna Central Cemetery and new categories
  • 54 Images that have been uploaded twice
  • 55 Schönbrunn Tyrolean Garden
  • 56 Work order
  • 57 Some stroopwafels for you!
  • 58 sense?
  • 59File: Vienna-1897-Model Wien-Museum - 2.jpg
  • 60 Software upload
  • 61Irenental
  • 62Please have a professional look
  • 63File: Stickers Währinger Gürtel.jpg
  • 64Fire station in Grillenberg
  • 65 Renaming multiple files
  • 66 Picture from Italy
  • 67 Multilingual Wiki Home templates
  • 68 Uncategorized GT1976 images
  • 69 Hello ...
  • 70 Branch Church St. Gregory or St. Stefan in Goritschach, Finkenstein
  • 71Thanks
  • 72 Austrian football players
  • 73 Quality Image Promotion
  • 74WikiDaheim 2018 - Congratulations!
  • 75 Feedback for Commons Android app
  • 76WikiDaheim 2018 - Congratulations, the second!
  • 77File: Žiga Murko.jpg
  • 78File: Mozartplatz 3-1.jpg
  • 79 Categorization of Marienstrasse in Linz
  • 80Category: Railway and Mining Museum Ampflwang
  • 81Panorama freedom in Austria?
  • 82File: Xochitl Coyote Creates Live at First Festival.jpg
  • 83 Viennese architects
  • 84 Reverts
  • 85RAT in Wikidata Infobox
  • 86File: Pavlina Heymans-Špačková.jpg
  • 87 Photo project Folklore Museum Depot
  • 88 Category: Andi_Siebenhofer
  • 89 Categorize mountain images
  • 90Files disappear when moved
  • 91 Category: Cultural heritage in Tyrol without linked Wikidata
  • 92 Wikidata info box
  • 93Category: Schanzlgasse 14, Salzburg
  • 94 Collapse of the bridge at Purzelkamp
  • 95 Salzburg categories Getreidegasse 18 to 22
  • 96question
  • 97Cherubini
  • 98 Community Insights Survey
  • 99 district categories for the emergency gallery
  • 100Bleiburger Wiesenmarkt
  • 101Reminder: Community Insights Survey
  • 102Reminder: Community Insights Survey
  • 103Category: Tram line D (Vienna)
  • 104Kaudelka Cross
  • 105Sorry & thank you
  • 106 Important message for file movers
  • 107 Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
  • 108 Fire service divers
  • 109 Notification about possible deletion
  • 110File: Building at Döblinger Hauptstraße 83 in Döbling, Vienna, Austria PNr ° 0516.jpg
  • 111 Thank you
  • 112 Quality Image Promotion
  • 113File: China Outbound Tourism Quality Service Certification - logo.jpg
  • 114 File: Leopold Oser.jpg
  • 115question
  • 116 Wiki Home
  • 117Murals
  • 118 question mark
  • 119FYI
  • 120Nepomuk in Neuhausen a. d. F.
  • 121 Listed houses at Faberstraße 20-24, Salzburg
  • 122 Photo scan
  • 123Please
  • 124Category: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike missing SDC copyright status
  • 125 Hello,
  • 126 images in two maintenance categories at the same time
  • 127WikiDaheim 2020 / Monuments: Congratulations on the 7th place!
  • 128File: Hotel Moran Prague, renovation.jpg
  • 129File: Office sign Paul and Nadia Artmann.jpg
  • 130 Notification about possible deletion
  • 131File: Parish church Kaisersteinbruch, window1.jpg
  • 132 Recently Uploaded Files
  • 133 Trash categories
  • 134 Quality Image Promotion
  • 135your reverts on Austrian architects
  • 136 Monument to the Art History Institute
  • 137 Notification about possible deletion
  • 138 Notification about possible deletion
  • 139 Notification about possible deletion
  • 140 Notification about possible deletion
  • 141File: Redesign of Mariahilfer Straße, announcement.jpg
  • 142 Notification about possible deletion
  • 143 Pictures Attersee

TUSC token 317fe9d7362d198301a28275f50871f1 [edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Some questions [edit]

.. hi there Herzi Pinki,

thanks for dropping your questions.

