User talk:Apalsola: Difference between revisions

Archives Current talk page Archive 1 (2008-04-08 to 2010-09-08) Archive 2 (2010-09-08 to 2011-12-31) Archive 3 (2012-01-01 to 2014-12-31) Archive 4 (2015-01-01 to 2017-12-31)

	English: Welcome to my talk page!	Suomi: Tervetuloa keskustelusivulleni!
	Please write in English or Finnish. I like to keep discussions in one place, so: I will respond on this page to everything left on this page. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will look there for a response. You do not have to notify me on my talk page. Please post new messages at the bottom of the page. Please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~).	Ole hyvä ja kirjoita suomeksi tai englanniksi. Haluan pitää keskustelut yhdessä paikassa, joten Vastaan tälle sivulle jätettyihin kommentteihin tällä sivulla. Voit joko lisätä tämän sivun tarkkailusivullesi tai pyytää minua ilmoittamaan keskustelusivullasi, että olen vastannut viestiisi. Jos jätän viestin keskustelusivullesi, seuraan sitä vastausten varalta. Sinun ei tarvitse ilmoittaa vastauksesta keskustelusivullani. Ole hyvä ja kirjoita uudet viestit sivun loppuun. Allekirjoita viestisi neljällä tildellä (~~~~).
	Add topic	Aloita uusi aihe
	––Apalsola t • c 12:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! --Apalsola ^{t • c} 19:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clear description in undo - that's my logical mistake, but properly linking by categories generates another problem: I don't see anything under "my" OS category. I need some time to find good solutions. Greetings, --Jasc PL (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasc PL: If you are unable to find any meaningful content to a category that probably means that it is an unnecessary category. And particularly that is not an excuse to improperly categorise useful categories under them, not even temporarily.

Another problem in the categories you have created is the naming: "Raspberry Pi" is the name chosen for the root category, so it should be used also in the sub-categories. In addition, abbreviations like "RPi" may be ambiguous, so they should be avoided. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 23:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Apalsola: Thanks for your answer and contribution to this problem; I still working on it. We talking about Category:Raspberry Pi operating systems - from this point of view all is now exact as should be: user, after click on "[Linux distro name] on RPi" should see direct the screenshots of that distro working on PI and, as a reference, as a subcategory, main distro category. The easiest way may be able to link direct main distro category - but I don't want something like e.g. Category:Fedora (operating system) and every names in another form.

Naming: I keep that in mind; one - avoiding repeating many times in category tree "Raspberry Pi...", second - keeping all category names clear, easy to guess or find. However, only 8 of 31 subcategories are empty now - all of them are needed; first I must have categories as a destinations for uploading images.

So, I'm open to any proposals - I would like the final effect will be as good as possible. --Jasc PL (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasc PL: The main distro category (e.g. Category:Fedora (operating system) must be the parent category for Category:Fedora on RPi, not sub-category. That is how the Commons categorisation works and you cannot have different system for one subtree.

In my opinion, you should create categories only if there already is some meaningful content to add or upload to them. You should not create empty categories for possible future use. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 20:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apalsola, I had a good discuss with one of admins here - unfortunately there is any way to keep the proper category tree (as you mention) and keep functionality I'v think about. So, I will remove all the same wrongly constructions, rename "my" RPi categories to full name and/or use some redirections. Then I link from RPi distro to main OS category, by usual links.

Keep calm Apalsola - I don't leave Raspberry Pi project until all work I planed will be done. Today empty categories are not for undefined future; I keep some open browser tabs with Flickr resources, or, if I couldn't find all what I need - I'll make the lacking screenshots myself. I simply don't have enough time to doing all in one time. --Jasc PL (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you are a very impatient. OK, but maybe more urgently is to implement {{LangSwitch}} at Fedora and the rest of similar OS pages. Isn't it? --Jasc PL (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasc PL: First, please add your comments below the comment you are referring to instead of splitting someone else's comments.

