Benutzer Diskussion:Crakkerjakk
Letzter Kommentar: vor 11 Jahren von Crakkerjakk in Abschnitt Images
| Hallo Crakkerjakk, herzlich willkommen in der Wikipedia. | |||||
| Zum leichteren Einstieg habe ich dir einige Seiten mit wertvollen Tipps zusammengestellt. Die musst du natürlich nicht auswendig kennen, es hilft jedoch, wenn du sie bei Bedarf findest. | |||||
 |
Tour für Leser |  |
Grundlegende Dinge – Schritt für Schritt |  |
Prinzipien der Wikipedia |
 |
Antworten auf häufige Fragen |  |
Die wichtigsten Dinge für einen guten Start |  |
Richtlinien der Wikipedia |
 |
Unsere Inhalte thematisch |  |
Zum Ausprobieren |  |
Typische Missverständnisse |
 |
Für Fragen |  |
Finde einen Mentor. |  |
Alle Hilfe-Seiten auf einen Blick |
|
Wenn du eigene Artikel schreiben willst, kannst du dir viel Frust ersparen, wenn du zuvor einen Blick auf die Relevanzkriterien wirfst, denn nicht alle Themen sind für einen Artikel geeignet. Wir freuen uns auf deine Beiträge! | |||||
Hallo. Es tut mir Leid für mein schlechtes Deutsch. Ich bin Amerikanisch. Ich habe forschung und habe dem Young Artist Award artikel auf der Englischen Wikipedia geschrieben. Wenn Sie irgendeine Fragen um meine Änderungen zum Young Artist Award artikel auf der Deutsch Wikipedia haben, bitte schicken Sie mir eine Nachricht auf meine Englischen Diskussion Seite. Englisch ist meine erste Sprache, aber ich werde versuchen, Ihre Fragen auf Deutsch zu beantworten. Vielen Dank. --- Crakkerjakk (Diskussion) 06:50, 11. Mär. 2012 (CET)
Hello. :) The text box was just a Greeting. May you want to use these Babel buttons on your user page: Wikipedia:Babel? They will let us know how good you are able to communicate in German. Best wishes, --NessaT. (Diskussion) 17:53, 11. Mär. 2012 (CET)
Images
[Quelltext bearbeiten]please, no not replace pictures by older ones, but add the new picture and leave the old one in place. Each article typically contains several images of different ages, if available. Tx. - Andreas König (Diskussion) 16:11, 13. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- True, many articles have more than one good picture and I usually do not remove images, but the page in question is a very short biography and I firmly believe a beautiful professional image of a star looking like a star is far more suitable than a bad amateur snap-shot taken of someone walking by. --- Crakkerjakk (Diskussion) 16:17, 13. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- it is not the purpose of a article, to keep a beautiful face of a time long ago, despite of the fact the person changed very much in the last 30 years. If you had professional, new image, feel free to replace, but do not remove the only newer picture and replace it by a truly "historic" one, this is a kind of "whitewashing" and removal of information. - Andreas König (Diskussion) 16:30, 13. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- Again, I understand what you're saying and I usually agree. The only time I remove pictures is in very short articles such as this one. I'm an editor from the English Wikipedia, and we try and use the best picture for the top of an article (when one is available) and then put other pictures further down (if/when there is room). We are discouraged from stacking columns of images in short articles on the English Wikipedia, but if you believe the German Wikipedia should follow another policy then feel free to keep an amateur photo of her at the top of the article which only shows half of her face. --- Crakkerjakk (Diskussion) 16:43, 13. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- ok, in german language WP we do not differenciate between "amateur" and "professional" pics. If we have only a not so good one available, it is ok als long we have no better one. Else, a lot of articles woud have no pics at all. The order of the pictures is not as important for me. Please do not apply specific rules of english WP to german language one, there is quite a difference. E.g.In german language nobody would speak from "stacking" 2 (1!) pictures even in a short text. Even 4 or 5 pics would be ok, if they contain different information even a small picture gallery at the end, the pictures should however not dominate the article. - Andreas König (Diskussion) 16:55, 13. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- I agree it's always better to have at least one picture whenever one is available rather than have no picture. What I mean by "amateur" is the example we have in this particular article. In the English Wikipedia, the purpose of the top image (also known as the "infobox" image there) is to help the reader instantly recognize the subject of the biography. Very often, an "amateur" picture of a star at an event or on the street does not show the star's full face (like this one), or they are wearing a hat, or sunglasses, etc, which makes it difficult to recognize the subject. When we have the choice between an "old" picture that shows the star's full face from an era when they were most famous, or a "recent" picture which only shows half of the star's face, then we select the "best" image that will help the reader to recognize the star. See the English articles for actors and actresses such as Elizabeth Taylor, Marlon Brando and Judy Garland as some examples. We include pictures of the stars later in their careers, but we don't put the last images of them right before they died at the top of the article simply because they are the most "recent". We select the very best picture that will be most well recognized, and then include images spanning their lifetime within the text passage(s) of the article ("young" pictures amidst the text passages about their "early life", "elderly" pictures within the text passages about their "later life", etc). If the recent picture of Juliet Mills was a professional picture of her full face looking directly into the camera and smiling, and the old picture was an amateur photo of her walking by showing only half of her face, then I would say the recent image would be the best picture. What I meant by "stacking" is that we have a total of four pictures of Juliet Mills at Commons (actually five, but one is just a crop of the recent one, as can be seen here), but I did not try to include all of them because this particular article is relatively short and I didn't believe it was necessary. Instead, I thought one picture was enough and I selected the best picture that I thought would be most recognizeable for the reader. --- Crakkerjakk (Diskussion) 18:08, 13. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- thanks fo Your information about english WP, maybe it is useful for me when i add my New Zealand pictures in en:WP articles, for pictures in german WP see Wikipedia:Artikel illustrieren and WP:Bilder for the formatting stuff. Tx Andreas König (Diskussion) 10:12, 14. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- Yes, it's true I need to spend some time studying the numerous Wikipedia's in all the various languages. I'm primarily knowledgeable about child stars and awards shows and occasionally do edit here (and at those times I make an effort to type my edit summaries in German). However, when I'm uploading new Commons images I'm often editing 10 or 20 or 30 different Wikipedias in various languages in the time span of just one hour, so I can't take the time to read the policies on every one of them when I'm just adding a picture. As I said, I didn't mean to sound like a snob with regards to "amateur" pictures. I've seen some very good images from amateur photographers, however, as you probably already know, good amateur images of celebrities are far more rare than good images taken by professional photographers who have the full attention of the star, studio backgrounds and sets, controlled lighting, etc. I wasn't removing the image because it wasn't professinal - I saw how short the article was and simply thought one picture was enough, so instead of including all four images we have of her, I selected the one I thought was best. If the biography had been three or four times as long, then I would have included three or four images of her. --- Crakkerjakk (Diskussion) 14:16, 14. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- thanks fo Your information about english WP, maybe it is useful for me when i add my New Zealand pictures in en:WP articles, for pictures in german WP see Wikipedia:Artikel illustrieren and WP:Bilder for the formatting stuff. Tx Andreas König (Diskussion) 10:12, 14. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- I agree it's always better to have at least one picture whenever one is available rather than have no picture. What I mean by "amateur" is the example we have in this particular article. In the English Wikipedia, the purpose of the top image (also known as the "infobox" image there) is to help the reader instantly recognize the subject of the biography. Very often, an "amateur" picture of a star at an event or on the street does not show the star's full face (like this one), or they are wearing a hat, or sunglasses, etc, which makes it difficult to recognize the subject. When we have the choice between an "old" picture that shows the star's full face from an era when they were most famous, or a "recent" picture which only shows half of the star's face, then we select the "best" image that will help the reader to recognize the star. See the English articles for actors and actresses such as Elizabeth Taylor, Marlon Brando and Judy Garland as some examples. We include pictures of the stars later in their careers, but we don't put the last images of them right before they died at the top of the article simply because they are the most "recent". We select the very best picture that will be most well recognized, and then include images spanning their lifetime within the text passage(s) of the article ("young" pictures amidst the text passages about their "early life", "elderly" pictures within the text passages about their "later life", etc). If the recent picture of Juliet Mills was a professional picture of her full face looking directly into the camera and smiling, and the old picture was an amateur photo of her walking by showing only half of her face, then I would say the recent image would be the best picture. What I meant by "stacking" is that we have a total of four pictures of Juliet Mills at Commons (actually five, but one is just a crop of the recent one, as can be seen here), but I did not try to include all of them because this particular article is relatively short and I didn't believe it was necessary. Instead, I thought one picture was enough and I selected the best picture that I thought would be most recognizeable for the reader. --- Crakkerjakk (Diskussion) 18:08, 13. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- ok, in german language WP we do not differenciate between "amateur" and "professional" pics. If we have only a not so good one available, it is ok als long we have no better one. Else, a lot of articles woud have no pics at all. The order of the pictures is not as important for me. Please do not apply specific rules of english WP to german language one, there is quite a difference. E.g.In german language nobody would speak from "stacking" 2 (1!) pictures even in a short text. Even 4 or 5 pics would be ok, if they contain different information even a small picture gallery at the end, the pictures should however not dominate the article. - Andreas König (Diskussion) 16:55, 13. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- Again, I understand what you're saying and I usually agree. The only time I remove pictures is in very short articles such as this one. I'm an editor from the English Wikipedia, and we try and use the best picture for the top of an article (when one is available) and then put other pictures further down (if/when there is room). We are discouraged from stacking columns of images in short articles on the English Wikipedia, but if you believe the German Wikipedia should follow another policy then feel free to keep an amateur photo of her at the top of the article which only shows half of her face. --- Crakkerjakk (Diskussion) 16:43, 13. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- it is not the purpose of a article, to keep a beautiful face of a time long ago, despite of the fact the person changed very much in the last 30 years. If you had professional, new image, feel free to replace, but do not remove the only newer picture and replace it by a truly "historic" one, this is a kind of "whitewashing" and removal of information. - Andreas König (Diskussion) 16:30, 13. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- Please don't add pictures that are copyrighted in Germany! Quote: This work is in the public domain in that it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice. Unless its author has been dead for several years, it is copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (50 p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 p.m.a.), Mexico (100 p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties. See this page for further explanation.. Thanks. --Mikano (Diskussion) 08:13, 16. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- Sorry, I add to so many different Wikipedias I have trouble keeping track of the individual laws in each country. I'll try and remember to cross WP:Germany off the list when adding images. --- Crakkerjakk (Diskussion) 08:21, 16. Jul. 2012 (CEST)