User talk:Darwinius/Arquivo2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Dear Darwinius! Thank you very much for your enourmous efforts and you local know-how to categorize my pictures of Madeira. Cheers, Simisa (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't blank pages[edit]

Hi Darwinius,
Thank you for your contributions to Commons. I noticed you blanked Category:São Jorge on Commons. I asume you meant for the page to be deleted, but blanking the page is not the right way to do this. I'd like to strongly recommend to use {{speedy| type reason here }} and add it on top of the page you would like to have deleted; This way it will be placed on a special list that administrators check regularly for deletion. Without this it might take a long time before it's noticed. Thanks again. 23:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)–Krinkletalk

For categories please see {{Move}} and {{category redirect}} –Krinkletalk 23:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I don't want to delete that page, I want to keep it as a disambiguation for the Island and the freguesia of Madeira with the same name, which is causing confusion. I blanked it as part of the process, as I'm emptying it manually. If I place there the disambiguation now the categories won't be removed with hotcat. I don't want a redirect, and also don't want it to be moved automatically, since the files from both place are mixed there. Do you still believe I'm acting wrongly?--Darwinius (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. No, I don't believe you're acting wrongly. I just think that no matter what your intention is, it is not needed to blank the page. If you want to make it a disambig-cat, simply do so. Just don't blank pages. It's a useless not-needed edit. Simply edit the category page, remove what you want to remove and add what you want to add. Example here. –Krinkletalk 11:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


Here and elsewhere, why are you making an edit to change part of a category name to something that is not an English-language word? - Jmabel ! talk 03:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is an english word Why do you say it isn't?--Darwin (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Note that there is no plural given there. Lithography is, indeed, an English word. It is the process of making a lithograph (singular) or lithographs (plural). Lithographies is not an English word. - Jmabel ! talk 03:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently it's French. :S I was really convinced that it was the same in English, and there were already a lot of cats named "Lithographies", which induced me in error. Strangely enough, my firefox dictionary (British English) gives the word as correct. Are you sure it isn't British English? --Darwin (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Look here and here, at least it's used as a plural for lithography.--Darwin (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Compare here (22,600 results vs. 103) and here (21,800 results vs. 95). In both cases, a factor of about 200: rare enough that I think I'm reasonable in considering it an error. Further, many (perhaps most) of the ones you link are very old (over 100 years, so this may have been more common usage in the 19th century). Some are mid-sentence transitions from English to French (e.g. "…The price compares favourably with that of the lithographies a deux crayons "). I stand by what I said. Lithography is a noun, but it refers to a process (the very dictionary definition you linked says so), not an individual work. Just like artisanship is a noun, but the resulting works are not artisanships. - Jmabel ! talk 04:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear. It would be better to find a bot, then, as I've been busy yesterday precisely cataloguing lithographies lithographs. :S--Darwin (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Just list the relevant categories using the appropriate template. You might also want to link to this discussion so whatever admin comes along (even if not a native English speaker) will understand why this is happening. - Jmabel ! talk 05:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Please note that watermarked images like this are NOT welcome over here. Already the upload form sounds "... don't watermark your work." -- Ies (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not my work, it's a photostream from Flickr I'm using to get much needed church interiors in Rio de Janeiro, and occasionally some images of the places where the wedding parties were held. Most of those images are very good, and the watermark can be easily removed afterwards by cropping the image.--Darwin (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

File:São Vicente (Madeira) - Tree in the middle of the place.JPG and others[edit]

Hello Darwinius, thank You for all identifications. Many greetings --Hedwig Storch (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

categorisation of labels by points[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to note that in the medieval period a same coat of arms could have a label portrayed with a varying number points/pendants. The average as seen in armorials and on seals for the time was 5 points unlike the modern 3, but that's just an average. When assembling the series of medieval arms I followed those medieval considerations and not modern ones, so I used labels with the number of points I felt most estethical (but on average five) and did not blazon the number. Therefore I feel that categorisation by number of points is problematic at least for those files but also probably most other medieval arms. But I'm not sure what could be done as alternative categorisation (as obviously those recategorizing now won't know at first sight whether the original uploader followed modern or old rules, while all arms (svg files, not my old png's) I uploaded are also blazonned and it thereby becomes apparent that they were never were intended to be categorised by number of points/pendants, it is unrealistic to ask those performing the recategorization now to check all text accompagnying images (particularly as many uploaders never bothered to include blazonning or source information). So consider this no more than a comment. Generally I applaud the recent attempts at re-categorisation.--Caranorn (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I already suspected it would be problematic, as many COA descriptions don't specify the number of points, as you pointed out. The labels category was too crowded, and this was my first attempt to sort it out, by number of points and the tincture used in the labels. If the same COA appears with a varying number of points, I plan to group it in one cat for that COA and then place it directly in the appropriated labels [tincture] category. It still can happen that someone trying to identify a COA by number of points in label would not find the similar ones because all the ones that were uploaded on Commons use a different version of label, but I guess that it is an acceptable risk, in face of the organization that can be gained this way.
By the way, I'm still a newbie at heraldry, though I'm familiar with it for years - but I've never red a treaty on that, actually, and only searched for specific information when needed. So if you see me doing some blatant error in categorization, please tell me.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm no longer really active here. I only started looking at my watchlists (over various projects) more regularly thinking I might return sometime soon. But honestly I might be gone again a week from now or even tommorrow. So it's quite likely I won't notice any more of your contributions. Though I obviously noticed the ongoing attempts at recategorisation by you and a number of other users, and of course the new heraldry project here on commons. I'd say if you ever have any questions you can always write me, but I'm not sure I'd be active at that time so you'd better ask more active users in such cases. But I wish you best luck and sucess with this job.--Caranorn (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Indeed, I'll ask your opinion in a particular subject that is annoying me of lately. :) --- Darwin Ahoy! 20:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You![edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
I hereby award this Barnstar in recognition of your great work in the categorisation of many many images, in particular those related to all things heraldry. Keep up the good work! Sodacan (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Why, thank you very much! --- Darwin Ahoy! 20:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


E aí, meu caro, como tem passado? Saudades. Que bom saber que você está de volta, ainda que só por aqui. Quando é que resolve dar as caras lá pela ptwiki? Aquilo continua a mesma joça de sempre, é preciso de gente como você para contrabalançar os Gilneis e FXs da vida... A propósito, quando puder e quiser dê uma olhada no artigo do Colombo, o povo das fringe theories apareceu ali querendo mudar tudo (inclusive tentaram eliminar as fontes do registro em cartório), fui obrigado a fazer uma reestruturada recolocando o que você tinha feito ali e tentando integrar o conteúdo que foi acrescentado. Aparentemente traduziram conteúdo da Wikipédia em espanhol, que não me pareceu nada bom - é um dos que mais dá voz a este tipo de teoria... Enfim, nihil novum sub sole. Mandê notícias. :) Abração, RafaAzevedo (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Saxon Arms in British COAS[edit]

Hey Darwinius,

Since User:Brightraven does not even have the curtesy to reply to your posts, including your very thorough research, on the matter, I have decided to remove the accuracy templates from my works five days from now. If he wants a proper debate then I am happy to oblige, but if he wants to just come here create a ruckus and then just leave without a word, then I'm not going to just stay here and support that kind of behaviour. It is a shame that we didn't even get a robust opposition, you especially, since your research at the very least deserves his acknowledgement, oh well..... Best Regards, Sodacan (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sodacan, Brightraven has now acknowledged the research on the Saxony tinctures and agreed to end all the disputes on the issue, so all those templates can be safely removed from the formerly disputed coats of arms. I guess he has been too busy to answer in the last few days, and I don't take any offence in the delay. Overall, I'm glad that the issue is now resolved to everyone satisfaction, even if has not been resolved in fact. :) --- Darwin Ahoy! 20:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
That's great and Thanks!. I'm glad the issue is over too. Keep up the good work. Regards, Sodacan (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Be careful with the Category:Lozenge-shaped heraldic shields[edit]

