Wikivoyage:Lounge/Archives 2007-12-31

Spelling of categories
Shouldn't we use the domestic spelling like on de: to name categories? Hội An instead of Hoi An. At the moment the category is called Category:Hoi An. I think it's a contradiction to our rules on de:/general: -- DerFussi 22:30, 22 January 2007 (CET)


 * We should use the same rules on all wikis. I agree as shared should be a image repository for all versions. --Der Reisende 10:15, 24 January 2007 (CET)

So what spelling is obligatory - I am mega-puzzled: Category:Münster, Category:Gütersloh; Category:Częstochowa (loc.Częstochowa), Category:Świnoujście (as locally). LukeWestwalker ⇔ 23:57, 29 October 2007 (CET)


 * Some categories came from WT, and the spelling was not consistent -- sometimes there are identical categories of the same destination with and without diacritics and in different languages. Therefore we did not imported all the WT categories to prevent confusion. I by myself prefer the local names. I think the different names came from keyboards with missing letters. But since a long time we have implemented edit tools to overcome this problem.


 * The import of images, the check and edition of them was a huge work, so I didn't found all misspellings. Today in the morning I corrected Muenster to Münster, Duesseldorf to Düsseldorf and Czestochowa to Częstochowa.


 * There is another problem with the search algorithm of the Wiki software. In case of other name spaces than that of the main name space you will find entries directly only if you add the name space id like Category. That's the reason why we do not use now redirects. I spoke with Hansm about this problem a few days ago and I hope he will find a solution to overcome this problem. --Roland 07:45, 30 October 2007 (CET)
 * Am I right that the current rules (that you partially expressed aboved) are the same as on khm, khm...? If so, should it be (altered or exactly) input anywhere? Should I make a page Help:Naming conventions (no question mark as there is already one;) LukeWestwalker ⇔ 18:44, 30 October 2007 (CET)

Spam blacklist activated
Forced by repeated spam attacks during the last days, we have installed a spam filter for weblinks. The blacklist is maintained on Project:Spam blacklist and only editable for admins. If you get a spam filter message when trying to save your legitimate edits, please contact an admin, preferrably on his de: talk page. -- Hansm 10:19, 13 June 2007 (CEST)

Votes for Deletion
Please check the Project:Votes for Deletion page for all files that need to be deleted. Some have been on the list for month now. Cheers, Africaspotter 20:56, 23 July 2007 (CEST)

svg/png trouble
Sometimes I am a bit slow with understanding something. This time I'm having trouble with uploading svg files. So far, I always uploaded them as png files without noticing so that Unger had to change them back to svg format - this happening because when I downloaded the svg file from its location (generally Wikimedia Commons) to hard disc, it got automatically saved as svg.png, never understood why. When I try during saving to change the extension, i.e. to take away the png again, this works, but I can't upload this picture to shared, I get the following error massage: Die Datei ist beschädigt oder hat einen falschen Namen. Bitte überprüfen Sie die Datei und laden Sie sie erneut hoch. Last file with which tried is located here on and now as well here on shared. Same trouble if I download the image as proposed by the browser in svg.png format and then try to upload it to shared dropping the png extension, I get the same error message. Only way it works is to upload it with the svg.png extension.

If anybody can figure out what I'm doing wrong, I would be really thankful. --Mulleflupp - Беседа 22:52, 16 August 2007 (CEST)


 * Unfortunatly I have no idea. I did it in the past without any problems. Nevertheless I try to sort it out in the next days.--Der Reisende 17:07, 28 August 2007 (CEST)