And about impatiency: maybe it would be better to focus to the actual issue here instead of making assumptions about my personality.

I am not asking you to do everything at the same time. I also do know that people make mistakes. I have made many of them myself. However, you should not revert other users' edits, when they I trying to help you. That is what I was referring to in the first paragraph of my previous comments.

And about the empty categories: I am not asking you or anyone else to remove the current empty categories if you are planning to add content to them. But usually it is better to create categories only after (or the same time) you have the content.

But anyway, I think discussion is pretty much closed now. I look forward to see nice screenshots of different OS's running on Raspberry Pi. BR, ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 11:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martial arts of Finland has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

E4024 (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Näytät nyt patsaskeskustelun jälkeen ottaneen minut tiiviin huomiosi kohteeksi. Aikaisemmin sellaista tiivistä tarkkailua on ollut vain Wikipediassa mutta sama näyttää nyt levinneen tänne. En voi sinua kieltääkään mutta koska commonsissa on paljon tapahtumia ja käyttäjiä, ei olisi pahitteeksi että jättäisit kuvani ja minut rauhaan ja kohdistaisit suurennuslasisi muualle, sillä kokemukseni mukaan Commonsin kuvissa on paljon virheellistä tietoa ja muuta korjattavaa, joka hyötyisi toiminnastasi enemmän. Seurauksena voisi myös olla vähemmän erimielisyyttä. --Abc10 (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panin juuri merkille, että Kospo75 on merkinnyt lataamiinsa kuviin tekijäksi "Publisher of the magazine Apu". Jos on tekemisen puutetta, siinä sinulle työsarkaa. Huomautin lataajalle asiasta tässä tapauksessa, mutta vastedes voit keskittyä esimerkiksi tällaisiin tekijänoikeusloukkauksiin. --Abc10 (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abc10: Teen paljon etenkin Suomessa otettuihin kuviin liittyvää luokittelu- ym. työtä, ja koska tallennat paljon Suomeen liittyviä kuvia (mikä on tietysti hyvä asia), on aivan luonnollista, että sinunkin kuviasi joukkoon sattuu. Minulla on myös käytössä OgreBotin tarjoama toiminto, joka luo automaattisesti tiettyihin luokkiin ja niiden alaluokkiin tallennetuista uusista kuvista päivittäin galleriat käyttäjäsivuni alle. Esimerkiksi Uskelan vanhan kirkon kellotapulista ottamasi kuvat löysin nimenomaan tämän toiminnon avulla, en siksi, että olisin erityisesti etsinyt sinun tallentamiasi kuvia. Kuvastasi tekemä poistopyyntö taas on yksi monista tekemistäni samankaltaisista poistopyynnöistä (poistokeskustelusivulla on linkki muutamaan esimerkkiin), joten siinäkään mielessä et ole saanut minulta mitään erityiskohtelua.