About the mountain passes [1], I think it makes more sense to cluster categories together that are related to each other. I had trouble finding the categories "mountain passes", because I kept on looking in "Mountains", which is a subcategory of "Geography". Since mountain passes can only exist in mountains, it makes sense in my opinion to add "mountain passes" in "mountains", since that is already a subcategory of "Geography". Same thing goes again for "Alpine hats", which are located on mountains by definition. The most important thing is to categorize in such a way to make navigation easy. So for example when looking at "Mountains", one can see with one click all the other important categories such as "Mountain passes", "Alpine huts", maybe even "Flora of the mountains", etc., etc.

About the empty categories, yes indeed, they should either have a redirect or be completely deleted. Empty categories can be deleted with {{speedy delete | empty category}} for example. In the case of "Exnerturm", I left it because I think other users should decide whether a deletion should come in or a redirect.

About the language policy, it stipulates that categories should be in English. This is sometimes a cause for discussion, such as you rightly pointed out with Category: Matterhorn. In the case of Category: Drei Zinnen, that category was created half a year before the other one and in this case goes in order of precedence, before User: Godromil put in his edits. Gryffindor (talk) 22:26, ​​21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not put messages in bold on my talk page, it says on the top in the orange box, maybe you missed it. As I said before, I think it makes sense to put in "Mountain passes" into "Mountains", because without a mountain a mountain pass cannot exist. It makes navigation easier. "Alpine houses" should remain within the mountains, but can of course be listed under other categories as well. As you rightly pointed out, a category is a is-a or a has-a relationship, so it is my understanding from your message that you are fine with "passes" being in "mountains". About the houses, it is clear that they are linked to each other geographically. If you only leave them under "Buildings" a user might completely miss it and that would be unfortunate.

From the discussion page on moving [2], the consensus is far from clear and there was no definite decision. In this case I did not create a new category as you state, but moved images to an existing one that was there beforehand. Thank you for pointing the policy out for me [3], I am aware of it, however it says "usually" not deleted, that still does not mean that categories cannot be deleted at all, it happens everyday [4]. As I said above, in this particular case I will let someone else decide if they want a redirect or a deletion. But I appreciate your concern about dangling links and finding consensus. Gryffindor (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Learned something new. It is sufficient to make a simple redirect, a bot will do all the cleanup work right behind and create the correct category redirect. Did not know that. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem. But I appreciate your honesty and concern. I will consult you more in future about moving images for those categories and then maybe we can work together? have a nice weekend. Gryffindor (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Note [edit]

Hello. I just wanted to inform you that I have given you autopatrolled rights. This does not affect your editing, but makes it easier for users watching Special: RecentChanges to find unhelpful edits. Regards, -Juliancolton | Talk 13:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File mover [edit]

The functionality of the template {{Rename}} has recently changed. You might need to clear your cache to see the changes. If successful you should then be able to use the new "Quick adding" link in the template to instruct Commons Delinker to replace the old name with the new name in all wikis. Please use that every time you rename a file. If further questions arise, feel free to write on my talk page --DieBuche (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons transfers via bot [edit]

Hello Herzi Pinki. I noticed that you transfer a lot of files to Commons via bot. It would be nice if you - in addition to checking and, if necessary, adjusting the categories - could also remove the “Template: BotMoveToCommons” component. --Leyo 21:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I don't know what to check (myself? The bot?). I understood it to mean that the bot may not be secure enough with the permissions and sometimes it also transmits things that do not fit commons. But I don't feel like a specialist in image rights and rely on the bot for these transfers. In addition, I am not sure what to do with the original information. Should I incorporate it into the info template and then delete it or just delete the template and leave the rest as it is?
The other warning, check categories that are automatically assigned by bot (too many, I think), I like to deal with, however, because I understand it. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you were trying to categorize. When checking the transmission according to Commons, it is also a matter of checking whether the information was transmitted “properly” by the bot and whether the file description page looks reasonably good. The bot generally works well, but there are always things that need to be improved. It is worst with files that contain an OTRS module. The admin who deletes the file on de-WP also compares the information on the two file description pages, but it is useful if the transferring user has already checked the transfer himself.
I don't quite understand your question, sorry. Maybe I've already given you the answer. :-) --Leyo 22:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems with a Flickr image [edit]