 * Don't worry about it anymore, problem has been solved and the guide on de: for uploading pictures updated accordingly. But thanks nevertheless :-D --Mulleflupp - Беседа 22:17, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Admins on shared
I have a few essential questions: Who are the admins on shared? Are they still checking the site? Where/How can I nominate someone/myself to become an admin? (I guess this will be the same process as on the German language version?) --Felix 20:11, 15 September 2007 (CEST)
 * You can find the list of admins on this special page, for the moment, it's the same 5 as on de: before the last 3 admins got elected. --Mulleflupp - Беседа 21:33, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Renaming the Pub to Lounge
What do you think about renaming the pub into Lounge, Shared: Lounge or Wikivoyage Lounge like on de:? This would differentiate us from other wikis where the term "pub" is often used and provide a certain coherence with the German language version (same topic posted on general:). --Mulleflupp - Беседа 12:18, 3 October 2007 (CEST)
 * You got my vote! --Felix 13:08, 3 October 2007 (CEST)
 * O.K.--Der Reisende 15:45, 4 October 2007 (CEST)
 * My accordance to renaming pub into lounge have you. Bobo11 16:31, 4 October 2007 (CEST)

Pub renamed into Lounge, links redirected, sidebar adapted, redirect from pub to Lounge. --Mulleflupp - Беседа 10:15, 5 October 2007 (CEST)

Image:Skorpios.jpg
I uploaded that image from World66 so its licence should be OK. Although somebody says that there are not Cc-by-Sa-1,0 on World66 gobbler

Vorlage It
Sollten wir vielleicht auch eine Vorlage It (wie die En und De) für die Beschreibung der Bilder auf italienisch Anlegen, und diese in die Vorlage für Stadt / Region mit aufnehmen? Dann können die Italiener auch in Zukunft ihre Beschreibung auch auf italienisch angeben. -- DerFussi 09:53, 17 October 2007 (CEST)


 * Die Vorlagen für Sprchen wie  sind für zahlreiche Sprachen schon vorbereitet, so auch für It. Siehe Category:Templates:Internationalization. Was noch fehlt, sind die Übersetzungen verschiedener Seiten wie die die für Upload. Dies werden wir den Italienern mitteilen. Ich werde mal eine Liste aller Systemtexte zusammenstellen bzw. erweitern (siehe auch User:Unger). --Roland 10:46, 17 October 2007 (CEST)

CC Attribution license
In the upload file licences listbox there is only choice of any CC-BY-SA license. Are images licensed with CC Attribution (no SA!) allowed to be uploaded for WV purposes (you can not modify them)? LukeWestwalker ⇔ 18:56, 30 October 2007 (CET) I also noticed these templates (Template:Cc-by-1.0, Template:Cc-by-2.0, Template:Cc-by-2.5) are marked as bad license. LukeWestwalker ⇔ 19:16, 30 October 2007 (CET)


 * Its right CC-SA is a license, are illegal for German users (is only for user unther anglikanic court). So was a bad idea do give this licence do uploade. The point is in German (D-A-CH) can't disclaim the copyright. PD are also illegal for German users. Bobo11 20:29, 1 November 2007 (CET)


 * Of course, there are a lot of free licenses, but some of them are illegal in some countries of the world or are improper to use. The entries of the upload dialogue are selected to support a proper use of the articles including these images -- and only these licenses should be used. The existence of templates like Template:Cc-by-1.0 is only for backward compatibility like in the case of a fork, not for new images. Incompatible images should be substituted by other ones. --Roland 08:48, 2 November 2007 (CET)


 * That's clear. But can the image licensed Cc-by-1.0 (for backward compatibility) be included in some new article? Or is just stored but not meant to appear in articles? Secondly are Public Domain pictures really (Template:PD) illegal for Germans? LukeWestwalker ⇔ 14:10, 2 November 2007 (CET)

GFDL images - uploading, storing and usage
GFDL is free (and allowed to store) but inconvenient to use (see also de:Wikivoyage:Warum_Wikivoyage_nicht_unter_GFDL_lizensiert_wird). CC-by licenses can be changed to other ones, so a derived work can have illegal or improper conditions -- which should be prevented.

