User talk:Mcke

Quality assurance

Hi Mcke, thank you for your update/changes to Quality assurance. Yes, the page needed a cleanup, however I do not really agree that converting the level 3 headings to a bullet point list is good. Could you please comment on the talk page there? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

See: Talk:Quality assurance

Hello Mcke, I have reverted to a modified version of yours. See talk page there. Thank you again! --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

OSM Inspector category

Can you explain why you removed all the OSM Inspector pages from the "Quality Assurance" category and added them to the "OSM Inspector" category? They belonged into "Quality Assurance" and now can't be found there any more. Instead they are in the useless new category. Useless, because nearly all pages were already in the "OSM Inspector" namespace, so they are easily found. -- Joto (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:Joto

width="700"

Hi, you replaced width="100%" by width="700" in section "Tags" at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relation:restriction&diff=1041746&oldid=1041254&rcid=&curid=8743 . Why so? 700 refers to pixels, right? Not every screen is the same size and not everybody uses the same font size. Please avoid pixels unless for a good reason. Could you please tell me what you intended by this change? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aseerel4c26, You're right that it is better to use the 100 percent, such that wider screens can use the extra space. But in this case I wanted to avoid that the table is moved too much down, leaving a large white space on the screen for most screen sizes. If it's 100 percent it makes it look very messy. Also extra width for these tables does not make a difference (it does not reduce the table height), because the height is completely determined by the key/value tags which are placed below each other. Do you have another method to prevent the large white space with percentages? --Mcke (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I now found that when leaving out the width setting, the table sizes correctly and does not leave a large white space. I think this is the best solution for this problem, so I already changed it like this. Thanks for your notice. --Mcke (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now I saw which white space you meant: vertical white space above the table because it was pushed down to fit with its 100% width. Perfect now! Sometimes less is more. :-) Thank you! And once more it is shown that sticking with defaults/user settings is a good idea. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Mapillary page categories

Hi, I saw you removed some categories from the page Mapillary. It seems to me like these categories should be put on the page and not in the category (because not all pages belonging to Category:Mapillary necessarily makes sense under these categories). Cheers --Jgpacker (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed those categories from the Mapillary page, because the page was overcategorised (see the 'Improper categorization of categories is a cause of over-categorization' section on the Wikimedia commons page about overcategorisation). I also added some categories to Category:Mapillary that were missing. The category Mapillary represents the same service as the page Mapillary, so they both need to be in the same categories. But adding categories only to Category:Mapillary is enough and keeps it clean. All pages contained in Category:Mapillary are directly or indirectly (via the Mapillary service) related to the upper categories. I do not see a problem here, or can you give me an example? Mcke (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Basically I disagree with All pages contained in Category:Mapillary are directly or indirectly (via the Mapillary service) related to the upper categories.. For example, why would Key:mapillary be under Category:Android? It seems to me it is enough to have these categories in Mapillary and not in Category:Mapillary, which simply gathers pages related to Mapillary. --Jgpacker (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

But then Key:mapillary can also not be placed under Category:Online_Services or Category:Data_sources or any other category except Category:Photos. Which categories should Category:Mapillary then get? Could a clear distinction between the Mapillary app and the Mapillary service with separate categories fix this problem? Mcke (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a bit confusing because both category and page have the same name. Now when looking at Wikipedia for example about Twitter (wikipedia:Twitter and wikipedia:Category:Twitter), I can see that you are right. The page Mapillary should have all categories Category:Mapillary currently has, these are more specific. Category:Mapillary is then the most general container about the service Mapillary. I think Category:Mapillary can keep only the categories Category:Photos, Category:Online Services and Category:Data sources. Do you agree and should I make these changes?

By the way the page Key:mapillary was in Category:Mapillary, which was incorrectly in Category:Android before I made any changes. The most important thing is that each subject can be found easily within the category structure, which then also is the case. Still thanks for noticing this problem. Mcke (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I also found it confusing and was trying to think more. I agree with the changes you suggest here. Cheers. --Jgpacker (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)