Wikivoyage:Lounge/Archives 2008-12-31

Kategorien - Unterkategorien
Habe heute Bilder hochgeladen und dabei gemerkt das ich für Island keine neuen Unterkategorien anlegen kann/darf. Einige sind ja schon da, aber es wäre vielleicht sinnvoll wenigstens noch die Regionen und Nationalparks wie in Island WV dazu zu nehmen. Wobei man beim Skaftafell-Nationalpark vielleicht noch etwas warten sollte, weil da noch eine Umbenennung kommt, wegen Vergrößerung und Umbenennung des NP. Randbemerkung; ich weiß das meine Bilder keine gute Qualität haben, weil eingescannt. Aber ich denke zum auflockern der Artikel reichen sie vorerst mal aus. Gipsyqueen 21:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hat sich dann erledigt Gipsyqueen 13:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

CC-by again
Kann mir jemand genau den Sachverhalt rund um die CC-by-Lizenz erklären? Hier steht ja weiter oben, das diese im deutschen Sprachraum nicht genutzt werden darf. Da aber jemand, der sich im englischen (oder wo auch immer) Sprachraum befindet, die Lizenz laut den Bestimmung der CC-by ausdrücklich ändern darf (sonst wäre es ja CC-by-sa), wäre die Lizenz damit automatisch mit jeder freien Lizenz kompatibel, die den Namen des Autors nennt, also auch mit allen CC-by-sa-Lizenzen. Warum ist dann die Lizenz hier trotzdem nicht erwünscht?

Es geht im Moment um folgendes Bild: Image:Vineyard in Mendoza, Argentina.jpg, das von den Commons stammt.--Kkkr 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hier ist übrigens die deutsche Version der CC-by-Lizenz zu finden. Über die Nichtgültigkeit steht da nichts dabei.--Kkkr 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ich spekuliere mal noch etwas weiter (hab n bisschen was dazu gelesen, v.a. auf den Rechtsseiten der Wikimedia Foundation, muss aber gleich dazu sagen, dass ich kein Rechtsexperte bin). Vermutlich ist die in Deutschland ungültige Lizenz die CC-SA (Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen ohne Autorennennung), nicht die CC-BY (Weitergabe unter beliebigen Bedingungen, solange der Autor genannt wird). Soviel ich nämlich weiß, darf der Autor in Deutschland nicht auf das Urheberrecht verzichten, wohl aber auf alle Nutzungsrechte. Da bei der CC-SA ja der Autor nicht genannt wird, wird das "Band zwischen Urheber und Werk" ja zerschnitten, d.h. die Lizenz könnte in der Tat in D ungültig sein (und ist ja sowieso inzwischen bei CC veraltet). Bei CC-BY bleibt das Band aber bestehen, der Autor verzichtet nur auf einen großen Teil der Nutzungsrechte. Ich sehe also eigentlich keine Probleme mit dieser Lizenz ;-) --Kkkr 00:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * CC-by und CC-by-sa können beide im deutschen Sprachraum eingesetzt werden, da das Urheberrecht nicht abgetreten wird, sondern nur Nutzungsrechte. Das sieht bei Public Domain anders aus (Alternative Template:Copyrighted free use). Ärgerlich im Falle von CC-by ist, dass das Werk zwar weitergegeben werden darf, aber nicht unter gleichen Bedingungen verändert und weitergegeben werden darf. Selbst eine Verkleinerung wäre wohl eine Transformation, die nicht erlaubt ist. Roland 08:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Doch, CC-by erlaubt Veränderung. Die Lizenz, die du wohl meinst ist CC-by-nd (Attribution No Derivative Works). Die CC-by ist insgesamt gesehen die "unrestriktivste" Lizenz. Siehe auch den Link oben, da isses genau erklärt. ;-) --Kkkr 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As there are no more votes in the discussion I will try to summarize. I think the subject is extremely important to WVShared and we need the highest possible competence in handling image licenses here to ensure safe future of the project ( Yes, Hans I know gained a credit from you on the last sentence... ). So the differences between CCby and CCbySA: To clarify: CCby allows you to license your created work under any license you like, provided you attribute the author (however you like). Like Kkkr wrote above - CCby is the least restrictive. If you ever have problem collecting work from sources under different licenses, check here.
 * CCby, : you can share, remix, adapt, you must attribute
 * CCbySA, : you can share, remix, adapt, you must attribute and use the same license for whatever you create using this work.

(Roland if you meant above (Ärgerlich im Falle von CC-by ist, dass das Werk zwar weitergegeben werden darf, aber nicht unter gleichen Bedingungen verändert und weitergegeben werden darf) In case of of CC-by it is annoying that the work may be distributed, but may not be changed and distributed under same conditions, this must have been misunderstanding.)

