User talk:Foroa

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome on my talk page

I reply to messages on this talk page on this talk page. For readability, it is preferred to keep the discussions on the talk page where the discussion started, unless specifically requested otherwise.

I can read English, Dutch, French and some German. I'll do my best to reply in the language of the requester (except German, just too rusty) but don't laugh at me.

User talk:Foroa/archive 2007 - User talk:Foroa/archive 2008 - User talk:Foroa/archive 2009

Contents

[edit] About time......

that you get this

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Nice work with maintaining categories, Foroa. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You always pop up in my watchlist too ;) Specifically, User:CommonsDelinker/commands. Thanks for taking your time, espescially in the category area. Best, --Kanonkas(talk) 19:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate. --Foroa (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please talk !

Hello. You have undone three of my edits (1 2 and 3). Since Category:Snail redirect to Category:Gastropoda, Category:Escargots (food)‎ should be a subcategory of Category:Gastropoda, isn't it ? --Dodoïste (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you had undone my prior edits. The logic here is topdown as mostly on commons: culture --> cuisine --> Escargots --> species (Helix, Gastropeda), like you have country --> city --> street --> buildings, cooking --> food --> Breads --> Flour ---> Cereals --> Wheat --> Triticum --> Triticum species, animals ---> Domesticated animals --> Dogs --> Canis --> Canis species, Cloths --> Tissues --> Flax ---> Linum species. I admit that it is not always easy and many folks link cats and subcats in the wrong direction (or in a circular way to adopt both points of views). A redirect is a "translation" or a particular interpretation of a translation, so has no influence on the categorisation. Snail has several meanings so could be redirected to many other things too. I hope I am clear as this is not always easy to explain. --Foroa (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I do agree with that. However, I still think that Escargot is a subcategory of Gastropoda. Though it is quite hard for me to explain it in english, I will try.
So the category gastropoda contains various types of snails and slugs. But escargot refers only to edible snails. So escargot is more specific then snail or gastropoda, don't you agree ?
I have another question. Since the category gastropoda contains both snails and slugs (and many others such as Aplysia), why is Category:snail empty ? It would be more specific and correct than gastropoda. We had it discussed on the french Wiki. Since you are fr-2, I guess you will understand. Dodoïste (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem, in reading French, I would classify myself in fr-4 (you are doing very good in English anyway). I'll come back to it later, but for now, I would say that in the context of escargots (food), gastropoda should not point to it, only the specific species (that may be different from country to country). Gastropoda should maybe only point to escargots in the "broad" sense. In the mean time, you can ask yourself how you would link species to broader contextual categories such as tomato/potatoes (same family) to vegetables/fruits/féculents, potirons/melons/concombres to fruits/vegetables, the various "degrees" of champignons. Or try to figure out how you would map boeuf to species, especially when taking the specialised meanings in butchery and astrology contexts into account. --Foroa (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I am an active editor on the french WP, I do understand the topdown logic with categories. I think the following arborescence would be better :
Category:Mollusca
│
└─> Category:Gastropoda
   │
   │
   ├─> Category:Snail
   │  │
   │  ├─> Category:Snails in art
   │  │
   │  ├─> Category:Snails of Galicia
   │  │
   │  ├─> Category:Snails in Japan
   │  │
   │  └─> Category:Escargots (food)
   │  
   │  
   │
   ├─> Category:Stylommatophora
   │
   ├─> etc.
   │ 
   └─> Category:Basommatophora

So we could separate the species arborescence from the thing related to the snails only, such as the food, art and countries. What do you think ? Dodoïste (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We tend to put the general/wider categories higher than the narrower/preciser taxonomy categories, so I think that the following is more versatile/flexible and provides better isolation between the taxonomy discipline and the "amateurs":