En siis ole ottanut sinun kuviasi mitenkään erityisesti huomioni kohteeksi enkä ota jatkossakaan. Minulla ei ole sellaiseen aikaa, kiinnostusta eikä mitään tarvetta. Toisaalta, jos havaitsen kuvissasi tai niiden kuvauksissa, luokissa tms. ongelmia, en aio jatkossakaan välttää niiden korjaamista vain siksi, että sinä jostain syystä saattaisit ottaa sen henkilökohtaisesti. Samasta syystä en aio ottaa myöskään käyttäjää Kospo75 tai ketään muutakaan käyttäjää minkään erityisen huomioni kohteeksi. Minun keskustelusivuni ei myöskään ole oikea paikka jonkun toisen käyttäjän tallentamissa kuvissa mahdollisesti olevien ongelmien käsittelyyn. Huomautan myös, että lukuisissa eri yhteisissä esittämäsi väite, että kuvastasi tekemäni poistoesitys olisi henkilökohtainen, on juuri sellaista motiivien keksimistä, josta itse muutama päivä sitten syytit minua suomenkielisen Wikipedian Kahvihuoneessa. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 10:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poistelet luokkia lataamistani kuvista. Kuitenkin Commonsissa on yleinen käytäntö, että kuvat voidaan liittää sekä alaluokkaan että pääluokkaan. Juuri siksi olen näin toisinaan tehnyt. Wikipediassa on aina paljon selittelyä miksi joku ottaa jonkun käyttäjän erityisen huomion kohtaaksi, mikä on käytännössä harrasmenttia. Olen Wikipediassa kokenut, että toimintani siellä halutaan lopettaa (en nimeä käyttäjiä, uskon että se on monen tiedossa), ja olenkin supistanut kirjoittamistani aika minimiin, mutta toivoisin, että edes Commonsissa ei tällaista ilmenisi. Jos tuntuu että huomio alkaa käydä kiusalliseksi, minun on pakko lopettaa tallentaminen ja keskittyä kuvien tallentamiseen jollekin omalle verkkosivulle ilman vapaata käyttöoikeutta. Kenen etu lopputulos sitten on, sitä voi pohtia. --Abc10 (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abc10: Commonsin virallisessa käytännössä sanotaan hyvin selvästi: "Over-categorization is placing a file, category or other page in several levels of the same branch in the category tree. The general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those." Lisäksi siellä sanotaan: "Don't place an item into a category and its parent. For example, a black and white photo of the Eiffel Tower should be placed in Black and white photographs of the Eiffel Tower. It should not be placed in both that category and the Paris category at the same time." Pääsääntö siis on, että tiedostoja ei saa sijoittaa yhtä aikaa pää- ja alaluokkaan. Sääntöön on muutama harva poikkeus, mutta en ole huomannut, että ne sopisivat tiedostoihin, joiden luokkia olen korjannut. Jos jonkin yksittäisen tiedoston kohdalla mielestäsi näin on, pyydän kertomaan, mistä tiedostosta on kysymys. Muussa tapauksessa pyydän sinua lopettamaan aiheettomien syytösten esittämisen.

Ja mitä huomioon ja harrassmenttiin tulee, niin kannattaa nyt huomata, että sinä itse esimerkiksi pyysit taannoiselle poistokeskustelulle huomiota sekä Commonsin että suomenkielisen Wikipedian kahvihuoneessa. Myös kuvastasi tekemääni poistoesitystä katsoit aiheelliseksi kommentoida varsinaisen poistokeskustelun lisäksi ainakin kahdessa paikassa. Samoin sinä olet meistä kahdesta se, joka on aloittanut tämänkin keskustelun täällä minun keskustelusivullani. Kaikissa näissä keskusteluissa tunnut keskittyvän pääasiassa muiden käyttäjien henkilöihin etkä käsiteltävään asiaan. En hirveästi ihmettele, jos tuollaisella toiminnalla keräät itseesi ylimääräistä huomiota.

Ja koska asia ei ole vieläkään tuntunut menneen perille: Minulla ei ole edes mitään halua kohdistaa sinuun mitään erityistä huomioita. Päinvastoin, nytkin tekisin mieluummin jotain aivan muuta kuin vastailisin täällä esittämiisi aiheettomiin syytoksiin. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 11:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, excuse me for my poor English... since you are the author of the {{According to Exif data}}, would be able to modify it to insert a parameter by country as well as the {{Taken on}}? It would serve to categorize correctly by year by moving images from the upper category, often crowded, exemple Category:Photographs taken on 2018-09-25 ---> Category:Germany photographs taken on 2018-09-25... Thanks for your patience :-) --Threecharlie (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft by registration country has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Josh (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finland in the 2010s by city has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

E4024 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Mikä ihmeen tekjänoikeusjuttu tässä (sinänsä heikkolaatuisessa) File:SalmijärviKajaaniFinland01.jpg -kuvassa on? Olenko painanut jotain väärää nappia? terv. --Höyhens (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jos tarkoitat {{Watermark}}-mallinetta, niin sen tarkoitukseni oli vain huomauttaa kuvassa olevasta päivämäärästä. Commonsissa suositellaan, että kuvissa ei ole näkyviä vesileimoja, kuten kuvaajan nimeä tai päivämäärää. Kyseinen malline ei siis tarkoita, että kuvassa olisi mitään tekijänoikeudellista ongelmaa, vaan kyse on vain kuvassa olevista merkinnöistä.