None of the catalan municipalities has a lozenge-shaped shield. Revert this changes. A lozenge is a rhombus, while a coat of arms of the municipalities of Catalonia are rotated squares. It's not the same shield this: File:Elisabeth of Hungary COA fictional.svg and this File:Escut de Blancafort.svg. Lozenge shields are specific for women, while the square are specific for civic heraldry. Please, revert this changes. --Xavigivax (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Xavigivax,
The description in Category:Lozenge-shaped heraldic shields is "Usual in some traditions for the display of the "heraldic achievements" of women as individuals, or the arms of Catalan cities." (emphasis is mine). Also, the File:Escut de Blancafort.svg official description states that it is "Escudo en losange de ángulos rectos". Therefore my categorization, though not being perhaps precise enough, is not scandalously wrong either, especially when no such category for "losange de ángulos rectos" seem to exist.
This said, the dictionary definition for lozenge does not seem to contemplate something as "losange de ángulos rectos". I will try to find the British heraldic equivalent to the Catalan "Escut caironat", and try to find a solution for the correct classification of those shields so that they do not mix up with the lozenge shaped female shields.--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The description in Spanish is incoherent. "Lozange con ángulos rectos" means lozange with 90º angles, and one lozange as a rhombus is not possible that has 90º in their angles by definition. Another word in Spanish to describe this shield is "embaldosado" or "escudo de ciudad" (city shield). Mix the two types of shields is not correct. The shield shape of the catalan municipalities is not exclusive from Catalonia, it was used in all the former crown of Aragon. I've seen this kind of shield in Naples. This shape is specific for civic heraldry, and was the shape recomended in 1958 in Rome at one international heraldry meeting to represent a town or a city. "Caironat" means shape of a "cairó". One "cairó" is a tile with squared shape. Is possible that you don't find a specific word in English, like other specific heraldry language. I hope that I would help you and apologize for my poor English. --Xavigivax (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying hard to find some reference in the English literature that would provide a good name for a category for such shields using the "rotated square" shape, but it's being difficult. I'm finding many references where what I know to be the "caironat" shape of historical coats of arms of Aragon and Catalonia are being described merely as "lozenge". I'm not sure if lozenge in heraldry is the same as in geometry, it may include the "rotated square shields" as well. The term for square shields seems to be "ecú en bannière", though I've yet to find something about rotated square shields. Still working on it...
By the way, I'm Portuguese, therefore you may write me in Spanish or Catalan, if you want, as I understand both fairly well, though I'm not having any problem in understanding your English. --- Darwin Ahoy! 23:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I give up, every anglophone reference to the Catalan, Valencian and Aragonese CoAs treats them as "lozenge-shaped shields", though they are not lozenges indeed, not even in the heraldic sense of the word. (For instance: "The civic arms of Valencia and Barcelona are set on a lozenge-shaped shield following an old tradition" - Heraldry of the world, Carl Alexander Von Volborth, 1973, p. 213) This seems to derive from deficient observation and knowledge of those particularities from their part. Nevertheless, the association between the caironat shield and the lozenge shield often displayed by women is not unheard of: "L'escut té fornia de cairó, la qual cosa indica feminitat." ("El veritable escut de la ciutat de Barcelona", Manuel Bassa i Armengol, 1964, p.5).
I suggest, therefore, that the cairó-shaped shields should be classified under an independent category with that same name (cairó-shaped shields), using the native Catalan word, since it is a Catalan feature, which would prevent original research for a new term in English.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Jo també crec que es una mala definició fer servir "lozenge shield" i no li facis gaire cas a en Manel Bassa i Armengol, aquest home era aficionat a l'heràldica, no un heraldista. En realitat era metge. He consultat la seva obra varies vegades i quan no coneixia un escut, se l'inventava. La definició de losange: [1] diu que te forma romboidal, per definició, no pot ser mai un cuadrat: [2]. Si mires un glossari en català: [3] i busques losange i caironat veuràs que tenen descripció diferent. If you don't understand it, I'll traduce it. --Xavigivax (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand Catalan well enough (not as well as Castillan yet, but I'm improving, and besides I like it a lot more than Castillan). I had already checked a Catalan dictionary, which was very clear about caironat and losange being different things, as you say. That's why I suggested the creation of Category:Cairó-shaped shields or Category:Caironat shields.
I find it very strange that no "cairó-shaped" shields are described outside Catalonia, Aragon, Valencia and former Aragonese or Catalonian possessions. Actually, the literature refers to ancient "lozange-shaped" shields that were once used by men and women in Great Britain and other countries, though the authors seem a bit puzzled by them. Those quaint ancient "lozange-shaped" shields that were once used by men were extensively used as excuse and cheval de bataille by 19th century heraldists who abhorred the "lozange-shaped" shields used by women, as it was quite difficult to quarter them, and worst yet to represent more sophisticated marshalling. The interest of those heraldists, however, seem to have been been mostly focused in finding ways of discontinuing the use of "lozange-shaped" shields for women, and not in the shields themselves. I've seen a bunch of illustrations of those ancient quaint shields which they term "lozenge-shaped", and there's no lozenge there to be seen. In fact all those which I have seen are as square as the Catalan escut caironat. See this one, for instance, in a funerary monument in Scotland. It seems that the caironat shape for both men and women was once popular in other parts of continental Europe and the United Kingdom, but has since then fallen out of fashion everywhere besides Catalonia, Aragon and Valencia, while in many places it seems to have evolved into the "lozenge-shaped" shield used by females. This dispels the (rather offensive) common saying that the reason why women use lozenge shields is because them, as the lozenge shields, are unfit for war. Of course all of this is my own research and conclusions, but it's quite interesting, nevertheless, and certainly deserves a deeper study.
Meanwhile, since the British heraldists failed to come up with a proper name for the shape of the shields used by their very ancestors, I suggest we use the Catalan heraldic cairó/caironat to designate that category here in Commons.--- Darwin Ahoy! 10:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Perfecto, a mi me parece bien. En la catedral de Barcelona hay muchísimos escudos, de mercaderes, religiosos, nobles y otros que pagaban las obras o que tenían algo que ver con la catedral y hay tanto escudos cuadrados como los que tienen boca acabada en punta, aunque mayoritariamente, para representar las armas gentilicias, se utilizaba el escudo con boca apuntada, no el otro. --Xavigivax (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Azores Churches, etc.[edit]

Hello Darwinius. Yes, I am planning on changing the names of the churches to conform to the Wikimedia Commons standard of English. But, that being said, I felt it seemed more appropriate to change only the "Igreja da/de" in the name rather than translate the whole name, as some purists would insist. Its the best of both worlds. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to leave the older categories as redirects, because there seems to be a tendancy in the Portuguese namespace to go all out on renaming files in pure Portuguese. My best example is Category:Freguesias of Portugal, which I do not support at all. Regardless, I will make the names redirects, you make a good point. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)~
Oh, I am sorry, I don't recall the "Rosais" renaming episode. But, I was trying to make sure that the names of the parishes and municipalities were distinct enough not to be confused in the future. That is why, I likely renamed to "Rosais (Velas)" from "Rosais". The thing with Portuguese name usage, is the tendancy to repeat the same name in many situations: for example, Calheta, which can be the name of the parish on São Jorge, the name of the municipality on the same island, the name of a place on another island (São Miguel), or name of another municipality in another autonomous region (Madeira). By distinguishing that Rosais was in Velas, future problems are eliminated. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Parishes, freguesias, SJO[edit]

Olá Darwinius. I am aware of the distinctions between a "freguesia" and a "parish"; living in the Azores kind of helps the process. It also helps, that I am working for a GIS firm, on contract to the Azores Regional government, and working with the material daily. While I agree that "paroquia" is the definition for "parish", the term "freguesia" is used to delineate the "civil parish", most commonly shortened to "parish": this is coming from the people who use it. Further, while "freguesia" was used as an ecclesiastical definition until the Liberal Wars, the use of "freguesia" to define the administrative division (much like in Louisiana) persists. In the work that I am doing with the "Direcção Regional de Ordenamento da Territorio", the Regional Government has been using the term "parish" as the de facto translation of "freguesia". That being said, I understand that there are people that edit the Wikimedia Commons who want to use the "freguesia" designation in the title (i.e. "Freguesias in Portugal"), something I have problems with, but I will abide by the consensus here. Its just that I wanted to help out on the internal categorizations first, before doing the moves to "Freguesias of the Azores by municipality", for example. Its easier to move categories that are organized then moving individual images one at a time. Also, the reorganizing of São Jorge was to be more in line with the other islands of the Azores, and categories used there. Ah, yes, the "by region" category: I agree that "by municipality" is more appropriate, and will subsequently alter them accordingly. Appreciate your comments. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Undone edits[edit]