But this is the way it is usually done (flax, cotton, oranges, melons, dogs, ...); I have no knowledge yet of the existence of a categorisation bible so we have to search sometimes. --Foroa (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You arborescence is fine, I agree with you. I still have one question before we start to edit those categories : what is the wider category for Category:Snails ? Is it Category:Mollusca ? Or in Category:Animals or Category:Animals by common named groups ? Dodoïste (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I did arrange Category:Snails, but you should see this "common naming" as a separate category system that only gets connected "on the side" with the taxonomy system when aboslutely needed. Anyway, a nice example for two category systems that have to coexist, albeit a simple one. Thank you for the constructive cooperation.
For problems with different meanings for the same word (escargot for example), I would suggest to make galleries on commons that explain the things and point to the right commons categories. Anyway, I am completely against linking categories between commons and wikipedias ({{commonscat}}) as they are way too different and evolutive. I feel that any language sensitive conversion should be done at the commons gallery level as this is the most stable and evolutive solution. --Foroa (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Great. :-) It was fine to thave it discussed with you. I feel it constructive too. Much thanks, and maybe we'll meet again later. (^_^) Dodoïste (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Roman bridges

Hi, could you just please leave the topic of Roman bridges alone? As soon as I presented a convincing case and examples for the naming I proposed, you moved the whole discussion under a thin pretense. And that your talk page is dead slow running at 430 kb, shows too, that you do not seem to be interested in discussions. Just let some competent admins do the work. Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, it is no discussion page, and believe me, the last thing I am interested are lengthy, fruitless discussions, but if you continue to rename categories related to Roman bridges despite your better knowledge to new category names which do not comply with Commons standards, one can't help but view your actions as malicious (and not just incompetent), and I am not prepared to stand by the sidelines forever in this matter, because I invested a lot of effort to make the section on Roman bridges work. So I repost my part here again:
  1. "Roman bridge" is a generic name, but "Roman Bridge" is a proper name, which is only logical , since these are all concrete buildings, and concrete things have proper names. Flip through the whole of Commons and Wikipedia.en, and the brackets usage is established everywhere. Examples:

As for the Rimini bridge, I have given you the exact page of my reference, in fact all three names are usual, so we have to make a decision for one name, haven't we? Kind regards

  1. Dear user Foroa, it is not helpful when you remove our discussion just to go ahead with your naming scheme, which I just showed to be not in accordance with WP rules. Again, places names of bridges are to be placed in brackets, not seperated by comma. See e.g. Abteibrücke (Berlin) Please undo your renaming actions. Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Since my move requests have become contentious, because you rejected them, you are invited to give your reasons here: Category talk:Tiberius bridge in Rimini Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Right, some comments:
  • Insulting me does not have any positive impact.
  • The delinker pages are for moves of clearly bad spelled, syntax errors, misnamed categories, along with harmonisation renaming (in/of/from). Whenever there is a fundamental name change, especially when changing proper names or their language, the {{Move}} or COM:CFD is required.
  • In terms of capitalisation and proper names, there are a lot of mistakes, mainly because people mix up the dominating (internet) title cases with the proper names. As you can read in ##Salon_International_de_l.27Agriculture, all generic parts of a proper name should be lower case; Roman bridge, xxx castle, yyy church, zzz valley ... but I don't waste energy in trying to change that. In that respect, the English wikipedia is a mess and certainly not a reference.
  • I moved around close to 10.000 categories, so I think that the global view that I have on the habits and naming rules is probably at least as good as yours. Please stop teaching me what the commons rules are by coming along with a couple of examples to "prove" what the standard is.
  • Please stop making your point by hiding the names of wikipedia articles behind other (piped) names or redirects. That makes me quite suspicious.
  • I prefer the (re-)naming discussions on the category talk pages. I maintain a long talk page (the size of 20 % of a decent picture), mostly for recurring subjects, such as "title cases" above. --Foroa (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
.Hello, please see here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, please see here. Gun Powder Ma (talk)

