User talk:Enhancing999

Archive

• Please start new talk at the bottom of the page! Negative talk can be removed without an answer! Use English. Talk will be removed after 1-5 days, per bot. Thanks in advance.

---

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Enhancing999!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

please more careful when categorising

First of all, let me thank you for your big efforts in categorising images, especially mountains, and for creating missing mountain categories. In some cases, though, I have the impression that "speed kills" - there have been a number of categories where a common name refers to very different peaks. In most cases, just looking at the existing categories or even existing coordinates, and comparing that with a map reveals that the peak displayed cannot be the one in the new category. Particularly with quite "unspecial" names like (recently) "Cima Rossa" ("Red Peak"), it should be obvious that chances are that there may be many different peaks that bear that name. In the (recent) case of "Schinberg", it should be obvious that a forest-covered 700m foreland hill probably is not the same as a rough rocky peak in the Bernese Alps. Or that the glacier- and ice-covered Mont Brûlé cannot be the same as the meadow-covered 2500m peak of the same name, even if they are situated in the same mountain chain.

Let me point out another concern: I doubt that it is useful if we add the category of a peak that only shows up in a vast mountain panorama at the far distance with a size of few pixels. This is not representative for that peak, even if there are only a few other images that display this peak better.

I'm sorry if my impression is wrong, but I'm worried that you are more or less automatically categorising images as soon as the same name occurs somewhere in the text or annotations, but not spending much thought on the question whether it's right or useful to do so.

And yes, I'm perfectly aware that all this work requires much time and effort - I myself have spent hundreds or even a few thousands of hours on this work here. And there is still loads of work to be done, as many beautiful photographs have been labelled or categorised quite poorly (especially if bulk-imported from large data bases like panoramio). But categorising properly in the first place won't afford further time of other users afterwards. If you are uncertain in one or the other case (or in how to work with wikidata), feel free to ask, and I'm certainly trying to help if my spare time allows it.

By the way: do you know Bergbildrätsel? It is great fun, and there are still thousands of unidentified peaks all over the world, also in the Alps (e.g. in Switzerland, there are currently 147 completely unidentified mountain photographs). We won't run out of work in the next 10 years ;-) --Kuhni74 (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You are right about "Cima Rossa", I was hesitant and should revisited that in more detail. To fix the issue, I think the category should be moved to a more specific name and categories for the other cime created as well. Otherwise, pictures might end up in the category again. I attempt to create categories for all (CH) mountains with images. There are about 200 to do based on Wikidata, the ones with articles in German should be done.

I do rely on annotations on images, so if you would crop an image and leave the annotations in them, it can end up wrong. I'm not sure if I agree with you about exclusion of images where also other mountains are shown. "Remote views of" can be a good subcategory for these. Ideally we would have tool to highlight the mountain on all images in a category. Maybe something to come. If you are interested, I can share my bookmarklets to create categories and search for images. Thanks for your feedback. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your understanding. Yes, in fact it would be wise to create specific categories with brackets in advance for rather unspecific peak names, which is, on the other hand, a really big load of work. After all, (too) many wikidata objects have been created automatically by an automatic tool on ceb.wikipedia.org (based on e.g. Geonames, which is often very inaccurate). In many cases, the wikidata names and descriptions are not really significant or confusing. Also in Austria (where I'm based), much effort has been put into repairing this chaos (particularly by User:Herzi Pinki). You are planning a really big job if you try to create categories for all CH mountains on wikidata, and I agree that it's helpful to start with those that have a WP:de lemma. As I focus on Austria, I try not to put too much effort into working in CH or other Alpine countries (I have done quite some work in places I somehow got in special relation to), but as I said, I'm happy to help with special questions.

I guess you know the beautiful tool https://www.udeuschle.de/panoramas/makepanoramas.htm? This is really helpful for identifying peaks, but as well, it leaves some responsibility on the user and shouldn't prevent us from thinking carefully what we are doing.

As for the exclusion of "tiny" peaks in panoramas: I didn't want to express that they should never be categorised (and yes, the "remote views of" category type can be useful), but it should be done with care too. E.g. Piz Murtaröl is so tiny in File:Cima Viola - In vetta!.jpg or File:Novai Vereinatal LBS R1-764803.jpg that I doubt it will help anybody figure out how this peak looks like.

I do see the problem with annotated and / or categorised images that are cropped later. Yet, I have never automatically cropped images here, and I think that it's basically the "cropper's" responsibility to check whether the annotated and categorised peaks are still visible. I have corrected problems of this kind now or then if I stumbled over them, but not systematically. Probably also much work left here...

By the way, we could also discuss in German if you like it, but as I read above, you generally prefer English here, which I respect, of course. And it enables people of other languages to contribute here too. --Kuhni74 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)