Please, stop reverting my edits. Without information about the author we can't claim public domain status. The uploader knows neither rules, nor authorship. Mithril (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Almost all those photos have a source, so the tag you placed there is not appropriated. That case would be better handled if you talked to him and asked him to check what is the credit line in the publications from where he scanned the pictures, if there is any. In any case, at least the cases which are knowingly in the public domain, such as the works from before 1917, can't be tagged with no source, and can remain here independently of having or not an author.--- Darwin Ahoy! 22:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I've understood about 1917, thanks. In {{nsd}} I read: "This media file is missing essential source information. The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status." If there is a special template, name it, please. I've talked to the uploader, he is a follower of fair use. He won't give this data. Mithril (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Technically, you are right. However, when there is a real possibility that the authorship can be ascertained, as in the case of the pictures with a clear source in the description, I believe it should not be used, but rather a contact should be tried with the uploader. I've seen at least one case where he mistakenly uploaded the entire page from the encyclopaedia he was using as source, so he do own at least some of those books and probably most of the other materials sourced as "my own collection" as well. He seems to have made at least an effort to state his sources (unless it was some other person who filled them, I didn't verify that), so a cooperation from his part probably may be reasonably expected. That was the reason why I've removed some of the tags. If he fails to cooperate, the pictures should indeed be nominated to DR or tagged as no-source, but t this point he looks more like someone new to all this trying to find his way among all the rules, than someone blatantly acting in bad faith.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Technically yesterday I written him a poem about principles and rules in his native language. He hasn't answered yet. To tell you the truth I'm quite tired of this unpleasant work. Mithril (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Notice the size of the list of "newcommer's" problem files. Mithril (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I've red what he recently wrote here, and frankly, to me he seems to be a well intentioned newbie making some mistakes due to lack of understnding of licensing. But you are being quite hard on him, I believe that many of those files you listed there most probably qualify as PD-Old.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
And what should I do with this indefinite probability? Up to date Vladlen666 has been working in the Russian wikipedia for one year and a half. Long enough to study basic rules (at least in the fields of interest), isn't it? Instead of this he learned how to scan images from books, do some minor edit and claim that's his own work. This image was obviously made by professional zoologist or painter. And this. Vectorizing is only derivate work, isn't it? What about permission here? I do not insist on blocking him but all these files must be checked. Mithril (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If I were you I would only mark the obvious copyright violation cases and those where there is strong suspicion of such. Many copyright laws ask people to make a reasonable effort to ascertain the authorship of a photo, but it doesn't mean that you have to walk to the Moon in order to find out who the author is. Reasonable is reasonable. Many of the photos you marked are probably the work of anonymous photographers, and therefore PD. I've already found two which are stated at the source to be anonymous works, and a third which was published in 1878, and therefore more than probably entitled to PD-Old.
I understand your despair with the lack of understanding from Vladlen about copyright laws, but all I've seen about him until now points to someone acting in good faith all along. If he is still uploading copyvios, that would require some urgent action, otherwise I believe it would be better to act with calm and patience. Many of those files were here for months and even years, it's not exactly a tragedy if they are not deleted tomorrow, to allow him some time to resolve the pending issues. :) --- Darwin Ahoy! 01:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  • What're you doing? How can a post on prove that the work is anonymous? Mithril (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It's the source of the file, and their claim seems very reasonable to me (postcards are generally anonymous). If you disagree you must nominate it for a regular DR, and not mark it as no source, since in those cases there really is a source and the tag doesn't apply.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Explaining better - I tend to believe that source for the following reasons:
  • They had the care of mentioning authorship, without needing to do so, meaning that they are not that sloppy with copyrights;
  • Those photos share the same reddish tonality and faded colour typical of certain postcards (that's why I'm curve correcting them). I suspect they all come from an old postcard collection, rather than regular photos.
--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
What're you talking about? In Russia most of the population doesn't know what public domain is. And even those who know often do not make account of copyright policy. Just ignoring it. Mithril (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
And that is precisely the reason why their attempt to mention the authorship and source of the photographs is more meritorious, kind of like the Skyscrapercity folks who, in many occasions, have the care to document and credit where they grab their photographs which are not own work, without any need to do so. In any case, I don't see any reason to doubt that what they say about the origin of those old photographs is not true. If you still think that there are legitimate concerns, you can fill a regular DR if you want, stating your reasons, but tagging the files as "no source" really isn't appropriated in this case.--- Darwin Ahoy! 02:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Bordures categories.[edit]

Hi. Can you help me with category names? I create this page. Skim (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Skim, I somehow forgot to answer you on this, please accept my deepest apologies. When I saw you in my watchlist I suddenly recalled that there was some pending issue with you, and it was this. I only have two comments on those categories for now. First, many people seem to prefer the use of "Or" capitalized, instead of "or". There is a discussion going on about that, though it has been nearly abandoned for months. Second, I've read in some heraldic treaty (Boutell, if I well recall) that the order should be "ordinary emblazonment tincture", such as "bordure wavy gules". He explicitly says that it's not mandatory, and rather a perfectionism, but as he says, if there are two ways of doing something, we may as well choose the most correct one. Thanks for your great work in categorization, BTW, if you have any questions feel free to contact me, and I'll try to answer them, hopefully more expeditiously than last time.--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
About or vs Or: I am seeing this discussion. Without conclusion. Skim (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I do not understand very well what are "pieces" in this Category:Bordures of pieces in heraldry, is this some variation of bordures compony?--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't create this category :-) I haven't opinion about this. Skim (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Eliminação de imagens[edit]

Queria saber o direito e motivo que dá para você eliminar imagens de minha própria autoria?! Acho que quem está violando direitos autorais aqui é o Senhor Darwinius que elimina ficheiros que segundo o Senhor foi uma inflação de direitos autorais. Peço com a mais gentil educação que devolva minhas imagens ou então terei que tomar as providências necessárias para garantir que as imagens são de minha própria autoria e com isso descreditá-lo diante da Wikimedia Commons. Quanto aos ficheiros que foram marcados, devo dizer que as fontes estão devidamente especificadas nos ficheiros, pois eu sou o autor das imagens, a menos que o senhor queira que eu invente um outro autor ou fonte?! Desde já agradeço à atenção. User talk:Febo Apolo 21:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Bla bla bla Whiskas Saquetas. Se queres pedir o restauro dos ficheiros apagados, o caminho é este. O resto vou fingir que não li, mas sempre te digo que é o suficiente para teres um pedido de bloqueio, por isso tento na língua. De resto, boa sorte para recuperar as "tuas" fotos, que descaradamente tiraste ao Renato da CEB e a outros fotógrafos para fazer passar por obras da tua autoria.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Em relação à fonte, tenho sérias dúvidas que sejas tu o autor das imagens que restam, como afirmas, tanto por teres carregado várias outras fotos de outras pessoas como sendo tuas, como pelos modelos de câmaras variarem imenso. Se alguma dessas fotos é mesmo tua, arranja modo de o provar. Quanto às outras, o melhor que tens a fazer é revelar de onde as tiraste antes que outros encontrem a fonte, demonstrando assim que estás de boa fé a tentar resolver a tua situação. Se continuares a insistir que aquilo que roubaste a outros é trabalho teu, as coisas não vão melhorar para o teu lado, pelo contrário.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Primeiro - Gostaria de pedir desculpas caso eu tenha sido grosso e mal educado com o Senhor. Não foi a minha intenção. Segundo - Confesso que tem imagens sim, que não são de minha autoria, a única imagem de minha autoria que foi eliminada é a File:Hospital Daher.jpg, que é o lugar onde eu trabalho e junto com nossa equipe tiramos a foto, por isso peço encarecidamente que restaure esta imagem. Terceiro - Carreguei estes ficheiros apenas com o intuito de melhorar a visualização e comprensão dos artigos publicados na Wikipédia, somente com este intuito já que a Wikipedia não aceita imagens de outras fontes a não ser da Wikimedia Commons. Quarto - Peço por favor, que não me eliminem como membro da Wikimedia Commons e nem as imagens que realmente são de minha autoria.