[edit] Warboel

Hi Foroa. Kun je als categorie specialist hier 'ns naar kijken? Lijkt mij een complete chaos. Lycaon (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

k'èi'm ol een letje in 't ôoge, moa 'k verstoa zynn logic. Nen kortn zot, dus wachtek en bitje of. --Foroa (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Ça va, bedankt. Lycaon (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should have a look into this "creative" category naming. --Foroa (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Requested mergers backlog

Hi Foroa - thanks for the note! Actually just been doing some of them ;-) . . . Cyanopica next, where on checking, Cyanopica cyanus is correct, not as the merger note implies! - MPF (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Symbols by usage

Your talk page is too long to load in my browser, so I'm adding my comment here. In any case, normally you should give some indication of what category you're replacing it with when doing such deletions. AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know that thare are still browsers around that cannot handle the size equalling 20 % of a decent picture, I archived a part, but try to minimize that as it invalidates the links to recurring discussions. Normally, this should be not a problem if you use the + or "add comment" tab.
We (users like Ingolfson and me) are moving up to 1500 categories per month, so I try to document the move destination (or redirect it) for important categories. Despite several requests, bot people seem not be inclined to improve on that. --Foroa (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Volleyball Manager

Hello. Please explain your change. I dont specially like riddle, then i revert you. If you want to remove this tag, tag all files of this category contain. For all this files about a video game called "Volleyball Manager" we dont know the source, we dont have permission, and i will not spend time to tag 10 images. Thanks for your understanding. ~ bayo or talk 18:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You cant tag a complete category with invalid licenses or rights as a whole; each picture needs be checked anyway. I did it for you. --Foroa (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thats just stupid. Its a category about a software. All image have the same status. If we need to delete/request agreement... for one, we need to do the same for every thing. ~ bayo or talk 09:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If the people that own the right release the rights, if some pictures contain the box of the game in background, if a celebrity playing the game is on a picture, if there is a persiflage on the game, ... in short, the category can/could contain legel images, so you cannot tag all contained images by tagging the category. I guess that you can set a warning on the category as is done on some other categories. --Foroa (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please, carefull

Why you breaking current categorisation [1]? ОГПУ is not a КГБ. If you do this, it like you change category "painter" to "human". Of couse, painter is human, but not every human is painter. Please, be carefull, when touching something in different language without full understanding a subject. #!George Shuklin (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

When I saw this and this, I understood the reason why so many categories are since many months or even years in Russian or other non western alphabet. As my search of finding a right name showed, such names are not understood by 99,xx % of the commons users. Most wikipedians will even see most other fonts as square blocs, make it for them literally "chinese". If we can't find an agreement on the use of the character-set for an international cooperation, then we better stop altogether. So if you don't translate, we will do it (some sort of), but then, don't come back to complain about the right name. When looking to the thousands of wrongly named categories, one can see that there is some work left; we would appreciate your cooperation in stead of obstruction. --Foroa (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a position of commons administrator? I have three choses: 1) Upload russian names, categories, etc to make it usefull for russian wiki. (If other people find my work intresting, they can add translation or correctly translate it to english). 2) I'll continue upload images without categories (I can not see meaning to make efforts to create right category, if some random user can it to wrong with motivation "see blocks instead russian" 3) Stop uploading images and move to ru-wiki. Currently, position at ru-wiki says, that free images shall be uploaded to commons. If you insist on changing correct russian names to incorrect english names, this will be nice agrument to continue upload to ru-wiki, where I will has no problems with russian names at all. Feel free to choose any of. #!George Shuklin (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. About diffs. It absolutly ridiculus - text in template says than new category must be "Please provide a category name in English" wich one is clear consesus on _RED_ talk page. Nice, isn't it? #!George Shuklin (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
To close:
  • we do not insist on incorrect names: we try to find names that are readable and hopefully understandable by the majority of the commons community. Accent on "community".
  • Who is excactly community? Users of en-wiki? Of couse, they are legions, of couse they have a majority. But why minore (by user count) languages must obey foreign decision? I has not interest in development of english wiki (it develops pretty nice without me from my point of view), I like to work for russian wiki. Why I must use english language to improve russian wiki? #!George Shuklin (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't understand at all what you mean in your P.S. above --Foroa (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I say, that those template filling is absurd: [2]. Please read this text: It has been proposed below that Category:ОГПУ be renamed and moved to Category:Please provide a category name in English. Reason: English. Upon reaching a clear consensus at Category talk:ОГПУ... (do you really think, that category about ОГПУ shall be named as "Please provide a category name in English"?) Do you see a CLEAR CONSENSUS on RED talk page? May be I miss some very intresting discuss on this red page? Sorry, I has no skills in reading red-linked pages... #!George Shuklin (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a sad problem, and I will come back on that next week as I am very busy in real life right now. --Foroa (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please explain further...