Koska tässä tapauksessa kyse oli kuitenkin päivämäärästä eikä tekijänoikeudellisesta merkinnästä, oikeampi malline olisi ollut {{Metadata from image}}. Vaihdoin mallineen.

Mitä kuvan laatuun tulee, niin eihän tuo toki aivan parasta luokkaa ole, mutta on Commonsissa toisaalta paljon huonolaatuisempiakin kuvia, joten ainakaan minusta tuo ei ole mikään ongelma. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 12:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this. I will now make sure that every 'retirement homes in (country)' category is included in its 'medical buildings in (country)' category. Hmains (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first i would to thank you for creating this template that, in fact, i'm using as a "default model" for many other rallies in the world. I don't wanna start an edit war for categorization reasons and i well know that most of the rally is held in the fantastic gravel roads outside Jyvaskila, but i did put XXXX in Jyvaskyla because i think that categorizing in the city of the headquarters (or service park etc..) is a "good marker" to center the rally. The category "XXX in Central Finland" obiouvsly is good and proper but it's already included in the child category "XXX in Jyvaskyla". Then i did not made missing any proper information, it's all about "including" categories and widening the range. I hope you understand my way. Greetings from Italy and let's rally!--Lou6977 (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lou6977: Categories should form a hierarchical structure. The subcategory should always be more specific than the parent category. The problem in categorising all Rally Finland related images under Category:Rally Finland is that now a lot of photographs not taken in Jyväskylä are categorised as they were taken there. That is not hierarchical. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 15:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to understand your statement, btw i categorized the editions of the rally, not every single picture. I didn't make any violation i think. Why i do mind at every single pic? Afterwards, with your solution the problem that you raised can be solved? I don't know.--Lou6977 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS the category "Rally Finland" was already there way before my work--Lou6977 (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lou6977: What I mean is that for example this photograph is now categorised under Category:Jyväskylä even though the photograph was not taken in Jyväskylä.

The whole idea of categorisation is eventually to categorise photographs (or files in general), so yes, you do have to mind that part, too.

This is the version of Category:Rally Finland before your edits of 2019-04-13. So, yes, it was you who placed Category:Rally Finland under Category:Jyväskylä. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 19:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ops, that was really my mistake, i'm going to fix it immediately, i didn't see "Rally Finland in Jyvaskyla". BTW i wanna reach a common point between us. Question: if i put "Central Finland" instead of Jyvaskyla in the template code of "RallyFinlandyear", it could be better in your opinion? In your edit appears only "Finland". Furthermore you deleted the information about Finnish Rally Championships entries and added a code about "Rally races" into an #if that i think is redundant. Summarizing, i can change the "localization part" code of the template but i would replace "Jyvaskyla" with "Central Finland". Do you think is Ok? About the main category can i put "Events in Central Finland" avoiding any possible conflict with the pics?--Lou6977 (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