Espero que aceite minhas sinceras desculpas. Desde já agradeço! Febo Apolo 23:10 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Febo Apolo, a sério, nem sei por onde começar... Essa foto que dizes que é a única da tua autoria é na verdade da autoria do Metropolitaneano, um colaborador do Skyscrapercity, que é onde a foste buscar. E ele não trabalha em nenhum hospital, tirou a foto numa volta que deu à cidade propositadamente para tirar uma série de fotos de edifícios. A sério, chega de mentiras. É bastante triste para nós aqui no Commons e na Wikipédia ver o trabalho de incrível qualidade que os colaboradores do Skyscraper fazem, e que infelizmente fica retido lá, quando um grande número dos nossos colaboradores brasileiros parece ter-se especializado não em produzir, mas sim em roubar e se apropriar do trabalho dos outros, inclusive dos fotógrafos do SSC, que de certeza que estão a par dessa situação. Isso é terrivelmente desprestigiante para nós, especialmente se queremos que eles passem a colaborar connosco também.
Albergar aqui roubos e plágios abusando das nossas licenças livres é envenenar o Commons e a Wikipédia e destruir a sua reputação. Eu gostava de acreditar que fizeste isso com boa intenção ou por desconhecimento, mas a tua insistência até ao derradeiro momento em afirmar que coisas que não são tuas te pertencem realmente não deixa muita margem. Além disso, fizeste perder a mim e a vários outros tempo bastante precioso, para rastrear, marcar e apagar todos os VDAs que meteste aqui.
O único conselho que te posso dar é que pares de uma vez por todas de mentir, e que carregues apenas fotos que sejam da tua autoria, comprovadamente. Se não insistires mais nas mentiras, provavelmente não te vão bloquear porque este é o teu primeiro problema aqui. Mas se voltar a acontecer, o mais provável é seres banido. Banido sim, porque isto aqui não é bem a Wiki-pt. Se por um lado há muito mais tolerância para com os novatos que na Wiki-pt, por outro lado os reincidentes geralmente são punidos muito mais severamente, muitas vezes com ban perpétuo. Se realmente estás interessado em colaborar, começa por mandar para eliminação todas as fotos que carregaste e que não são tuas e não tenham licença livre.--- Darwin Ahoy! 02:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
O Senhor tem toda a razão sou um perfeito idiota, descarado e mentiroso. Gostaria apenas de me redimir de meus erros assumindo publicamente, colocando também para eliminação aqueles que não são de minha autoria. Quanto ao ficheiro File:Hospital Daher.jpg teve que pedir permissão para nós do Hospital para tirar a foto, por isso me vi no direito de colocá-la na Wikimedia Commons, já que foi cedido tal permissão. Minhas sinceras desculpas! Febo Apolo 00:05 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Eu acho muito estranho que alguém tenha pedido autorização para tirar uma foto do Hospital a partir da estrada (que é do domínio público), especialmente no dia de Reveillon, e especialmente considerando que muitas das fotos tiradas nesse dia foram tiradas de dentro dum carro, que circulou pela cidade fotografando vários prédios sempre a partir da estrada. Mas enfim. Mesmo considerando que isso seja verdade e que a autorização tenha sido pedida (o que duvido muito), o Hospital não teria nunca qualquer direito sobre as imagens, nem teria sequer o poder de dar qualquer autorização.--- Darwin Ahoy! 03:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Devo lhe informar que a foto não foi tirada numa estrada como você diz que foi e sim nos limites de dentro do Hospital. Sei disso porque trabalho lá e como prova disso abrirei um ficheiro de uma foto tirada por mim mesmo para provar que o suposto fotografo não tirou fotos na estrada e sim dentro da área do hospital, com isso não sendo de Dominio Publico. Agora uma vez tirada as fotos dentro dos limites do Hospital tem sim o poder de dar ou não autorização das imagens. O dono do Hospital, o Dr. José Carlos Daher, dá autorização de acordo com as intenções de divulgação das fotos tiradas. Obrigado!!! Febo Apolo 00:05, 4 June 2011
Tem razão, não foi da estrada, foi uns metros ao lado no parque de estacionamento. Se esse espaço é público ou não, realmente não vem ao caso, pois nem sequer tem autorização do fotógrafo para publica-la aqui. O que me custa a perceber, francamente, é porque não tira você as fotos e as publica aqui, em vez de usar o trabalho dos outros. Isso, sim, seria um excelente contributo para este projecto.--- Darwin Ahoy! 05:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Bem, se o autor tem ou não autorização para divulgar esta foto (Hospital Daher) isto não é problema meu e nem me interessa o que ele faz ou deixa de fazer com a foto. Eu apenas supus de como a foto foi tirada do hospital tendo em vista a autorização do hospital poderia ser de uso livre. Mas tudo bem! deixa isso para lá. Não quero mais saber dessa foto. Como você mesmo disse eu vou tirar a foto lá do hospital e vou publicá-la aqui. Só o que eu te peço é que não delete as fotos tiradas por mim, como da Basilica de Trindade, Goiás onde eu mesmo tirei e onde meus avós moram, pois sempre viajo para lá. Inclusive gostaria de saber como faço para apagar um ficheiro? pois uma das fotos ficaram turvas, pois fiz o upload da foto errada. Também não sei se você notou que eu mesmo mandei para eliminação as fotos que eu não havia tirado como voce mesmo me aconselhou. Mostrando com isso o meu arrependimento e pedindo pelo menos um voto de confiança. Sei que isso é dificil aceitar depois de tantas mentiras que eu disse. Mas por favor, me dê um voto de confiança?! E mais uma vez minhas sinceras e humildes desculpas por todos os transtornos que te fiz passar! Muito obrigado. Febo Apolo 00:20 5 June 2011.
Ok. É relativamente simples de salvar essas fotos. Se carregares fotos recentes (ou da mesma altura) tiradas com a mesma câmara, isso contribui bastante para afastar as suspeitas de fraude. Para apagar uma foto usas {{speedy}}, mas à primeira vista parece-me que qualquer uma das duas fotos pode ser mantida. Na dúvida, nestes casos, deves nomear para eliminação, com um {{delete}}.--- Darwin Ahoy! 07:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi, in case you are interested I have hacked a copy of the cat-a-lot code to allow me to use it on uncategorized files (or any files that are categorized via templates). I also limited the size of its side panel as I find it gets in the way of the files that I'm trying to mark for categorization. Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about programming in java-script so if you want to use my version, it is 100% at your own risk :-). But having said that, the changes I made were trivial. Unlike the hotcat script, it doesn't remove the categorizing (or uncategorized) templates, it just allows you to add a category. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Tony, I'll have a look on that, definitively. The size of cat-a-lot when there are many options gets so big tht the upper part is often off-screen. It's in your script folder, right?
BTW, what about that project on categorization of uncated files? I've been noticing people working there which seem to be more aimed at cleaning the category at all costs than properly categorizing files, and simply categorise them in a top category (like Brazil) or in something not related at all with the subject (Kirche Maria in Limbach ended up in "Kirche Limpach", a completely unrelated building in a different village, meaning that the destiny category was not even checked). This should not be happening, it could be argued that bad, hasty categorisation is worst than no categorization at all.--- Darwin Ahoy! 03:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it is at User:Tony_Wills/common.js (remember to turn off cat-a-lot in your gadget preferences, I'm not sure what happens if you have both enabled). I played around with having 'copy' 'move' and 'add' options, but the .css code appears to only be setup to display two options and there is not much difference between 'add' and 'copy' except 'copy' adds the new category right under the current category (and of course doesn't work if the current category is in a template). So I just left in 'move' and 'add'. ('move' of course still doesn't work for uncategorized images).
I agree that wrong categorization is worse than no category at all, but given the size of the problem I do think that just about any categorization is better than none, at least that way files get into the category system, and can be moved to a more refined category later. The trouble is that with no categories it is hard to use a lot of the other tools. Cat-a-lot can of course only add one category at a time (unless I'm missing something!) so it is most useful in moving a block of files from one category to another. On my tests I added things like "black and white photographs". I also added top level categories like "portraits", which I expect will be a real pain for whoever tries to keep that category clear. I could have moved them to things like "portraits of men" and "portraits of women" but that tends to hide the fact that they aren't yet properly categorized. Also some subcategories tend to assume that a portrait is a painting, not a photograph. There is limited refinement you can do when all you've got to go by is the thumbnails.
I think one thing that we are really lacking is completed category schemes for everything, then maybe we would get away from so many ad-hoc sub-categories. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
My hope is that the category schemes will self generate from use (what Foroa often says about organic growth). What annoys me on hasty categorization of uncated files is being there categorising some series of pictures, and then notice that some are disappearing from the uncated media list. When I follow the user contributions to see what happened to them, I find that someone just removed them from the uncated media list by adding something as useful as "Brazil". However, with the current rate of many hundreds of files being uploaded without categories per day, I don't really have a solution for that. Especially since I often burn out in that category and get too tired for doing more specialized and interesting work, like uploading selected files or organizing categories.
About cat-a-lot, there's a trick you can do to use it to place the files in multiple categories with it: First copy, copy, copy, and when you reach the last cat you want to add, move. Maybe you already knew this, and it is not exactly what you asked, but just in case. :) --- Darwin Ahoy! 04:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
(no I don't need talk-back messages, I'll watch your page if I am expecting a reply :-). The trouble with the organic growth model, is that there is some sort of growth hormone in the system, things sprout from all over the place and you have to keep hacking off chunks that grow out of control :). Actually, I try not to get involved in categorizing things these days (although it is always tempting ;-). I decided long ago that the file descriptions are what actually matter, preferably in multiple languages. It is really hard to get enthusiasm for categories when people want to keep changing how things are categorized and are forever modifying the structure and renaming things (just come back in a year or so, and see if everything has moved). Where-as no one bothers with the descriptions much, so there is not so much fighting :-).
Well from my test 'add's with cat-a-lot, you will find lots of '{{uncategorized}}' files with categories added, but they are still in the uncat list so they won't have disappeared :-).
Anyway, if you do use it, let me know (you're the beta tester ;-). If I haven't caused any big problems with it I will mention it on the cat-a-lot talk page, there's nothing like forking a programming project to get a bit of action on the main trunk code - perhaps someone will do the mod properly (with a move option) :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'm using it now. I've now understood your stratagem of adding the files to top categories, and it's good indeed that they are not removed from the uncat list, so that people still see them there and may do some more proper categorization, while adding the possibility of such categorization to be done as well in the top categories. I'll start doing it now as well, at least for some files.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
If you've grabbed a recent copy of my js you will find some extra junk on the end which isn't releated to cat-a-lot.
What categories to add depends a little on how others are processing their areas of interest. For instance when I add category:Diagrams someone was moving them to Category:Unidentified diagrams, so I now move them directly there. I have created a private hidden category Category:Tony Wills temp category and filled it with top level categories of things that I can easily identify from thumbnails. I then use that as the root category in cat-a-lot, and can easily just click on the category I want to add. That increases my productivity in that I can add categories to small groups of images more efficiently (without wasting a lot of time typing in category names), so I can therefore be slightly more refined in what level of category I add, and can easily switch to adding a different category when I find images that I've missed.
I think it is being a useful excercise, from my watchlist I see that many images are being found and moved to better categories. But I have now turned off automatically adding images, that I edit, to my watchlist as it was getting unmanegable. I trust people will complain if they don't like what I am doing ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've got the extra junk as well, don't know what it is, though. :)
Let's see how this works... I can't get rid of the habit of adding everything I edit to my watch list, though, therefore I generally only categorise what I find interesting.--- Darwin Ahoy! 04:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Darwinius, já que a wiki-pt carece em artigos sobre vampiros... você pode criar artigos sobre vampiros e destacar o artigo pt:Vampiro. Você é uma pessoa interessada e dedicada sobre esse tema. Boas edições. Eduardo P (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