Hellow Herzi Pinki. Last 7th june you told me we needed a license in the image File: Geddel_no_Bonfim002.jpg because there was "no proof that the author of the file agreed to license the file under the given license". I realized that the license shown at the Flickr source of this file was uncorrect. Now I have changed the license in flickr and I have syncronized with the license in wikipedia. I don't knouw if it was this one what you asked, but I hope yes. If not, can you help me? I am the spokesperson for the photographed and we have the rights to the image, but there is a document that attests to this (the photo is not registered) Thank you! --Shiyu 20:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shiyu, thanks for being patient. I think everything is fine now, see my argumentation here, where I asked for a second opinion. It would be nice, if you could send the requested email to the OTRS team (mailto: [email protected], see Commons: OTRS, but it must be the copyright owner, not the image owner, who agrees), but As you changed the permissions on Flickr, the license is now good for Commons. Please check for all the images you have uploaded. thanks a lot --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(copied from here --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)):
The Flickr community guidelines say that "Flickr accounts are intended for personal use, for our members to share photos and video that they themselves have created". That Flickr account should be open under the photographer's name ("Artist: Fabio di Castro" according to EXIF ​​metadata), not the model's name. The presence of "Copyright: Reporter Fotografico-DRT_2014" in the EXIF ​​(I wonder what this DRT number is?) Seems to mean that the picture is not free. Perhaps the figures after the artist's name are his telephone number. Teofilo (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
so at least for the very image there is some clarification need. Other images uploaded by you do not contain any exif data, or different exif data not showing the author. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again [edit]

once for fixing my sloppiness and nominating my pics! lg, --Svíčková (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

looks good for the two pictures. I already promised you one thing in I., but then I wasn't so sure because of the lack of clarity in the details. But the attempt was worth it. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Alpine passes [edit]


I made the job for Swizterland, France, Slovenia. I began with Italia, but I must go out there this afternoon. I'll continue after. Say me if you see a problem. By. Ludo (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks a lot, no stress, I'll try to help. salue --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

General question concerning satellite image providers and webcams [edit]

Hi. You warned me of copyright infringement for a screenshot taken from Google Earth. (villa rustica in Szentendre) Does this mean that it is not free to use screenshots from Google Earth? My other question is whether it is free to take a screenshot from a publicly available webcam? (Tiszavirág bridge) --Hhgygy (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

hi, the first is definitely not allowed, Google earth / map is not free content, nor is Bing, see Copyright notice on each of their screens. But images taken by US government organizations, like NASA, are free. (Nothing you will find in the internet is free, unless the contrary is stated explicitly)
The second one I don't know. You have to inspect the conditions on the page where you found that images. When in doubt, it would be better not to use such images. But beware, webcam images are usually also low resolution. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, all the best --Hhgygy (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Template: Doo and WLM [edit]