You deleted Category:Satellite dish (Internet)

Could you please point me to where the deletion of this category was discussed?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a problem with the naming of category:Satellite dish (Television) and category:Satellite dish (Internet): both should be in plural. Moreover, the Television got not only the capitalisation wrong but was wrong as most television channels carry radio signals too.
I mean to know that all those satellite dishes are the same (why I am called them for now category:Satellite dishes (residential)), be they for radio, TV, Internet or other digital communication devices: they just bundle a radio signal of a related frequency band and reflect it to the active part of the antenna, the category:Low noise blocks (LNB) that generates the electrical signal. That signal is fed to category:Satellite receivers; finally, there you have the application specific receiver types: television and/or radio, Internet, private communication network, emergency service networks, ...
There was no discussion on this as this is pretty ovbious (for technical people) and considered part of the ongoing maintenance and harmonisation (we move 1000 to 1500 categories per month). If you feel that the category Category:Satellite dishes (Internet) is absolutely required, I suggest to make it a subcat of category:Satellite dishes (residential)]]). Sorry if this caused you troubles. --Foroa (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Further investigation shows that I might have been oversimplifying: Internet and telecomm devices require bidirectional communication, but this does probably not change the dish: mainly the active parts of it (the receiver becomes more like some sort of modem). --Foroa (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
File:GATR satellite dish -- Jalalabad, Afghanistan.jpg is the image I uploaded. The Flickr user who originally uploaded it to flickr did so in a series of photos about the hotel he was staying. The internet dish was intalled at the hotel, not at a private residence. So I was concerned to have it categorized as a "residential" dish. I think that would imply to most people that it was installed at a private residence. I am concerned that this is simply inaccurate.
If the names should have been capitalized then why shouldn't those two category names have simply been re-capitalized -- leaving their contents unchanged? Geo Swan (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The referenced image is not a dish, but some sort of parabolic antenna with an integrated LNB and potentially a modem/receiver. I think that we have to find some sort of "(mobile) satellite ground stations" category or so. The bulk of the category showed indeed a few residential dishes primarily for Internet and a number of satellite internet related equipment such as modems and so on. I will try next week to bring in some more system in the antenna/receiver/modem area. Suggestions are always welcome. --Foroa (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Salves

Si preg di consultarmi od un alter parlantor di lingue ebraic prima di renomare une categoria in quest lingue. Molt piac. Ori~ (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. We do the best we can and it takes quite some energy. Any help is appreciated. --Foroa (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Belgische mijnenvegers

Er lagen in Oostende een paar afgekeurde mijnenvegers. Wat zekerder ben ik van Category:M485 Andenne‎, maar min of meer op de gok heb ik Category:M418 Pico‎ aangemaakt. Het zou kunnen dat het echter de naam van een wrak is dat ik ook ergens op foto's heb gezien. Klopt de naam bij het schip? --Stunteltje (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, maar ik weet ook niet meer dan dat ik in Maritime photo collection gevonden heb. --Foroa (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your chauvinistic remarks

Some would call that a smoke mask; it seems very frequently used by some folks. I am surprised to note that on the Italian speaking side, they are so tolerant and compromise oriented while from the German speaking side, tolerance is far from being impressive. Please refrain from such offending remarks in future. If everyone believes that those who do not agree with one's opinion are intolerant, where would we end up? Thanks and regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel so, but there was no intention to be offending. I'll try to word my thoughts more carefully in the future. --Foroa (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Even reageren?