make a sound for me?[edit]

Saw that you had that ragtime sound on your page. Will you make a sound for me? I have the sheet music and the composition is old enough to be PD (at least in the US). A Midi file or (if you play) piano) would do me. Can you? TCO (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello TCO, unfortunately I never studied music, and though I do have an old French piano at my parents home, all the attempts I've made at playing ragtime pieces were completely disgraceful. I believe that some Commons users are producing material of that sort, however, but I can't tell you any particular one. Perhaps looking at the uploaders of the ragtime music files and contacting them would be helpful?--- Darwin Ahoy! 22:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi Darwinius. First I would like to apologize for sounding harsh because I was a little frustrated. Now, I don't see anything to prove with the scenarios here. You know who the author of those images was, so you used {{copyvio}}. Unlike the DR, where no one could provide an author or evidence that it wasn't the uploader's work (up until Lupo showed us of course). Using no permission for cases where you are not sure if the uploader is the third party source is okay, I never said it wasn't. But that wasn't the case with the DR. There was no author for anyone to say "oh, the uploader could be that person so let's use no permission". You already knew for a fact that the author of those paintings was Michel Delmas. Therefore it was okay to use either no permission or copyvio. I don't understand how anyone could say "obvious copyvio" when they don't have the evidence. Why not just say something like "less likely to be own work" or "uploader has uploaded copyvios so I don't trust him" like many DRs do? And since those descriptions would be more suitable, they would not warrant neither copyvio nor npd tags. --ZooFari 16:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Michel Delmas I didn't knew if all paintings were from him, as some of them were only marked as "own work", if I well recall. I would never mark them as copyvio myself, but when I found them they were almost all already marked as copyvios and the damage was already done (including very unfair accusations of self promotion against the painter in his talk), so I marked the last two and deleted them all, removed the accusations from his talk and left that polite message explaining that the works were deleted to protect the copyright of the painter, in the hopes that if he was really the painter it would flatter him a bit. The deletion also had the advantage that he noticed it in his own wiki, and promptly resolved the issue (this was all in the day he uploaded the paintings). The trick worked out and he started the correct authorization procedures almost immediately, the images were undeleted and all ended well, possibly even better than with no-permission tags, though this kind of thing is like playing Russian roulette.
In the case of that celebrity, or subcelebrity or whatever it was, I would possibly not tag it as no-permission myself, though I don't see it as wrong tagging. It's a simple way of solving the problems with images you somehow *know* are copyvios, but have not the means to prove it. A DR also works in those cases, though it's much less efficient. A DR may stay opened for weeks or months, and meanwhile there is no clear information on the file directly hinting it may be a copyvio. The no-permission tag, on the other hand, not only places a very clear warning that there are problems with the licensing of that file, but makes sure the file is gone in 7 days and sends an informative warning to the uploader, which is very useful if he after all was the copyright holder of the file, or possess a free license for it. That's why I very sincerly believe the no-permission tags should be used and abused in every situation they may be helpful, since I consider them to be the most useful of all tags.
About "obvious copyvio", there are other ways to say that. I usually use the milder "Grabbed from the web and uploaded with bogus license" in many of the copyvios I mark, since it describes exactly what happened (I usually deal with FAL licenses), and means the same as "obvious copyvio" without offending anyone. However, when you are reviewing football pictures uploaded by someone, and you already passed your 20th copyvio and there are still 40 to go, there is no other way to state it. It's easier to delete them all with such a message, instead of fastidiously searching for the original sources for each image which you already know is an obvious copyvio.--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, an example of an obvious misuse of the no permission tag is this one. I left Shizhao a note, though he's not alone among trusted users in such kind of misunderstandings.--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Coats of arms[edit]