Hello Herzi Pinki, please leave the monument template inside or insert it if the picture only shows part of the listed property, all systems (such as the databases) are based on this template. LG --AleXXw / Alexander Wagner 14:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it anyway, right? I just deleted the junk entries. A bot may be happy to distribute the ids from the Kat to the individual images. No idea which pictures you are specifically addressing now. I would have liked to read the exact mechanism, but unfortunately there is only fragmentary information. But watch the distribution of internal database keys over more and more places with increasing benevolence. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I mean that and the shift. In principle it is easy: Only the files are read out (for WLM as well as for all other things) in which Template: Listed object Austria or Template: Doo is in it. All that follows are 4 databases that are joined as required, if you have a toolserver account I can show you where they are or give you access to the sources "my" tools. If you want, I can also email you;) LG --- AleXXw 15:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
it is nonsense to provide all the images in a category with the internal BDA db key if this can be done semantically equivalent directly via the category. (Here your mechanism could really be improved, you have done so great things , the indirection via the category can not be a hurdle. Actually, I assumed that this has long been the case. ). In the first case, I did not supply an image with the category, but 5 with an id, and for the future for the images that are still to be added. In the second case, no ID was given at all. I don't have a tool server account. I think, according to the OMA principle, WP should only use the tool server for supporting, but not for content-related things. The DenkmalDB in honor, but it is outside the WP, at the latest since the links from the ObjectID to the tool server and not directly to the corresponding table entry. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
That didn't grow on my crap, that's the European system;) The reason for this was also understandable for us: There are categories that cannot be separated meaningfully, but contain images with multiple IDs. Classic examples of this are bridges over two KGs / communities or when the church and the surrounding cemetery are protected separately. Not all pictures show both objects (view over the graves, interior of the church), but most show both. If I specify both IDs in the catalog, I would have to assign all images to both IDs. Or a current example from yesterday: the picture opposite shows a leaded glass window in the church in St. Pölten-Wagram on which the St. Pölten town hall is depicted.Of course I put it in the Rathauskat, but it doesn't really show the listed building "Rathaus" ... I hope you know what I mean;) LG --AleXXw 16:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand your argument ( the European argument ), if a category is not meaningfully separable, then you cannot assign any IDs (I've been trying to point this out for a long time). That would mean, however, that a category cannot contain two IDs either. But I'm not sure whether this or that implements this principle. I think Karl disagrees. But if I have an object category à la Archduke Albrecht monument, Vienna, Republikdenkmal, Jakoberhof, _Bichl_bei_Matrei, Bildstock_Kärntnerstraße, _Lienz, I don't think there is a problem.
Regarding the distributed objects (with multiple ObjectIDs): I don't think anyone except the three of you and the BDA understands that. I do not understand that, since two object terms are constantly mixed up here, the bridge (suitable for OMA, suitable for lemma, suitable for photo, capable of writing) and the 2 (sometimes also 3) BDA table entries, which are an object of real experience according to an internal DB- Describe the normalization scheme. None of you have taken the trouble to prominently define and discuss this and, most of all, to enforce it. Instead, you are dizzying around the concept of the object. What the BDA describes as a table line (casually called an object by you) is just a relation between an object (in the OMA sense) and a KG, something that pictures can only depict very poorly. Incidentally, neither are descriptions. This is where the fundamental architectural decision to take over the BDA IDs visibly and without mapping tables takes revenge (you remember, my first objection in the basement was the question about the ensembles in Berndorf). Has been clicked on to me as a strategic concession to the BDA, but I never understood that. Please tell me how the OMA should create this differentiation of a bridge according to the three possible IDs? And who should correct all the incorrectly inserted IDs? When a object has a wrong but existing ID, what do you think about that? Can we keep statistics?
I have read a lot that is floating around in the context, but still a lot is still not clear to me (and how exclusive that will be for the OMA, who has not been involved with the project for months). For example, it was not clear to me until now what the template you mentioned is. It dawns on me that it is the {{Monument Protected Object Austria}} and not the competition submission {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2011}}, which says: This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2011. As a grandma, no also as Herzi Pinki, I assume that I have registered my picture for the competition. Even more, when it says under Concept: Monument on the photo should be identified with identifier (locally determined), Not must.
But as long as I haven't really understood that, I won't attack the IDs anymore. Clapping IDs on pictures is not understanding. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry that this is so harmless was not clear to me. So: I am firmly convinced that we need some kind of key to assign a table row in the monument lists on Wikipedia to the images on Commons. How we call the thing (now ObjectID) and whether we take over the numbers from the BDA is absolutely irrelevant, it has no effect on the principle. But that's the way it is: It can only work in such a way that a key appears exactly once in all lists. Now we have the advantage and the problem that we have adhered to the lists of the BDA, which include objects (in the sense of buildings or similar) in the lists in a sometimes peculiar way. The only other solution I can think of is that we don't give a shit about the numbers from the BDA and build something of our own, so we could combine or separate table rows as we like. But that would have been too much of an effort for me personally in the short time for the few special cases. Here at commons we have a different basis: Any number of images, videos, categories, ... can be provided with any number of object IDs, here they are foreign keys.
For a few days I have been building a routine that has been incorrectly entered. If this is still desired, it may show incorrect IDs based on other category images, categories, integration, ...