Hoi. Op User_talk:Siebrand#Request_for_mediation wordt je naam genoemd. Zou het op prijs stellen als je ofwel daar reageert, of me een mailtje stuurt, zodat ik ook kan begrijpen wat het probleem is. Dank en groet, Siebrand 22:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fortifications of World War II in Jersey

New Category:Fortifications of World War II on Jersey is wrongly named. If that is the naming pattern to follow, it should be Category:Fortifications of World War II in Jersey. Could you direct me to where the renaming of the category was discussed, please? Thanks. Man vyi (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is part of the continuous on going category naming harmonisation process as you can see in for example in [3]. Thank you for letting us know. It should be corrected by now. --Foroa (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for speedy correction! Man vyi (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Typo thanks

Thanks for fixing this. Wknight94 talk 20:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Just community work. --Foroa (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] grenzen

Iemand had blijkbaar category:Borders of Belgium-Austria aangemaakt, dat jij voor de consistentie ook nog maar een oudcategorie had bijgegeven; want inderdaad, het was niet volledig.

Maar euh, eigenlijk denk ik dat deze categorie beter weg kan, wegens beetje onzinnig bij nader inzien ;-) (zowel geografisch als historisch) De paar categorieën Border land A-land B die de gebruiker gemaakt heeft, zijn blijkbaar bedoeld als grenzen tussen land A en land B. Nu grenst België natuurlijk helemaal niet aan Oostenrijk; en heeft het dat ook nooit gedaan. Blijkbaar snapte de gebruiker niet wat "Oostenrijkse" grenspalen zijn, dat zijn gewoon grenspalen uit de Oostenrijkse tijd  ;-) Wat uiteraard niet betekent dat België (dat nog niet eens bestond) grenst aan Oostenrijk (maar onder de Oostenrijkse habsburgers viel). Lijkt dus wat absurde categorie zeker ?? Groeten --LimoWreck (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Inderdaad, een raar geval en ook de naming (G.D. Luxembourg) is kaduk: als wij dat ooit moeten verfijnen naar landsgrenzen per provincie dan zitten wij in de knoei (Limburg/Limburg, Luxemburg/Luxemburg, ...). Ik heb echter momenteel weinig tijd zodat ik dacht ze op zijn minst aan de juiste structuur te koppelen zodat het niet vergeten zou geraken. Een categorie wegzwieren is niet moeilijk, zijn inhoud op de juiste plaats zetten is wel meer werk. --Foroa (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Released by the producer

Hello Foroa,

The above category, though I have uploaded all its images so far, has nothing to do with my user name. In fact it was created before I adopted my user name Producer for the unified entry purposes, my user name originally was Nasib Bitar. The Category was created so as to encourage any producer to upload files and images in this category.

At thast time all this was created with the help of Tarawneh also a Commons administrator. So I think that your addition of {{user category}} will not serve any purpose. May I kindly ask you to remove it from there. Cheers.--Producer (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As you might have seen this, all images in that category are now in Category:User:Producer so that I could delete Category:Released by the producer. Hope this solves that problem. --Foroa (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely thank you for your concern, but there was no problem to start with. Those files were correctly categorized my friend. Maybe the confusion happened when I added my user category lately to it Smile--Producer (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, but at least it solves the problem with the strange category name "Released by the producer" which could mean anything, redundant with the user category structure and which was linked to Televison producers. --Foroa (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
"Released by the producer" is purely a reflection of the television industry. The Producer legally owns the rights for all images and artwork, though most of it, is made by others. It was created this way to reflect the legal situation. I know this because I am a professional producer. If you think you are right, and both Tarawneh and I are wrong, well Wikimedia is not a democracy, and I think you are wrong it is not a redundant category! --Producer (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not a matter of right or wrong in the first place. It concerns the very unclear meaning of the category name (which comes only clear after a couple of exchanges here) and the implication of the category which is not documented nor clear. I think that:
  • We have to think on another category name, such as "Owner rights of pictures released by television producer"
  • I don't think that it is a good idea to link rights and categories to a user category
--Foroa (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit you make sense. Cheers. --Producer (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Only 4 times per quarter. I still have two left, the rest, I will have to borrow elsewhere. Smile. ;