..But i can't understand this: "this photograph is now categorised under Category:Jyväskylä even though the photograph was not taken in Jyväskylä". I did't see any "Jyvaskyla categorization" in the pic... OK you made a "jump" from child to "grand-father" but a little bit forcedly i think--Lou6977 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terve! Olit poistanut tiedostosta File:Eno railway station.jpg luokan "2006 in Joensuu", koska Eno ei tuolloin vielä kuulunut Joensuuhun. Perustelu on sinänsä aivan ymmärrettävä, mutta olen luullut että olisi normaalin käytännön mukaista luokitella liitoskuntien historiaa esittävät kuvat nykyisen kunnan historian alle. Vastaavasti esimerkiksi liitoskunnissa sijaitsevat rakennukset on luokiteltu nykyisen kunnan rakennuskantaan, vaikka ne olisi purettu kauan ennen kuntaliitoksen tapahtumista. Tulisiko entisten kuntien alle perustaa erilliset "Municipality X by year" -luokat, jotka päättyisivät liitosvuoteen? Onko tästä olemassa jotain virallista ohjeistusta, jotta osaan toimia jatkossa tarkemmin? Niera (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luokittelu ei koskaan voi olla täydellinen, mutta paras kompromissi on minusta normaalisti luokitella lakkautettujen kuntien alueella otetut luokat ja tiedostot uuden kunnan alle, ihan niin kuin on tehtykin. Selvästi ajankohtaan sidottujen luokkien ja tiedostojen kohdalla tekisin kuitenkin poikkeuksen: Ei ole mitään järkeä luokitella esim. kyseistä Enon rautatieasemaa koskevaa kuvaa luokkaan "2006 in Joensuu", koska kuva ei millään tavalla kuvaa Joensuuta vuonna 2006. Jos kyseinen kuva taas luokiteltaisiin ko. luokkaan, pitäisi myös esim. Viipurissa vuonna 1930 otetut kuvat luokitella "1930 in Russia" (tai "1930 in the Soviet Union") -luokan alle.

Jos (ja tämä on iso jos) jostain lakkautetusta kunnasta on niin paljon tiedostoja ajalta ennen kuntaliitosta, että niille kannattaa vuosikohtaisia luokkia luoda, niin silloin loisin niille omat luokat. Nykyisellään Commonsissa ei kuitenkaan taida olla yhdestäkään lakkautetusta kunnasta niin paljon tiedostoja (ajalta ennen lakkauttamista), että niiden vuosiluokittelussa olisi yhtään mitään järkeä. (Ylipäätään vuosiluokittelussa on minusta järkeä vasta sitten, kun kyseisellä kunnalla tai muulla kohteella on muu kattava alaluokittelu. Jos ei ole, johtaa vuosiluokittelu siihen, että tiedostot "hukkuvat" vuosiluokkiin ja niitä on hankala löytää. Ts. vuosiluokittelu ei koskaan saisi olla ainoa tapa luokitella tiedostoja.)

Virallista ohjeistusta asiasta tuskin on, mutta monen käyttäjän (muistaakseni ainakin @Estormiz: ) olen havainnut toimivan samalla tavalla, joten jonkinlainen hiljainen konsensus asiasta lienee. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 18:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Se on selvä, ettei vuosiluokittelu voi olla ainoa luokittelutapa. Ja hassulta tuntuisi luokitella juuri liitetyn kunnan vanhoja tiedostoja uuden kunnan vuosien alle. Uskon kuitenkin, että lopulta käy niin kuin esim. File:Malmin lentokentän vihkiäiset 1938.jpg -tiedoston kohdalla on käynyt. Kun kuntaliitoksesta on kulunut tarpeeksi kauan aikaa, niin ei enää muisteta entistä kuntaa. Jotenkin olisikin hassua laittaa ko. tiedosto Vantaan luokkiin, vaikka Vantaa onkin entinen Helsingin mlk. johon Malmi tuolloin kuului. --Estormiz (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. As you have noticed, there is a an ongoing discussion topic named "Conversion to "flat list" in the talk page Category talk:Defunct airlines.