What solution would you specifically suggest, what questions do you still have, where should I write what? Give me an order, I'll try to implement it;) LG --User: AleXXw 21:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's start small: Category: Mödlinger Friedhof is ok as far as the IDs are concerned? What does that mean? That the category describes all these objects, but not the individual images? When I describe a category ... is a place in ...Does that then apply to all images or only to the images for which it is valid? If I sort an object category (and this is only about object categories) into a super-category, this is then an is-a relation and therefore applies to all images that are floating around somewhere below in the (object) category tree or applies Is it only for the pictures for which I then explicitly repeat it again on the concrete picture? What's the name of: This category shows the protected monument… i.a.?, exclusively? If, among other things, you would have no problem with your town hall picture from above, i.e. the second one. Which in turn contradicts the Mödling example. If you can solve this button for me, we are one step further. Please do not say that this means that all sub-images must have either one or the other or ... the fifth or sixth ObjectID assigned, any combination of these but not no ObjectID at all.
Of course, any number of images and categories can be provided with any number of ObjectIDs, but what does that mean for categories (for images it is clear that they show all these objects)? That every image in the category must be provided with each of these ObjectIDs (that would be propagating down the category tree, which you described above as not allowed), or that it is enough for an image to contain one of these several ObjectIDs to be allowed in the Category to be included? What is the point of object IDs on categories? Shouldn't they then be banned right away? How do you make sure, if a bridge has 2 or even 3 object IDs, that all these IDs are given on each image of the bridge. There are 2 or 3 places to upload a picture of the bridge over the table row, who adds the missing object ID? What does it mean if an object ID is missing? Is the corresponding section of the bridge not visible in the picture or is it a mistake? And these questions have to be answered for the OMA!
Finally, just a beginning: I am firmly convinced that we need some kind of key to assign a table row in the monument lists on Wikipedia to the images on Commons shows how technically you see the problem and how far we are apart in terms of content. The table row in the monument lists describes a relationship between an object (OMA style) and the KG, a category in commons, however, never such a thing. It's called List of listed objects in ... and not List of references to listed objects in ...what it actually is. You accept that we do not necessarily describe objects (OMA style) in the lists; I feel very uncomfortable with it. Yes, I am also of the opinion that it needs a reference to the BDA IDs (as metadata, for the update, as hidden foreign keys (foreign in the original sense of not from here)), but yes, I am of the opinion that The ObjectID - Object (Grandma Style) relation is a n: m relation. And we would have done well to take this n: m relation seriously and convert it from ours to their keys (the shitVariant from above).
I differentiate between the two cases:
  1. The bridge: 1: n (one object, 2 BDA object IDs). How do we find them together? If we are lucky, the two bridgeheads in both monument lists have different IDs and link to the same bridge lemma. If there is no article about the bridge, if a part is not linked, how do you find out that the two ObjectIDs are parts of the same object (OMA style)?
  2. The lazy ensemble n: 1 (several objects, but only one BDA object ID, for example Berndorf again, if you tried to describe a school and a church and a few residential buildings in one article, someone would soon unravel that.) Since the articles 1: 1 do not exist and articles generally do not state which BDA object ID (s) are now described with it, in this case you have even worse maps to navigate along the relation. Possibly all associated wiki lemmas are linked to a table entry, then you could extract the information from the monument lists. But since the individual parts do not appear in the name and therefore cannot be linked, either further constructs (defined list of lemmas on the n-side) or an analysis of the description are required.
So, and then there is dynamism in the matter, the BDA is free to delete, add, merge or divide objects. On Commons, the authors are free to delete (have deleted), add, merge or split categories. Then there is the OMA, which, as far as I can see, relatively often uses syntactically incorrect and (we do not yet know) IDs that are incorrect in terms of content. So far, nobody has even been able to give me a feeling that this has to be done in an orderly manner. Questions about this were regularly ignored.
Small constructive suggestion for the very first paragraph in this sermon: The following rules should apply:
  • If an object ID is assigned to a category, it is semantically assigned recursively to all elements in the category and thus also to all sub-categories. Otherwise such an assignment has to be omitted.
  • If all elements of a category have been assigned an ID, it can make sense to assign them to the category itself. However, this does not necessarily apply and at least only applies to object categories.
  • Object categories can only be assigned an ID if it is essentially in the leaf categories, i.e. the subcategories unravel a maximum of different orthogonal aspects (according to time, according to day / night, according to direction, according to parts (is-a) - at least as long we have no information about the parts actually protected)
  • If two categories have been assigned the same ID, then this is at least suspicious, since the two categories can then not be really disjoint.
I still think twice about placing an order, that falls under three wishes, so you have to be careful. Perhaps to warm up: that one, I've tried to help myself in the meantime. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just briefly, I want to have something to eat during my lunch break: We seem to agree on the use of the template in images, only there is a problem with the use in categories. Am I correct in this assessment? If that is the case: For the assignment of pictures to table rows, only the use in pictures is really important, we need that. As far as I am concerned, we can also forbid the template from the categories, only incorporate it in certain cases, however, the 360 ​​integrations should not be the problem. I am very busy professionally until the WE, you are welcome to work out a variant that suits you and put it up for discussion. I'm trying to make it to Vienna on Friday, maybe we can talk about it there, you can also call me or contact me by email. LG --AleXXw 11:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