Practical implications:
 * CCby image may be used as a part of any project: Wikivoyage licensed under CCbySA, Wikipedia licensed under GFDL, a commercial guide book, daily newspaper, fishing magazine, if the author of the image is attributed - which is possible in all the projects I mentioned. You violate (break) this license only when you don't credit the author.
 * CCbySA image may be used as a part if the project licensed under the same or similar (compatible ) license: you can not use it in a commercial guide book, daily newspaper, fishing magazine because they are usually copyrighted. You can use CCbySA image on Wikivoyage licensed under CCbySA and most people think you can use it on Wikipedia, because most people think CC is comptabile with GFDL in crediting the author.

'''So are those diffrences really important to Wikivoyage? Not really.''' We attribute authors of images in both printed and on-line distribution (I hope we print link to details of the image). End of the story. CCby images (and other works) are welcome to any CCbySA project.

Therefore (if I didn't make mistake above) I suppose some actions are obvious:
 * remove Template:WrongLicense from Template:Cc-by-1.0, Template:Cc-by-2.0, Template:Cc-by-2.5, Template:Cc-by-3.0
 * add to upload dialog an entry Any attribution (1.0 or above) for newly uploaded pictures.

LukeWestwalker ⇔ 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, as stated above. Template:WrongLicense should be removed.--Kkkr 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

PD plus uneingeschränktes Nutzungsrecht
Wäre nicht ein Vorlage wie diese auch für Wikivoyage hilfreich? Sie vereinigt das "uneingeschränkte Nutzungsrecht" mit Public Domain und ist daher besonders für den deutschsprachigen Raum interessant.

Wie geht man sonst in solchen Fällen vor? Beide Lizenzen auf einmal? --Kkkr 20:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you seen Template:Copyrighted free use? Do you still see any limits in this template for your purposes? (You may also browse the Category:License tags for general outlook among present templates). LukeWestwalker ⇔ 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know this template. But if I import images from the Commons with the template I mentioned above, I think it would not be correct to put it only under Copyrighted Free Use because in countries where PD exists they are too in the Public Domain, and if I put only the PD license in the article there are potential legal problems in Germany. A "double" template would solve this problem. --Kkkr 00:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Right - if you import PD images to put it only under Template:Copyrighted free use it would not be correct because you would lose Public Domain in countries where PD exists. For me they are practically the same, but...


 * If you need to distinguish between PD annd Template:Copyrighted free use, we would need both templates (I think Template:PD-creator is meant for this). But I understand that you rather need a template that would allow to:
 * be used for imported PD images from commons
 * be used for new images that users don't want to use PD for (Germany)
 * be compatible with images that already use Template:Copyrighted free use
 * I hope I understand well. Then we could add a sentence to Template:Copyrighted free use releasing the picture to PD. I think you could do it on template dicussion page: Template talk:Copyrighted free use. I would only like to wait for opinion of someone who created licenses template system here, as I am afraid the concept could be different for German purposes... LukeWestwalker ⇔ 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to add a new template, because it is possible that someone wants to put her/his images only to PD, or only Copyrighted Free Use. I will post an example at my user page. --Kkkr 01:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So there would be a template for CFU and a template PD/CFU. Should the PD/CFU template be added to upload dialogue list? And also a word of explanation to users importing PD or CFU images - which one to use? How about Template:PD-creator - only for PD? LukeWestwalker ⇔ 08:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes this would make more sense, to replace Template:PD-Creator (in the license dialog) by the "double" template. In Wikimedia Commons they have done it this way, too (they added the CFU note to the PD-Creator template). But I would keep the actual "PD-Creator" template for images where Copyrighted Free Use was not explicitly allowed by the author. Or does PD imply CFU? I'm not sure of this, if this were so, we can replace the PD-author template without the CFU note completely. --Kkkr

Template for importing from WM Commons
As I saw Jensre and Bgabel importing images from WM Commons, you may find useful Template:wmcu for attributing authorship of commons users. Example at Image:Karte Pfälzerwald.png.

Als ich habe gesehen Jensre und Bgabel importieren Bilder von WM Commons, ihr können nützlich Template:wmcu für Nennung den Autoren von commons usersausfinden. Beispiel bei Image:Karte Pfälzerwald.png.

LukeWestwalker ⇔ 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Category names
I have just noticed redirection from English name to local (Italian) in case of Category:Milan. Regarding agreement form this discussion in a place difficult to find (de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Unger), I am sorry to say that it is encouraging more mess among category names. Rules that I proposed (and hope Mulleflupp supported it) in Naming_conventions say that category names should be in English whereever possible.

What kind of mess is present among category names now? Two Examples: 1. France - Category:Picardie_(region) (en Picardy), vs. Bretagne (en Category:Brittany_(region), Bourgogne (Category:Burgundy_(region). 2. Italy - Firenza (en Category:Florence), Category:Roma (en Rome). Category names even in one country, are once in English, once in local version.

How is more mess introduced now? Redirecting from English name to local, making it more puzzling for anyone trying to understand in what language to make a new category.