Until agreement in this talk page has been found the category "Defunct airlines" must not be removed. --Uli Elch (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I already have stated, that on-going discussion about a new category is not a reason to keep violating COM:OVERCAT with a current one. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 16:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, you can change all FAF logos with stars en logos without stars. The FIFA not recognized the use stars for CAN cup. Star = World Cup--90.61.83.197 22:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish National Gallery is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: CSD G1 (test page, accidental creation, or page containing nonsense or no valid content) If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

CptViraj (📧) 04:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitoväylä is not the only street in Oulu located in two or more districts. Most of the streets in the central districts are located in two or three or even more districts. I would keep the streets in the district categories, the area categories are not much used any how. --Estormiz (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Estormiz: If Kaitoväylä was categorised both under Category:Linnanmaa and Category:Kaijonharju (or any road or street in multiple same-level location categories), it would lead to several problems:

• It would be problematic in terms of the Hierarchic principle and the Selectivity principle.
• Pictures not taken e.g. in Kaijonharju would be categorised under Category:Kaijonharju and pictures not taken in Linnanmaa would be categorised under Category:Linnanmaa.
• Where would we draw the line? I know this is an extreme example but should we also categorise Category:National road 4 (Finland) under each and every municipality along its route?
• There is also a risk of over-categorization. Before my edit, the individual files were categorised (directly) both under Kaijonharju/Linnanmaa and Category:Kaitoväylä which itself was a subcategory of the both district categories.

Yes, I know there are many streets categorised under multiple district categories. However, having some existing problematic categories should lead to creation new problematic categories. Instead, the existing ones should be fixed, too.

Best regards, Apalsola ^{t • c} 18:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think you are quite right. Many of the street categories of Oulu are made by me so I will start removing excess categories when I have the time--Estormiz (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apalsola, I noticed your revert on Category:Saala Aalto, but to be honest your User:Apalsola/cheat is confusing... Can you update it? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is my personal cheatsheet under my user page. If it does not work for you, maybe you should create one for yourself under your user page. Best regards, ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 09:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad mood today?

This is what I mean:

--> finnische

Wikilinks to commons pages are not good and we should not want to confuse people. Lotje (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do not know me, so please do not make any assumptions about my state of mind.

As I said, it my personal cheatsheet. I have also added a statement about it to the page itself.

About the links: this is Commons, so the link should primarily be to the Commons gallery or category if one exists. Links to Wikipedia projects are provided on these gallery or category pages via Wikidata. So, no, I will not update my cheatsheet. Best regards, ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 12:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at Wikimedia Commons.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Found an error in a file you had edited years ago. The orinator is not active anymore, so wanted to ping you instead: [1] . --Jjanhone (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Apalsola, you have just reverted my 3 edits, removing „Category:Categories of Finland by decade“. In fact all the categories of a country by a given criterion have to be collected in their respective „Category:Categories of (country) by (criterion)“, including together sub-categories and super-categories. This is like the gathering of all categories by a criterion through the template „MetaCat|(criterion)“, but only for a chosen country.

I recommend you to look at categories of other countries. Let's take „Category:Categories of Sweden by city“ – you'll see there „Category:Religious buildings in Sweden by city‎“ together with its sub-categories and super-categories like „Category:Churches in Sweden by city“ and „Category:Buildings in Sweden by city‎“. Good night! --Elkost (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elkost: Could you please point out a Commons policy stating that COM:OVERCAT does not apply to these categories. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 09:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reversed the my categorization of Lake Haukivesi into Category:Lakes and watersways of Savonlinna. OK, in a way, I understand, but then it is a dead-end-logic, because that would force us to create category "Parts of Haukivesi belonging to Savonlinna"? "Parts of Haukivesi belonging to Rantasalmi" and "Parts of Haukivesi belonging to Varkaus". I do not think that is viable option and where do we categorize e.g. images that show area of different municipalities, then? Since you are more experienced user, please clarify! --Periegetes (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Periegetes: Categorisation structure is supposed to be hierarchial. I.e. files in Category:Savonlinna and its subcategories should be related to Savonlinna. Since Haukivesi is located in multiple municipalities, categorising Category:Haukivesi under Category:Lakes of Savonlinna would break the hierarchy: there would be file not related to Savonlinna under Category:Savonlinna.