so in about, hope you had a relaxing lunch break. However, the difference separates us semantically. You are assuming that the images must all be identified, I am assuming that it is semantically equivalent to identify the category in certain cases. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Lunch break was unfortunately not very nutritious, a call came in between ... But: well, we almost agree;) The semantic problem is unfortunately a technical one: the bots only read the template in the images to identify the images. Everything else is certainly possible, but no longer feasible, at least for WLM. LG --AleXXw / Alexander Wagner 22:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
We almost agree on the pictures. Well. Nevertheless, I would be interested in your answer to the categories (I didn't write my fingers sore to get a we almost agree to get), and the discussion of the possibilities to map the n: m relation correctly. Do you see ways of finding out, with bot-supported, matching IDs that all relate to an object (OMA style)? lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't be angry, the problem is precisely the length;) I have a 15-hour working day behind me, tomorrow it will be even worse. I haven't even gotten to fully understand your text, so far I've only been able to skim through it. I'm going to bed now, either on Friday or on weekends I am fully at your disposal again. @ Associated IDs: That would only work if the objects are connected by something, such as the same picture. Otherwise I don't see any possibility (in my current state) to automate this. Good night & LG --AleXXw 22:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
there was no question of the same. I've been waiting weeks for suitable answers :-) Good night. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Good;) See you on Friday? LG --AleXXw 23:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks really bad. unlikely. Although I would have been interested in the BDA lecture and prefer direct answers to the current project setting. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So now I have taken the time to read everything and hopefully understand. I think we talked past each other: The template, neither ours nor that of the other states (cf. for example PL), was intended to say "This category contains just Images of this listed object "but" This category contains images of this listed object ". This is not to be seen exclusively in any direction, it has little to do with the image labels, it is simply intended as tagging. This concept has the huge advantage that the previously existing categories do not have to adhere to the assignments specified by the BDA, i.e. objects can be mapped in "OMA style" (your bridge would then have 3 templates) and pseudo-ensembles (several categories have the same ID). The ID tags In this concept, the categories do not have to have anything to do with those in the pictures. An example: the category Views from Donauturm is obviously a sub-category of Donauturm. The pictures in this category do not show the Donauturm ... Of course we can Changing your concept, however, entails profound changes in the categorization, or: We will stop tagging categories at all be and only label pictures, perhaps the least confusing variant. Meal & LG --User: AleXXw 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I thought too structured. Your argumentation has something, of course. Unfortunately, I haven't read this anywhere with this clarity. Actually, the semantics are then too This category contains pictures of this listed property untenable. A picture can be easily moved, a category can be divided into sub-cats, who can take care of it? Actually, the meaning should be formulated more loosely: There is a relation between any picture in the category or subcategory and the listed object ID or such a relation has existed. With that, it is not a problem at all (already with your definition) to classify the glass window with the image of the St. Pölten town hall in the category of the St. Pölten town hall including ID, something that you did not consider sensible above. I'm afraid it can't have been the whole truth yet. To put it bluntly: If I were to list the template with all 36000+ IDs in Category: Austria, that would be compatible with your definition. With this definition, an ID on a category no longer makes sense. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid all sorts of questions will remain unanswered. :-) --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't know that you were waiting for an answer ... So, yes, it doesn't make sense to fill Category: Austria with 36,000 templates, since by definition the template should not contain any pictures of e.g. buildings;) Seriously: I think you have certainly not understood the ideal and simply adopted concept.I have already offered to convert this system to another variant above, so: How do you want to handle the whole thing? Apply your rules including restrictions or completely different rules or no longer use a template in the categories? I have not leased the template and meanwhile I have no more preferences with regard to its use ... LG --AleXXw 04:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
No, the tiny question about the glass window with the town hall picture and the definition there would be of interest to me. And no, of course it makes no sense to assign all 36000+ IDs to the Austria category, but this is about a formally correct definition of semantics, not about meaning. And no, I ask you not to turn the tables when you talk about our project, then this is your project, I expect clear, consistent rules and answers from the project management. I've made enough suggestions, I have the impression that a lot of them have been ignored (perhaps from a level of knowledge that I neither share nor can read; European agreements, BDA arrangements, ...; perhaps only because I am a nuisance and doesn't work the way you imagine.). (The wiki part is enough for me, I need neither the BDA nor the WLM part, you have to merge)
Otherwise that is not really important, you are right, with the tons of poorly (not) described and uncategorized images that are uploaded. You could hop behind the uploaders all day and still not finish. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you are assuming a completely wrong idea: I am not something like a project manager in a single Wikipedia project. I'm an idiot who tries to donate what I can to the best of my knowledge and belief in my limited free time, apparently that's not enough. Also, I was only once at a meeting at the BDA, when I picked up the xls lists (too big for mail), you can read the "European agreements" just like everyone else on the mailing lists. And yet, I'll turn the tables: Please make a suggestion how you want to do it, as with any other wiki project, everything can be discussed, none of it belongs to me. I'm also on vacation for 2 weeks from WE, thank goodness, until then I have to work. So in terms of time, I can't change too much. LG --AleXXw 21:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Then have a nice vacation. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of Deutschlandsberg [edit]