[edit] MINUSTAH vs UNSMIH

Being a multilingual organisation both are in fact correct, however the covention is that the language used is that which best matches the lead component of the force in question or the country to which they have deployed, as Haiti is a French speaking country MINUSTAH is the more common form. However I would have prefered UNSMIH (which would have been in keeping with the titles used for the other missions) then the current conglomeration of both.KTo288 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A bit strange. You created the MINUSTAH category based on the French acronym. Ingolfson extended as acronyms are not appreciated on commons (source of conflict); quite naturally, he went for the English translation of it. A reasonable compromise would be to call it "UNSMITH - MINUSTAH". Just issue a proper move request as you see fit. --Foroa (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The thing with UN acronymns is that they are such mouthfuls they usually end up being better known then the full names, e.g. Category:UNESCO, Category:UNICEF etc. There comes a point that acronymns become more useful then the full names, e.g. laser and the unwieldness of the UN mision names accelerates the process in which these acronyms are becoming proper nouns. UNSMIH only produces less then 4000 google hits, UNMIH some 11,000 whilst MINUSTAH some 217,000, the French acronymn is the one used by the agencies involved and the one used in news sources.KTo288 (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that it is difficult to draw the line, but acronyms are a pain because a generally accepted acronym in one part of the world can conflict with another generally accepted acronym in another part of the world. However, I think that, as the example with laser shows, that once an acronym becomes a generally accepted name, that we have to spell it like a name, namely Unesco, Unicef. Anyway, in the case at hand, if we use the acronyms in both languages, then the risk of conflicts is reduced to nearly zero. --Foroa (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry

Hi Foroa. You are of course right ([4]). I have suggested a scope, please have a look. I really don't think it is anything controversal. See for example enwiki's category structure at Poetry. I'm not done, I just don't want to do too much before I know your opinion. Nillerdk (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my bold (brutal) intervention, but it is better to prepare such moves carefully. I think that similar documentation is required at related "xxx by country" categories and at least 2 or 3 sample countries have to be split in a nested poetry/poems category structure. --Foroa (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
So what do we do with the poems category: do we document it and make it more consistent, or do we leave it as it was (and remove the poems category) ? --Foroa (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I go ahead right now and make those 2 or 3 sample countries. I start with Germany. Nillerdk (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I need more time. If you want, you can delete the Poems category again. I still think a split up between copies, authors and performing of poetry/poems would be useful, however. Nillerdk (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Matagalpa kan weg

Dag Foroa, Ik kwam de Category:Matagalpa tegen en toen bleek er ook de Category:Matagalpa, Nicaragua te bestaan. Alle plaatjes in "Matagalpa" betreffen "Matagalpa, Nicaragua" en ik heb ze daarom overgeheveld. Category:Matagalpa kan dus voor wat mij betreft weg. Voor zover ik weet kan ik dat niet zelf doen/nomineren. Daarom zou jij dat willen doen? Groeten, Wouter (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bedankt. Een van de weinige dingen die hier relatief simpel en snel gaan is de category deletion: plak er bovenin {{Badname|Good name}} of eventueel {{Speedy|Unused and empty}} op en enkele uren later is het weg. --Foroa (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Bedankt. De "badname" gaat dus net als bij gewone plaatjes. Weer wat geleerd. Wouter (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for historical people