If I am wrong that category names rules are necessary, don't read further as it's unnecessary then. But if I am right that category names rules should be clear and simple to any user wanting to create it, I can see two choices:

1. we either keep category names in English, so as above French and Italian regions and towns are changed to English and redirects from local version to English are made.

or

2. we change all names to local, so ex. Firenza, not Florence, also Bretagne, Lombardia, and all regions in other countries, like Category:Poland and Category:Czech Republic are changed to their local version and redirects to local version from English are made.

And, of course theoretically 3. We keep it as various as it is now, not intending to make rules clear, discussing each case individually, probably inspiring conflicts between editors in future.

I'll be glad to help in either of the options above. I hope the choice and discussion is made here, not in another wiki. LukeWestwalker ⇔ 09:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the solution cannot be only English or only local. Checking Wikimedia Commons, also Wikimedia Commons is not consequent as it should be. For instance, there is an article on Lombardia which is categorized into Lombardy. It's reasonable to give categories' names in a consequent way – at least at the scale of countries. So the question arise when to use English or local names.
 * Keeping category names in English is possible only downwards to countries and (their) regions levels. The English names are necessary because the local names are usually not known to all.
 * In case of towns or similar a mixture of English and local names will occur because not all of them have an English equivalent. To be consequent only local names should be taken in the latter case. Contrary to countries, the local names of cities etc. are known to the most users. Surely, it may be exceptions like Ho Chi Minh City but it should be only a few ones.
 * Redirects can be created in both cases. -- Roland 11:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for presenting your proposal. I wanted to ask a question about it, because I don't understand this proposal in one point and disagree with it in another point. But... as you already started making several changes at different levels, without waiting for opinions of others, I feel very sorry and understand that there is no place for discussion. And opinions appeared . LukeWestwalker ⇔ 12:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Naming of categories is not only a question of having a naming convention, but also a question of manpower. I hope we will have enough authors in future who can also check all namings on Shared and find usefull ways for individual regions. Now it is my everyday work to check all new photographs and categories and recheck older ones – upto now I am the only one who performs it. Today I made only changes on French and Italian names to have identical naming.
 * Of course you can discuss here. But we will not found a unique way to solve all problems -- it is also a big problem for geographers, the discussion will take a lot of time with maybe not so much results. And finally, nobody will make corrections now because of the huge amount of work (now 10,000 figures and 1,200 categories). If you will find mistakes please change them.
 * One of our main problems will be transliterations of names not written in Latin letters. I hope to solve this in collaboration with specialists in language and topics.
 * Normally all categories will be found using redirects so you will find them also with alternative names. I know that there is also a software problem with redirects of categories, but I hope it can be solved in future.
 * Now we have no uncategorized images and double categories like WT/Shared, this is the best base to make corrections in future.
 * Another problems will arise from forking additional branches from WT, because they are using about 50,000 categories on shared with different (parallel) styles of namings. --Roland 16:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it is not as problematic as you said, because it's not a geographic or linguistic organisation, shared: is just an image repository for wiki, and there is a lot of easy and correct enough solutions. Even "unique" ones. As the subject has drifted away from category names, I am not afraid that it is not only a big problem for geographers. I am afraid that it is also a problem for this wiki. It appears with the symptom of lacking manpower you mentioned. Wouldn't it be worth posing a question of reasons and our perception of this problem? I am convinced everyone appreciates your huge and invaluable contribution to all WV wikis, which is an immense amount of voluntary work. I suspect it may remain that way in future if larger community remains uninvolved because of repeated actions making collaboration difficult. Making changes without waiting for consensus is just one of examples of such actions. I have already asked for creating rules allowing larger number of users to correctly perform administrative tasks. May be I myself am not the representative example, but I would gladly help, but feel unable because of lack of clear rules. They may never be created unless there is agreement even among small group of contributors or unless one person creates them all. The latter seems to be difficult as you wrote above.


 * I know that doesn't move further category names discussion, but may be explains reasons of this problem being unsolved. LukeWestwalker ⇔ 11:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a look at Category:Baden-Württemberg you may see the problems with the special characters like Ö in German. Simplest way to avoid this problem would be to use only category names in English. I am willing to remove the mess, but I don't know how to rename the categories. Bgabel 07:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Simplest case is to let it as is. There are usually no special names in English (the substitution of ö by oe is known only in Germany). I think the best way for names with latin characters is to use them with the diacritics as known in the original country. This is not only a problem for German umlauts, there are similiar problems for French, Vietnamese or Icelandic names. Usually we create additionally redirects without diacritics.
 * The merge articles in several language branches the simplest way is to use identical names.
 * Moving of category names is upto now not possible. – Roland 17:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"wrong license" removed from CC-by licenses
I have removed the "wrong license" template from all CC-by license templates. It seems to have been forgotten (See discussion above ).--kkkr ¡hablame! 12:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)