Hello! I am just seeing that you are doing a great deal of work in sorting the images in this district properly. Just keep it up, thank you! But: I have now familiarized myself with the cat shifting functions, are pretty foolproof anyway (see St. Josef / Weststeiermark, Trahütten) and offer you: If you have something else (better) to do, you don't need to be in Deutschlandsberg anymore keep doing it, I would do that. But if you want to continue, of course, you can! Just one question in this context: What depends on whether the category title is English or German - I cannot recognize a system: One time it says “Castle” or “Parish Church”, then again “Chapel” or “Town Halls” or “Crucifixes”, etc. Whereby a category “Rectories in ...” for the rectory already begins to be “oblique” (aka “injected”, “swollen”, “lifted” etc.). Our own German-speaking users should be able to understand us somewhere ... --Josef Moser (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Josef, thanks for the offer, you are welcome to continue, I will then largely keep my fingers off Deutschlandsberg. (Only helped user: to categorize the pictures, and there was a lot of overlap with your pictures.) It would also be important to create the community category for all communities (on commons as well as on WP: de). Regarding your question: The rules are not as strict as in WP: de, I follow the following rules: Names for files must make sense, whether English or German is secondary, whether Parish church xxx.jpg or Parish church xxx.jpg I don't make uniform myself and orient myself to the geographically surrounding objects. When in doubt, I choose the German name before I think of a bad English equivalent. I usually designate new categories for individual objects in German, Leitner Inn or Oberstinkenbrunn elementary school. About that (Elternkats) I have a strong tendency towards English (also because it is included in the category scheme): Schools in Styria, Castles in Deutschlandsberg district (Combination of English name for the object type and proper name of the district), but it is then called above Castles in Styria by district. In short: proper names in German and the rest in English. With Cat-a-lot and {{Category redirect}} renaming is also easier here than on WP: de. I don't have a convincing feeling about the Rectories either, but I don't know what the correct term would be in English. Rectories was just there. Do you have a better suggestion? lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Good thank you! With this I take over the further categorization in DL (which does not mean, however, that you should not / are not allowed to look over it on occasion, whether I have messed up where). Now I also have a system for the names: The closer (deeper) to the object, the more in the local language, the further (higher), the more English. Which also corresponds to the sense of a global project. As for the rectory (I'm not an “Englishman”), I remembered the word “parsonage” (for Catholic countries), if at all, while “rectory, vicariate” was more related to the Anglican and American church constitution (if you say so may be heard without being slain by the canon lawyers), but that is said by feeling, not by linguistic accuracy. I am therefore sticking to Pfarrhof, but at higher levels I am linking to an existing English version .-- Josef Moser (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