It is not forbidden to store images with a GFDL license or other free licenses. OK -- the usage is inconvienient, but it is not necessary to delete them.

In case of new own images we prefer -- like Mediawiki Commons -- double-licensed images (GFDL + all cc-by-sa). --Roland 08:48, 2 November 2007 (CET)


 * So the question is: what are we storing GDFL images for? It is not the question of new own images, but the question of GFDL images transferred from WMCommons. I understand that we don't want them to be uploaded unless they are double licensed as there is no GFDL entry in the upload dialogue (that you mentioned above), so I suppose GFDL images don't guarantee "proper use of the articles including these images" (also above).
 * Sorry if the following example is trivial for anyone, but I would like to mention it so as everyone be aware of the subject of discussion: I am printing, let's say, Munich guide with a GFDL image in 99 copies. No problem till that moment. One person of the group lost their copy so I quickly xerocopy one more for them. Now this is a violation of GFDL license. Did you mean such situation as inconvenient? But my knowlegde of GFDL is very limited, correct me if I wrote anything wrong above.
 * The problem arises with the copies. On the web the GFDL images are connected with links to the license conditions. This is not the case of paper copies. In any case -- also for one sheet of paper -- you must give of complete set of the GFDL license documentation to your copies -- this is unconvenient. --Roland 15:22, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * But if I have not mistaken ih the Munich guide example, in such case one of the goals of WV [printing guides] becomes seriously close to copyright violation encouragement. If so, is it sensible to include GFDL images in articles? LukeWestwalker ⇔ 14:10, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * The problem for a comercel printing Version is by all pictures the samme (with corect Licencing) . Whe musst by all picture import the photografer form the pictures in the text version. That dont't goining automaticly, so the whe can in the same moment, exclude all only GDFL pictures. From the online Virsion is this never e problem then the Licenc ist on the picture side. In the online vesion from wikivoyage is a only GDFL pictures practical, clear a multi-licencet Picture or CC-by-sa is better, but not necessarie. Bobo11 22:50, 2 November 2007 (CET)

Image:Verlauf_Blau.png
Is it possible to copyright or attribute such a horizontal line in changing colors? What do you think? LukeWestwalker ⇔ 20:48, 31 October 2007 (CET)


 * CC-by-sa allows to change the image (it is a derived work). The derived work must have the same license. --Roland 08:50, 2 November 2007 (CET)


 * I see. From what what licensed source is that image then? There is no source at the image description page... LukeWestwalker ⇔ 13:28, 2 November 2007 (CET)


 * It's my own work -- DerFussi 14:02, 2 November 2007 (CET)

Just wanted to say you can not attribute or copyright work that in my opinion is not original. In German it is called Schöpfungshöhe. If it so it should have some PD or compatible license. LukeWestwalker ⇔ 14:21, 4 November 2007 (CET)

Image page layout
Well, are not those two Template:Information «» Template:Image presenting contradictory layout? LukeWestwalker ⇔ 20:48, 31 October 2007 (CET)


 * Template:Image should be used only as a template for empty image descriptions. It consists of both the description (with Template:Information) and license chapters. --Roland 08:25, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * Exactly - Template:Image consists of Template:Information+License. However license (as permission/erlaubnis) is already included in one row of Template:Information. Please scroll to the bottom to Template:Information to see the example with license box in the "permission" row. Therefore I consider these two templates contradictory. What for is the license chapter in the Template:Image when there is already place for license in the Template:Information? I am asking because I would like to correct incomplete descriptions and I am not sure what to follow (Template:Image is in my opinion repetitive). LukeWestwalker ⇔ 13:39, 2 November 2007 (CET)


 * The "permission/erlaubnis" of the Template:Information template is only for addional information and for compatibility reasons with Wikimedia Commons. Normally this line is empty or shows "See below". The license is shown by a special template like Template:Cc-by-sa-1.0 -- we need such templates for an electronical analysis of the licenses. If you upload an image this license template will be automatically added by the software. If you import an image without any information then you should use Template:Image in the edit section because it adds both templates (Information, and license). At least the problem arises from the software because if makes difference between description and license. --Roland 15:10, 2 November 2007 (CET)