I don't think the per-municipality subcategories like Category:Haukivesi in Savonlinna or Category:Haukivesi in Rantasalmi would be a problem provided there are enough files to be categorised in those categories. See Category:Lake Hiidenvesi and its sub-categories for example.

Please also notice that category naming should follow the present structure. I.e. Category:Lakes of Savonlinna is better than Category:Lakes and waterways of Savonlinna, since it fits to the present category structure below Category:Lakes. Best regards, ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 12:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I take a upload a picture of Haukivesi depicting area of Savonlinna, I should be able to categorize it so that people looking for images of Savonlinna areas are likely to find it. I did research on this, and it seems there are precedents that the logic I am proposing works; e.g. Category:Lake Nasser is categorized in "Reservoirs in Egypt" and in "Reservoirs in Sudan, which is entirely logical. Similar example is Category:Lake Tanganyika. Based on my research, the categorization I prosed is entirely normal and logical for features of physical geography extending over more than one administrative entities. Puruvesi, Pihlajavesi and Haukivesi are essential features of physical geography in Savonlinna, so it is really artificial to try to suppress them from Savonlinna categories. I urge you to reconsider this in the light of logic and comparative evidence --Periegetes (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my dear friend:) Sorry for asking. But nevertheless can you please download 5-10 images to Wikimedia Commons (from Mari Eder career). I just want to add them into the article. Thanks for answering. Криштиану Роналду Ювентус (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Криштиану Роналду Ювентус: I am sorry but I do not have any photographs of Mari Eder to upload. Best regards. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 14:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kasasin tänne noita tallennettuja taideteoskuvia. Alkuperäinen galleriana näkyvä lista on tehty siten, että kasasin finnan avainsanojen perusteella taideteoksia sisältäviä kuvia ja sitten poimin käsin siihen sivun alkuun listaksi sellaisia kuvia joissa on minusta tekijänoikeudensuojaama taideteos. Kysymys oikeastaan kuuluu, että miten noita kannattaisi lähteä poistamaan eli teenkö yhden listan per taiteilija per poistopyyntö vai listaanko ne kaikki samaan? --Zache (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zache: En ihan varmasti tiedä, onko tästä jokin suositus, mutta voi olla helpointa käsitellä kaikki yhdessä poistopyynnössä, vaikkei lopputulos välttämättä kaikkien osalta olekaan sama. (Voi olla, että osa kuvista säästetään esim. de minimis -käytännön perusteella.) Toinen vaihtoehto on ryhmitellä pyynnöt esim. teoksittain tai taiteilijoittain. Sen sijaan missään nimessä ei minusta kannata tehdä jokaisesta tiedostosta erillistä pyyntöä, koska silloin tulee aivan turhaan päällekkäisiä keskusteluita, mutta etpä tällaista vaihtoehtoa kyllä ehdottanutkaan.

Jos päätät listata kaikki samaan listaan, pitäisi kunkin tiedoston kohdalle merkitä kuitenkin ainakin ko. teoksen tekijä ja mielellään myös yksilöidä teos (jos sitä ei ole jo yksilöity esim. tiedostonimessä). Lisäksi poistokeskustelusivut kannattaa lisätä Category:Finnish FOP cases/pending -luokkaan <noinclude></noinclude>-tagin sisässä.