English articles [edit]

Hi. English articles will follow swiftly, please don't remove the links to them. Thanks Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, how can I know? Writing an article takes some time. So it would be better to do it the other way round. cheers --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You could not and I did not expect you to know. Regards :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
It would be easier for all to set interwikis to existing articles, not to planned ones. What do you thing you will gain, when you set the iw some hours before writing the article? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
One edit less per article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you know Commons: Galleries # When_to_create_a_gallery? Galleries should not be created if they merely duplicate the purpose of a category. Even one page less. For your example in fact it was not one edit less, but one more, overall (not counting talk pages). --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Would be better to write % 28Sarntal_Alps% 29 before adding further non-existing interwikis. And I hope, they get better than other mountain stubs of yours written some years ago. Consider to translate the German articles, in most cases they contain a lot more info than necessary for a stub. And I'm sure, you speak German quite well. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You have already inquired last time about whether creating galleries with just one image would be in line with Commons guidelines, and you got an affirmative answer from the community. Other than that I did not ask for a mentor, did I? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
It was not about galleries with one image, but about doublicating categories and galleries with completely redundant information. You started to argue with edit-saving behavior, so please try to be economic (not in your personal, but in the community sense). --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Connection monument [edit]

Hello Herzi Pinki.

Your first picture was too blue indeed, but your second looks too yellow / green in my opinion.
I've tried something, there is a very little issue with the cloud, but I think it is better.
Please revert to your previous versions if you dislike, no problem to me!
Kindly from Paris, --Jebulon (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Salue Jebulon, je n’était pas contente avec le deuxième image moi aussi, alors merci mille fois pour version troisième. It is much better. Thanks a lot. no revert needed. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Some questions [edit]

And on it goes: Question 1 and 2. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Progress [edit]

Hello Herzi Pinki, after I let off steam again today, I would like to know if I still bring you a lot of work or if I'm on the right track (I messed up a little again, but hopefully everything has been repaired again). Furthermore, on my discussion page I have the topics of Karner Krenstetten and figure shrine hl. Johannes Nepomuk in Aschbach answered - is that okay or do you need more details?

Kind regards, Grubernst (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Grubernst, thank you for asking and thank you for your efforts. The reworking of the pictures is tedious, and so we are grateful for any help. Overall, it all fits the way you did it. I still have a few problems with your changes, but don't worry:
  • Category: Kirche_Mondsee: the pictures are probably from the basilica (ObjektId 125213, and not 115140 (pilgrimage church Maria Hilf)). But I'm not sure, can you double-check please.
  • A Category: Kirche_Mondsee is usually too general, Category: Pilgrimage Church Maria Hilf, Mondsee (for the pilgrimage church) would be better. There are often several churches in one place, at least in Mondsee. Categories for a single object can be German, everything above is English.
  • Before you create a category, you should check whether a suitable one already exists (in this specific case you did not create it, but only assigned it to the images). In this case (provided it is the basilica): Category: Mondsee Monastery - Parish Church of St. Michael, possibly the existing sub-categories. If the pictures are of the basilica, please change the Description and ObjectId accordingly.
  • But if you have decided on a name, then you should not leave the category red, but create it immediately. And classify them appropriately in higher-level categories.
  • Name of the pictures could be more descriptive, File: Date-nr-Mondsee.jpg vs. File: Basilica Mondsee - high altar.jpg or something like that would describe the picture better. But more important is the categorization.
  • In any case, it is important to attach images to the location category, either directly or via the Cultural heritage monuments in XX Schiene or via a suitable sub-category. Only categorized images are easily found, that some (including me) clean up here in the course of WLM is not the normal case. (Example: Ampflwang)
  • I am of the opinion that there is no need for a category for individual images, as this is easy to create, but difficult to delete again - but there are also others at WLM who also like to create a category for a single image. e.g. the mechanical crib.
  • I just see you only forgot about one picture. In this case, however, the category was missing from the list of monuments and should be added.
  • I replied to you about Karner on your discussion page.
lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts - I hope that I can actually implement this to my satisfaction, because, as you have already noticed, Apflwang was immediately supplemented - if I do it, it is wrong again and there does not seem to be uniform rules to give. But I will stick to your recommendations. Since I've finally seen a few examples, I hope that I will manage to relieve you - but now of course I have something for you to do again. Of course you were right about Mondsee Church - if I don't look at the coordinates. The pictures belong of course to the basilica and I don't dare to change anything because you might have to atone for my inadequacies - I hope you are not angry with me because of that - let go of something anyway :-)

With kind regards and many thanks, Grubernst (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Put together what belongs together, without a new heading, just as a tip, the thing remains clearer. Seriously, I didn't mean to discourage you, and I hope I haven't discouraged you either. It's difficult, and you're right, rules are in short supply. Therefore, please do not regard my comments as such, but as recommendations. When I categorize, I always think about how I would search for and find an image in the category tree. That often helps. And please, trust yourself, I'll leave the basilica to you. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You have courage, I really tried, I just didn't remove the <== {{int: filedesc}} ==> (thank God I just noticedGrubernst (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC) ), please let me know what else I did wrong - that's the only way to learn - a few on your fingers and you will see how I hurry :-) Don't worry, you can hardly discourage me, especially if there is something to learn , I also tried to fix some blunders that I noticed while zapping and hope not to make anything worse than it was. The tip not to insert a heading helped me again. Thanks, now I'll go mattresses too. Horche.n Grubernst (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks. You should leave the {{int: filedesc}} inside, the heading does in the language you set. And with the curly brackets, it is a template that is replaced by its content. If you don't want that, you can enclose it between . lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)