 * May be I should change my question: Is it OK when I upload file with the description layout like on the bottom of the page Template:Information or Image:Bielko Biała Castle.jpg? LukeWestwalker ⇔ 18:21, 2 November 2007 (CET)


 * Both is both possible. If you use the upload dialogue the license information is added by the software automatically behind the Information template. So it is more convenient in the most cases to let it behind. But you can change the text in the edit dialogue. --Roland 20:25, 2 November 2007 (CET)

What was that?
Can someone please take a look at the edits from 2 November 2007 from 15:14 to 15:28. What was that? I had impression I was fighting some gremlins. Was that the revenge of the empire? LukeWestwalker ⇔ 19:24, 2 November 2007 (CET)


 * At this time I made some additions to the Lounge. If we worked together at the same time at the same chapter there will maybe edition conflicts. But the software will inform you about this. --Roland 20:32, 2 November 2007 (CET)


 * No, it is not at all what I meant. Once more: Please take a look at changes on WV Shared from 2 November 2007 from 15:14 to 15:28. LukeWestwalker ⇔ 21:19, 2 November 2007 (CET)


 * 1) (Datei-Logbuch); 15:40 . . Stilfehler (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) (uploaded "Image:Upper East Side.jpg":  [[Category:New )
 * 2) (Unterschied) (Versionen) . . K Lounge‎; 15:22 . . (+358 Bytes) . . Unger (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) (→GFDL images - uploading, storing and usage - )
 * 3) (Unterschied) (Versionen) . . K Lounge‎; 15:12 . . (+4 Bytes) . . Unger (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) (→Image page layout - )
 * 4) (Unterschied) (Versionen) . . K Lounge‎; 15:11 . . (+71 Bytes) . . Unger (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) (→Image page layout - )

This is the list of the edits of Nov 2, 2007, 15:11 to 15:28. These are three usual additions of me to the lounge and one edit of Stilfehler. What's your problem? --Roland 18:01, 4 November 2007 (CET)


 * Maybe this one:

Look at this --Airin 18:44, 4 November 2007 (CET)
 * 1) Category:French Polynesia‎; 15:14 . . 148.167.202.141


 * Yes, for example like the one above. You've pasted changes from 15:11 to 15:28 GMT. I meant from 15:11 to 15:28 CET. Look what happened an hour earlier - so 14:11-14:28 GMT. LukeWestwalker ⇔ 18:52, 4 November 2007 (CET)


 * This is a special type of vandalism -- this type of changing charcters only occurs in case of vandalism. The user uses an editor or a browser which cannot work with Unicode-UTF characters. You will see the ASCII code of UTF-8 charcters. This is not a problem of the Wiki software. For instance, German Ä gives as ASCII Ã„. To do it is very simple: Copy a text to an Unicode editor, save it and open it with an ASCII code editor. I think this is really a special kind of vandalism. --Roland 20:12, 4 November 2007 (CET)

Improved search
We made a change in the MediaWiki search engine to make searching easier: Now you can enter Categories without entering "Category:" before.

You can make also redirects to categories with names with diacritics but you should not forget the colon : before Category:. Example: #redirect Category:Da Lat. --Roland 20:40, 4 November 2007 (CET)

Problem with PD
To build the new Template BdM (Baustelle des Monats, construction site of the month) I uploaded a from commons.wikimedia.org. This image is there licenced under public domain. I uploaded it and chose this licence. Still it is licenced under GFDL and CC although I chose PD as the corresponding licence. How can I revert that and bring things back into order? --flöschen 12:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You can edit the image description page and change by  . A similiar image Image:RoadConstruction.svg is available, too. See also the Category:Road signs. --Roland 15:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)