I had an argument with User:Fry1989 on categorizing coat of arms elements as Coat of arms, and I noticed that you had made earlier this change (now basically reverted by Fry1989) in similar case than what I have now in my hands. Do you still agree that we should have only coat of arms in these coat of arms -categories, and elements should be put in corresponding categories instead? --Care (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Care, I'm sorry for talking back so late, I only recalled this when I saw your message in the AN now. I have reverted it now, thanks for noticing it, those categories were redundant. I really don't know what to answer about your other question, I have that doubt as well.--- Darwin Ahoy! 05:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Like mentioned in my notice this was further discussed in WikiProject:Heraldry, and we came into same conclusion as you did - which was really not a surprise as you have been contributing to the same project as well. I was trying to solve this by creating an appropriate category for heraldic badges like proposed by User:AnonMoos, but obviously nothing but CoA-category is enough for Fry1989. --Care (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Is this dispute only about SVG files, or it involves other files as well? Maybe he's trying to place all the SVG stuff relating to a certain coat of arms or motif together? I've had a similar question here about the yoke of Ferdinand, and in all cases where there are images of the elements of the coat of arms. I find some logic in placing them inside the coat of arms category, even if they are not coats of arms themselves.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Currently it is only about this particular file even though he did the same for awhile for other files as well. This case should be clear as the image is not even trying to be a part of CoA but a logo - he just took the lion from CoA of Finland. But my point here is that if we start pushing elements into CoA-categories, it makes real CoAs difficult to find. This may not be a problem in very specific categories like yours, but in cases like mine where hundreds of different CoAs are involved the situation could easily get out of control. --Care (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
If you find yours a problem, you should see the party that's going on here ;) I understand your point. However, this may be a larger issue, it is not that clear to me that SVG cats should have a parallel tree. Some people seem to disagree with those kind of parallel trees, it has been mentioned at times in VP. Another problem with them is people removing files cated as "SVG CoA of something" from "CoA of something" as if it was redundant. In non-SVG cats it is obvious what to do, but my understanding is that the system in which SVG CoAs, elements, and other related heraldic stuff are categorised is somewhat ill defined.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Any idea how to proceed? I have done basically everything I could - opened discussion in WikiProject Heraldry and got support for my actions, categorized the files properly and justified the changes, but this is just not getting anywhere. --Care (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
There are two situations here, in my view. One is Fry1989 behaviour, the other is a much larger problem with SVG categorization. You got support for the proper identification of that drawing: It's a badge, not a coat of arms. If Fry1989 insists in placing it inside a non-SVG CoA category it is wrong and against consensus.
The SVG structure, however, is more confuse. I believe it is aimed at the projects and reusers, but also at Commons users dealing with SVGs. Maybe a parallel category structure is justified, maybe it is redundant and the same result can be reached by crossing the categories. This is something that should be debated broadly, with the Heraldry Project and calling in the main SVG contributors, including Fry1989, to gather opinions and reach some conclusion about it. Maybe I'm seeing this wrongly and this SVG problem has nothing to do with the current conflict (it's difficult to understand Fry1989 rational sometimes). I believe this is a debate that needs to take place anyways, nevertheless.--- Darwin Ahoy! 19:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I opened this one for discussion in WikiProject:Heraldry. However, now Fry1989 is continuing to categorize even a non-CoA derived element as a CoA of Finland. --Care (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

India : Categorisation[edit]

Hi, as imho pointed before, please use useful categories and don't over-categorize your images, i.e. please do not categorize (an example of your recent activity):

Category:1858 engravings +
Category:People of India etc.


Category:1846 engravings +
Category:India in art +
Category:Buildings in India etc.

You'll help to save time and capacity on commons by categorizing:

Category:Engravings of people from India etc.


Category:Religious buildings of India in art etc.

Please use as far as possible the 'most fitting"' category(ies). Do not add - in addition - the categories of the "parent category", among them cities, states and countries and people and buildings etc.

For further information on categories please read Commons:Categories referring to an accurate categorisation, simplifying your further uploads and categorisation in general. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the commons:help desk.

Thank you for your assistance, Roland 11:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I always do that when the category exists and I can't detect it. If I had not done that it's either because the category does not exists yet, or I couldn't find it. I defy you to show even *one* case where I have over categorized something, since every category you pointed out that I added is mutually exclusive. I was categorizing hundreds or thousands of material from the ILN, I don't have the time to do extensive research to know exactly what is what. If you have that time, then great, do your thing, but don't come here picking on me for not doing even more than I do. And please, don't remove useful categories, has you have done in the past, simply because you don't know where to put the file.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, if what you meant by all that wording above is that I should be creating categories such as Category:1867 engravings of people from Kolkata, then you must review your notions of overcategorization, because that is exactly what overcat is, besides being quite silly.--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, in general, referring to the categorisation of (India related) media, from my side imho i tried at least to explain the facts, nothing more, without any personal comments. Therefore for me that topic is once more closed – interested readers of this thread may refer to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 20 as of 8 June 2011.
Referring to your 'questions' – my English seems very bad, i'm not sure those where questions, and [quotation Darwinius] "... And please, don't remove useful categories, has you have done in the past, simply because you don't know where to put the file ..." [quotation end], so i list 'just facts':
  1. Category:Delhi + Category:India in art (Arminius) vs Category:Historical images of Delhi + Category:Sepoys in art (mine) speaks for itself.
  2. Category:People of India + Category:Regiments (Arminius) vs Category:Engravings of people from India (mine) may speak for itself.
  3. Category:Buildings in India + Category:India in art (Arminius) vs Category:Religious buildings of India in art (mine) may speak for itself. btw: some more re-categorizations already were done some day ago.
  4. [quotation Darwinius] "... if what you meant by all that wording above is that I should be creating categories such as Category:1867 engravings of people from Kolkata, then you must review your notions of overcategorization, because that is exactly what overcat is, besides being quite silly. ..." [quotation end]. Nobody said so, but, now seriously, in a very far future it could be helpfull to create sub-categories as p.e. Category:Engravings of women of India as p.e. subcat of Category:Women of India in art.
Please let us finally close such claimed 'discussions' and concentrate to our 'individual goals' within Wikimedia commons, thx & regards, Roland 18:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Then, please explain what the hell is "Historical images of Delhi", and why does it excludes "India in art" for engravings, "Historical images" is a name that should not even be used for any cat, as it's too broad. What are those? Photos? Engravings? Paintings? And how do you decide they are "historical"? That category should be deleted and all images moved to proper categories such as "Delhi in the 19th century", which has an objective meaning. In any case, it does not exclude "India in art". Photos are "historical images", and are not art, generally.
Category:People of India + Category:Regiments is not the same as Category:Engravings of people from India. I don't know why you say that.
Category:Buildings in India + Category:India in art is only equal to Category:Religious buildings of India in art if it is a religious building and the building itself is already classified. If it is not, the image should not be removed from "Buildings in India", even if it already is in Category:Religious buildings of India in art.
I still beg you to show a single case where I have overcategorized the files. You have not done so until the moment. --- Darwin Ahoy! 19:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Engravings of women of India and the likes are indeed useful cats. But I only organize one thing at a time, or else all my time would be consumed on a single file. I'm always unwillingly dispersing myself without doing that... --- Darwin Ahoy! 19:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Glebionis ou Chrysanthemun?[edit]

Olá Darwinius, tens a certeza de que a mudança que fizeste, de Category:Glebionis coronaria para Category:Chrysanthemum coronarium está correcta? Acontece que começou por ser Chrysanthemum e é a segunda vez que se muda, de um lado para o outro... Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Olá! Pois, estava agora mesmo a investigar isso. Eu alterei porque a fonte do wikispecies ([4]) dava o Chrysanthemum como nome principal, e é assim que está também no artigo da wiki-en. Mas depois ao procurar mais fundo encontrei isto, e sobretudo isto, que refere inclusivamente o processo de alteração da nomenclatura ([5]). Vou voltar a colocar tudo como estava, e acrescentar uam nota com as fontes sobre o assunto, a ver se mais ninguém cai no mesmo engano que eu. Abraço, --- Darwin Ahoy! 12:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


salut pkt as enlever la photo de mestiri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnen1985 (talk • contribs)