Hello Foroa, we are currently transferring a lot (~200-400 I guess) of public domain portrait photos from dawiki to Commons. They are probably the most important danes ever, but Commons doesn't always have so many files related to each of these. Maybe because Denmark isn't such an important country after all (-; How do you recommend categorisation? Should I create an individual category for most of them, as soon as I expect there are/will be more files for this category? Two specific questions:

  1. If there is no category for this man/woman, is it right to categorise the portrait just with "xxxx births" and "xxxx deaths" and "xxx occupation of Denmark"? Or are the first two only for person-categories?
  2. Very often, there is also a poem, or a map, or sculpture or whatever (strongly) related to this man/woman. Those are hard to categorise properly, because just putting in "Sculptures in xx part of Denmark" doesn't really make the interesting connection to the sculptured person. Do you recommend creating the person-category when this happens, at the latest? Even if it will be initially for just one or two files? Thanks for your advise, and feel free to revert anything (I don't have to say that in your case *G*) Nillerdk (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to control naming, sorting and displaying (alphabetically in text) in a consistent and uniform manner, then there is only one solution: for each person his category. Basically, it requires not really more work, is extensible and avoids maintenance and reorganising items each time you want to add something to that. And don't tell me that from the 400 famous Danes you have, in the end, the majority will remain with one single image. Besides that, categories attract images, without categories, they float around like in a full shoebox full of old pictures. Romantic indeed. --Foroa (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds meaningful. I'll go ahead a create individual categories. Thanks for advice. Nillerdk (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category Art made by non-artists.

Hallo, Foroa

C'est pour éviter confusions. Ci, sont plusieurs peintures et dessins de artistes. Je fit ces oeuvres mais ne suis artiste (je ai certitude, conviction inébranlable, sur ce). Ainsi, je et autres non-artistes aurons lieu pour notres images. Excuse moi par les erreurs en français (Ecrivis ce avec aide de un dictionnaire, porquoi connais seulemente le portugais). 13 may 2009. 03:35 h (heure de Brasilia).

Cordialement,

Paulo Cesar-1


Hallo, Foroa

Relativement à vôtre message "Le problème: contradictio in terminis. Un artist fait de l'art, un non-artiste fabrique des choses, mais ce n'est pas de l'art. Par definition, un non-artist est quelqu'un qui ne fait pas de l'art. Le plus simple est de faire un category pour vous (même si vous vous ne considerez pas comme artist, vous êtes quand même un (computer-)painter)."

Réponse: Ne existe ci, a mon voir, une contradiction. Je pense que seulemente le auteur peut determiner si doit, ou non, se catégoriser comme artiste, même faisant art. Je fais art (bon ou non, em ordinateur ou non), mais je ne raisonne comme um artiste ni suis un. Est necessaire cette categorie de non-artistes. Une categorie ou gallerie personelle, pour moi, n' est convenable. Please, do not delete the Category Art made by non-artists. Cordialement, Paulo Cesar-1 (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] categories

STOP IMMEDIATELY! or i will cite you for vandalism

you have provided no proper explanation of your actions, or the reasons for them

you have provided me with no prior notice of your intention to delete

you have still not clearly explained what your problem is

your behavior is extremely imappropriate for an administrator!

Lx 121 (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I fail to see what I did wrong. Could you provide me more details about my potential inappropriate actions ? --Foroa (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Lx 121 is recreating some of the categories you have deleted - maybe move the contents instead, so it's clear you are not trying to destroy his sorting work itself? He's obviously under a mistaken impression there. Ingolfson (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
In principle, I never delete a category that is not empty. --Foroa (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] License and Licence

I would disagree with the above comment. You deleted Licence plates in India in favour of License plates in India, citingI was the only contributor and that it was incorrect....--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you understood the message I had left in the edit summary of the category. Thanks, and regards, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved first before deletion. There are more countries, such as the UK, that use licence, but here, they adapt in general (except for train stations) to the de facto standard here that is a mixture between US and UK English (whatever comes first). --Foroa (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your thoughts

Following a recent move, I started assembling moves like this but wanted to get your opinion before I continue. There are a lot more after this!