Ja poistamiset pitää hoitaa siis nimenomaan poistokeskustelun kautta; Freedom of panorama -tapauksissa pikapoistoa ei voi käyttää. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 14:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC) –– (pingaus lisätty) Apalsola ^{t • c} 16:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terve taas! Huomasin että olit kumonnut Loviisan kirkon kategoriaan tekemäni muutoksen, jossa olin poistanut suomen- ja englanninkieliset esittelytekstit. Käsitykseni on ollut, ettei noita lyhyitä esittelytekstejä tarvittaisi, jos Wikidatan infoboksi kertoo jo samat ja kattavammat tiedot kategorian sisällöstä. Onko kuitenkin periaatteena, että tekstit kuuluisi säilyttää infotaulukosta huolimatta? Kysyn jotten vastaisuudessa tekisi enää turhia tekstipoistoja. Niera (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ainakin COM:CAT#Creating a new category ohjeistaa edelleen kirjoittamaan lyhyen kuvauksen, ja ainakin omasta mielestäni kuvaus on edelleen hyödyllinen, vaikka luokassa tietolaatikko olisikin. Tietystikin kuvaukset on syytä pitää lyhyenä; pitemmät selostukset kuuluvat Wikipedia-projektien puolelle. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 17:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, also in Wikimedia Commons is Category:Cemeteries under Category:Religious places ... --Zelenymuzik (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zelenymuzik: As also non-religious/non-denominational cemeteries do exist, I removed such categorisation. Thanks for pointing that out! Best regards, ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 10:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Apalsola: One way or the other.. rituals of burial are religious, for everyone ;) This also applies to urban cemeteries. --Zelenymuzik (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zelenymuzik: Funerals without any religious aspects are common, at least here in Finland. There are also some cemeteries without any relation to religion. Best regards, ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 11:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know the justification for your statement "for everyone". You can not speak on behalf of all the other people about such a personal and private thing as religion (or its absence). ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 11:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism is not a religion? Why do people bury each other? Isn't that faith? --Zelenymuzik (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zelenymuzik: At least en:Irreligion states that atheism is part of irreligion which is "the absence, indifference to, or rejection of religion". For many people funerals certainly present faith and religion, but not all of them, and that is the reason root categories for funerals or cemeteries should not be categorized under religion. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 16:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kevojärvi 1923 M012 KK5065 8 18C.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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Túrelio (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You added "location of creation", P1071, to File:Scouthamn Satava 2010.jpg. The property description says "Wikidata property related to processes and manufacturing" etc. – nothing about location of the shot. Is this property meant to be used for all photos? In that case something to that effect should be added to the description. If not, what is the intention here? –LPfi (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source of the description you quoted? The description in Wikidata:Property:P1071 says: "place where the item was made; where applicable, location of final assembly" which can be applied to photographs, too. I actually used "location" property before but I was corrected. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 13:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was the "instance of". The aliases also have many related to manufacturing etc. But yes, I understand those descriptions may have to be odd for many marginal uses.

What puzzles me most, I think, is the difference between properties of the photograph itself (and if made in a darkroom, wouldn't that be the location of creation?) and properties of the subject of the photo.

Oh, I see. The motif should be described with qualifiers, not by properties of the photo. We still have the darkroom problem if we are to add "location of final assembly". For digital photos that would be my desk, where I crop and resize the image. Or, as it is the file description page, most properties should be qualifiers to a separate media description (instance of photo?).

For properties to be added to most media, we should have a proper guideline page, not just ad hoc reasoning by those adding properties, adjusted as one personally gathers experience. I mean a best practices page on Commons, not just the descriptions of individual properties, which can be quite confusing.

–LPfi (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kategoristi kaipaa jälleen rohkaisua luokituksiin. Mannerheimintie-luokkaan kuuluu nyt 6 kaupunginosaluokkaa, ja se on kieltämättä häirinnyt jo tovin. Uskaltaako ne kaikki ottaa pois? Tie ulottuu kovin pitkälle pohjoiseen, niin ilmeisesti ei myöskään sovi käyttää tuota Helsinki city centre -luokkaa. Jos siitä sitten hiljalleen pudottelisi spesifejä kaupunginosa- ja katuluokkia yksittäisiin kuviin. Jonkun verran tätä on tullut jo tehtyäkin, myös satoja kuvia sisältävässä Hämeentie-luokassa (jossa kaupunginosaluokkia on 5). Jos taktiikka on tämä, niin koitan noudattaa parhaani mukaan. --Coen (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]