Salut, non, ce n'était pas moi, je seulement l'ai marqué comme manquant autorisation. Si vous avez la permission de le télécharger, s'il vous plaît envoyez-le à OTRS, comme expliqué, de cette façon l'image peut être conservé. Cdl, --- Darwin Ahoy! 20:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
envoyez-le à OTRS cest quoi ca OTRS jai rien compris— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnen1985 (talk • contribs)
S'il vous plaît lisez Commons:OTRS/fr, c'est tout expliqué là.--- Darwin Ahoy! 10:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


Hey man, I think this photo is like upside down. It is advisable to keep the beer to a minimum just before rotating files in Commons... :) Cheers, --Fulviusbsas (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL No, it's right, it was photographed from rear to front ehehehhe --- Darwin Ahoy! 00:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I've uploaded a "corrected" version - File:Tumulo estacio sa-2.jpg - which is easier to look at.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I got it now, it's the photographer that took that photo that should stick to mineral water... Great job on the retouched picture!! Now someone should get it into the "Estácio de Sá" article. I'll try to do it later. Best, --Fulviusbsas (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

File:BSicon 0101.svg[edit]

Please stop restoring this redirect! The file was originally uploaded with a "placeholder" name (in the category "experimental") for discussion. It has since been renamed twice while naming issues were resolved. There is absolutely no need to keep it any longer! (And the "user pages" that you refer to are actually automated lists that pick up any newly-uploaded file that starts with "BSicon...".

Thank you for you cooperation and understanding. Useddenim (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. You need the placeholder to be free, is that what you mean? From what I understand, as a rule redirects should not be deleted, but if you need the placeholder it is indeed a valid reason to delete it.--- Darwin Ahoy! 11:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@Useddenim: There were two user talk pages with small BS-boxes using this icon. I fixed even those occurances (although I'm not sure whether   (STR3+r) or   (STR+3) was intended to be used).

The valid reason to delete all obsolte BSicons is there are thousands of them, and they (mostly) follow a strict and consisting naming scheme (that in fact has to evolve, too). We need to clean up all unused redirects and wrong labeled BSicons to get the situation under control! a×pdeHello! 13:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If that is part of a project or an otherwise planned action, as you seem to imply, I have no business restoring those redirects. But it should be stated in the delete reason to avoid this kind of confusions, since the redirect was indeed in use.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File:10,000 Gs.jpg[edit]

Hi, a 2D reproduction of a 2D work doesn't create a new copyright situation. The question is if the money itself is non-free. That differs from country to country and for Paraguay I couldn't find the answer. I think this will need at least a normal DR, so that we can investigate the legal situation. Jcb (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, this should have gone by normal DR, I apologise for the mistake. 2D works don't create new copyright, indeed.--- Darwin Ahoy! 10:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem :-) - Jcb (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

Hi Darwinius. Can you please delete this logo since it's a copyrighted logo taken from here? Thank you in advance. --yabancım 09:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Yabancı! I took a look at that, and according to current Commons policy, that logo is not "copyrightable" actually, since it's only text and simple geometric shapes. I corrected the source and license according to that and the data you provided, nonetheless. Cheers, --- Darwin Ahoy! 10:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't notice that. Thank you then. --yabancım 11:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Escudos de futebol[edit]

Olá Darwin. Eu concordo com o fato de alguns escudos serem simples em demasia para serem protegidos por direitos autorais. Mas, ao meu ver, há ainda outro ponto importante: o fato da pessoa que carregou não ser o autor da imagem. Assim como acontece com as bandeiras e brasões (ou deveria acontecer), mesmo que o símbolo esteja em domínio público não são aceitos obras que não tenham sido criados pelo usuário (ou expressamente licenciada pelo autor) -- tal como comentado em Commons:Deletion requests/File:Standard of the President of Botswana.JPG. Isso é o que impede que pessoas carreguem bandeiras do FOTW para o Commons. Giro720 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Desde que seja uma representação 2D, como é o caso, o autor da imagem não tem grande importância, por isso se for textlogo tanto faz para o Commons se é se obra própria ou alheia. Não é assim em todos os países, mas nos Estados Unidos é, e foi testado em tribunal. O caso dos brasões é diferente, ao contrário dos emblemas de clubes de futebol, eles podem ser criados por seja quem for com base na definição do brasão. Isto é válido para os brasões que seguem a heráldica tradicional Europeia, que não se aplica à maioria dos brasões brasileiros (e sul-americanos, em geral). Esses possivelmente vão estar sempre debaixo de copyright, a menos que sejam anteriores a 1983.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Em relação às bandeiras do FOTW, desde que se enquadrem em textlogo ou shape, podem ser transportadas para o Commons sem qualquer problema. No caso de alguns países em que os símbolos governamentais são domínio público, mesmo as bandeiras mais elaboradas podem ser colocadas aqui sem problema, independentemente de quem as desenhou.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Bom saber que mais alguém esteve de olho na votação daquela predefinição xD. É uma pena que a lei brasileira não expresse explicitamente, como é feito em outros países, de que símbolos oficias estariam em DP. Eu estou a procurar se o Vaticano concede brasões de armas para as intituições a ela associada (como as Universidade), assim como faz para com os arcebispos e cardeais; se souber de algo, me avise. Aproveito e deixo uma segunda pergunta: posso marcar como {{OTRS pending}} as imagens que são carregadas já com um ticket OTRS (e cujo uploader não seja um dos revisores do OTRS)? Giro720 (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)



It is interesting to see you sockpuppet-findings in last time. Do you have a special strategy how you detect such accounts? Latest issue: User:Hammurabi90 (sockpuppet of Richards88). --High Contrast (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol - No, it's only casualty and good memory. I happened to have been looking at Richards88 uploads trying to find a source for them (at least for the painting), and so I was familiar with that specific brand of uploads. ;) --- Darwin Ahoy! 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
So, it was more a coincidental success? --High Contrast (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not a witch or the like, though I've had some success at recognizing sockpuppets at my home wiki, mainly thanks to good memory (and some degree of inspiration as well).--- Darwin Ahoy! 19:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
You are kidding. I've thought you were a witch, for sure. Face-devil-grin.svg Ruy Pugliesi 14:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You, you talk page stalker, better a witch than a fairy...! Face-devil-grin.svg--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−

Um presente para nosso administrador de seus companheiros...

Darwinius, parabéns! Você agora tem direitos de administrador no Commons. Por favor tire um momento para ler a página Commons:Administrador e vigiar páginas relacionadas (em particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard e Commons:Deletion requests), antes de se lançar nas deleções de páginas, protecção de páginas, bloqueio de contas ou modificações de páginas protegidas. A maioria das acções dos administradores podem ser revertidas por outros administradores, excepto fusões de históricos, que deve ser assim tratados com o determinado cuidado.

Por favor sinta-se livre para juntar-se a nós no IRC: #wikimedia-commons no Há também um canal para administradores do Commons, o qual pode ser útil para tópicos mais sensíveis, ou a coordenação de administradores: #wikimedia-commons-admin.

Considere juntar-se também ao #wikimedia-admin, o canal de coordenação cross-wiki para administradores da Wikimedia. Pergunte a algum operador do canal por uma isenção de convite (ou para que alguém no canal possa /convidá-lo temporariamente). Todos os administradores de todos os projectos são bem-vindos.

Você pode achar Commons:Guide to adminship uma leitura útil.

Por favor também verifique ou acrescente a sua entrada na lista de administradores e as listas relacionadas por idioma e data.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, though I came too late to your rfa. --Túrelio (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the team! --AFBorchert (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the team. You may find my notes for administrators useful.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Parabéns! E quando puder apareça no MSN... ;) Abraço, RafaAzevedo (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your confidence and kind welcoming. Thanks for the gift, James. I'll probably harass some of you in your talk page in the first times, asking for advice. ;) --- Darwin Ahoy! 17:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Darwinius, as you are now an admin, you should add {{administrator}} to your userpage and/or the admin bit to your babel box, so that other users can contact you. --Túrelio (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, we have now granted ourselves the Imperial Highest Majestical Great Order of the Golden Broom, and even opened a lousy beer bottle of Dom Perignon to commemorate it. ;)--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Congrats :-). Try not to waste all your time in deleting images, I think that route leads to despair ;-) And there is other more useful work that needs doing :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh No, not at all... But when I'm wallowing among the uncated media, I prefer to get rid of the bad apples first (unfortunately there are often so many that I end up almost categorizing almost nothing there). I detest to lose time categorizing something that in the end is a copyvio and gets deleted. :S --- Darwin Ahoy! 04:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A bit late, but congratulations! Algumas pessoas na Wiki-pt devem estar se roendo de raiva/inveja, hehe. Mizunoryu (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Obrigado! E tão mesmo, não se cansam de falar nisso por lá. Eu hein? :\ --- Darwin Ahoy! 13:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, certas coisas não mudam nunca. Esse povinho sempre transparente. Mizunoryu (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


I saw that you created categories for "Ships of Madeira". So I have a question. Categories for "Ships of" are intended for ships registered in a certain country, in Category:Ships by country of registration. The Dutch Wikipedia tells us that Madeira is a region of Portugal. Are these ships registered in Madeira as a country or just as the harbour where they are registered? Because in my opinion in the last case they are to be registered in Portugal and following that, as "Ships of Portugal". --Stunteltje (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Stunteltje. Yes, we are an Autonomous Region, and not a country, but that's not the point. I've met a few difficulties with the current way of categorization:
  • "Ships of" is a vague and subjective classification, prone to confusion between the concepts of "ships registered in" and "ships owned by". I don't know when the actual ship registering system started, but it certainly do not encompasses our carracks, but they still are "ships of Portugal". On the other hand, a Russian ship sailing under Portuguese flag is not exactly a "ship of Portugal" in some interpretations. In order to resolve that, I suggest another category named "Ships registered in" should be created.
  • I understand that ships are registered in ports, and Madeira (Funchal) is one of them. Other Portuguese ports issuing registrations are Lisbon, Viana do Castelo, Horta and Ponta Delgada, and some more. I don't know how it works exactly, but apparently big ships are registered in MAR (Madeira), while fishing ships, ferries and small passenger boats are registered in Funchal (FN), in our case. Anyway, there should be possible to expand the "Ships registered in" down, to include the ports of registry. I tried to find some way to classify them using the actual categories, but I couldn't.
The port of registration is an important classification which should not be neglected, not only because it's a significant part of the economy of some ports, like ours, but also because it helps finding the categories for images here, by looking at the ship rear side where the port of registration is.
Since this has a significant impact on the actual classification tree, I have not unilaterally started to build this system, but I hope you can give some feedback on it.--- Darwin Ahoy! 11:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I just spoke by phone with Comandante ..., one of the persons in charge of Registo Internacional de Navios da Madeira, who kindly explained that there are two systems of registry, one international (MAR - Madeira, the only one in Portugal, created in 1989) and another conventional, issued by each Capitania (the port authority), the FN-XXXX-L. Therefore in Madeira we have two "ports" issuing registrations, Funchal and Madeira. All those ships sail under Portuguese flag. I would like to reflect this in the images classification, something like "Ships registered in Portugal->Ships registered in Madeira->Ships registered in Madeira(MAR)+Ships registered in Funchal. Feasible? --- Darwin Ahoy! 11:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast and clear answer. I have no problem at all with extra categories, created under the Category:Ships of Portugal as you suggest. It can work for other countries too, as long as the flag country is mentioned. Because the flag is important for legal reasons. The country sets the law on board, e.g. the number of seaman, the quality and papers of the officers, the obliged certifications of the ship and so on. If the regulations of a country, seeing the aging of the schip, is too strict, the ship flies to countries as Panama, Liberia, Cyprus. (I was born in Rotterdam, one of the biggest harbour cities in the world. But most sea-going ships form the Netherlands have different harbours of registration. My own barge is registered in Zoetermeer, the place where I live. The biggest crude-oil tankers from Shell were registered in The Hague. Their beam was too wide for the piers of the harber.) I see only one (not too big) problem. It is rather difficult to find the harbour of registration on images in Commons. Only specialists with a hell of a lot of spare time can find all these harbours for the ships in Commons. So as an extra: perfect, not in place of. --Stunteltje (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you - (So as an extra: perfect, not in place of). I'll implement this system for Portugal, then, and if others find it interesting/valuable, they could expand it under that tree. If you see something you don't agree with there, please say so. I believe the ship categorization system is one of the best things we have, and I do no want to mess it up.--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


I am glad that you are happy with the present ship-categorisation. In line with that categorisation is, that we use the date of completion of the ship for the year of built and the categorisation by name . As far as I can find for the Lancastria in the English Wikipedia was her Maiden voyage: 19 June 1922. The Dutch gives as date of completion 13 juni 1922. So according to that scheme the schip had been built in 1922. The trouble is, that different countries use different system. The French and German mostly the year of completion, the English the year of launch. In Commons we had a discussion and for a number of reasons we choose for the year of completion. Mostly because not-specialist can find the year of completion in papers and other publications. The year of launch is sometimes hard to find for very old ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the National Maritime Museum, London, that information is wrong: The 'Lancastria' made her maiden voyage in 1924, but before it was the 'Tyrrhenia', launched in 1920: "Launched in 1920 as the 'Tyrrhenia' for the Anchor Line, a subsidiary of Cunard, she made her maiden voyage on 19 June 1922. Just two years later she was refitted and renamed 'Lancastria'.". The ship was built in 1920. The category for the Lancastria is also wrong, and should be Category:Lancastria (ship, 1924), since in 1922 it was the 'Tyrrhenia'. The wikipedia information is probably mistaken.--- Darwin Ahoy! 07:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Awnn.. I'm confused. Just looked at Category:American Star (ship, 1940) - So, we always use the year of "built" for the category. And you say it's 1922 for Lancastria? But if it was launched in 1920, it must have been built by then, no?--- Darwin Ahoy! 07:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
No. It takes a certiain time to complete a ship, in times of crisis or for naval ships sometimes years. And it is difficult for not-specialists to find the date of launch in newspapers, where the date or year of completion or first commissioning is much easier. When you check other ships with different names, you will find that we only used one date of completion, even after refitting or renaming. The year mentioned in the category-name is the year of completion of the vessel or first commissioning (for naval ships), even when a ship is renamed. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe you, and do not oppose that system, but I would like to know how can something that is not built, be launched. It's just the hulk that they launch to the sea?--- Darwin Ahoy! 08:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It depends. Some small ships need only a couple of weeks, some are more or less complete when launched. Barges here in the Netherlands are mostly built on slipways and don't need much work afterwards. Big ships can be very complete when they were built in drydock. But the first sea-going vessel where I designed the engine-room panels and switchboards for was even transferred from one shipyard to another. (MS Gooiland, from RDM to Piet Smit to be completed half a year later.) At IHC in Kinderdijk they built dredge ships in a construction hall and can sometimes only launch the hull with part of the deckhouse. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your explanation, it's now perfectly clear why the date of first commission should be used. One more doubt: How to classify old sailing ships of which the date of first commission is uncertain? I have this English brig Dart with a number of illustrations, until it was wrecked here at Funchal during the big storms of 1842. In 1845 a new brig with the same name was launched to serve in the same line. How to distinguish the two? And those are "ships of the line" rather than "ocean liners", correct?--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
When the date or year of completion or first commisioning cannot be found, there is no alternative and we have to use the date of launch. If someone finds the correct date, we can always change the category and transfer the images afterwards. Like everywhere in Wikipedia: if someone knows better, please change. Categorising old ships is alway difficult. I have a lot of sites in my system where I check these dates. e.g. or And you are correct: ocean liners are the old passenger ships transferring persons from Europe to America. Ships of the line are the big sailing naval ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)