Rename Category:Automobile line drawings as Category:Line drawings of automobiles.
Rename Category:Aircraft line drawings as Category:Line drawings of aircraft.
Rename Category:Steam locomotives line drawings as Category:Line drawings of steam locomotives.
Rename Category:Avro aircraft line drawings as Category:Line drawings of Avro aircraft.
Rename Category:Messerschmitt Bf 109 line drawings as Category:Line drawings of the Messerschmitt Bf 109.
Rename Category:Automobile illustrations as Category:Illustrations of automobiles.
Rename Category:Spacecraft illustrations as Category:Illustrations of spacecraft.
Rename Category:Turning process illustrations as Category:Illustrations of turning.
Rename Category:Aircraft drawings as Category:Drawings of aircraft.
Rename Category:Gun drawings as Category:Drawings of guns.
Rename Category:Machine element drawings as Category:Drawings of machine elements.
Rename Category:Microscope drawings as Category:Drawings of microscopes.
Rename Category:Rail transport drawings as Category:Drawings of rail transport.
Rename Category:Roller coaster drawings as Category:Drawings of roller coasters.
Rename Category:Steam engine drawings as Category:Drawings of steam engines.
Rename Category:Steam locomotives drawings as Category:Drawings of steam locomotives.
Rename Category:Steam locomotives line drawings as Category:Line drawings of steam locomotives.
Rename Category:Thread drawings as Category:Drawings of threads.
Rename Category:Screw drawings as Category:Drawings of screws.
Rename Category:Screw type drawings as Category:Drawings of screws by type.
Rename Category:Bolt screw drawings as Category:Drawings of bolt screws.

Should I continue? Or is this too much? Thanks. Wknight94 talk 14:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I support you in this for several reasons:
  • Syntax should be as simple/basic as possible without potential confusion for non-English people (Basic Commons Topic - qualifier rule). For example: "Avro aircraft line drawings" can be interpreted equally as "drawings of Avro aircraft lines", "lines drawn by Avro aircraft", ...
  • Simple commons syntax tends to be more extensible: "Line drawings of Avro aircraft RJ" to "Line drawings of Avro aircraft RJ in Washington in 1978"; "1978 RJ Avro aircraft line drawings in Washington" seems much more confusing.
I am not saying that we should start a hunt for such improvements, but when cleaning up somewhere a category, then it is good to uniformise it. Because we have already many properly named subcategories and structures, we have relatively less mistakes in category naming (say 1 to 3 %) than a year ago. --Foroa (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Elijah & House of israel.jpg

Is this [5] with its 6 links to the website going to be deleted? I can't see any use for it in any case as the organisation is so non-notable. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency vs Utility

Hi Foroa, first of please accept by thanks for your enthusiasm and service to Commons, from what I've seen being an admin is pretty much a thankless job, your good works go unnoticed and it seems people only notice you when they have a complaint, such as I do now.

I'm moved on this occasion to write this over your decision to rename Category:Miniature railways to Category:Miniature rail transport. Maybe I should have noticed the discussion earlier (difficult unless you put every single topic you're interested in on your watchlist).

However what is of most concern is not this one category move but my observation of you, that you seem to place the consistency and integrity of the Commons naming scheme over everything else, including common sense. Every time that I've had cause to contact you it has been over this; from the renaming of Military life to military culture to the MINUSTAH thread up above. I am sure that other editors will have felt the same about other categories.

I am not going to argue that I have been correct everytime in the past,nor will I argue for a free for all with regards to naming categories and the chaos that that will entail. However please allow me to open with you a debate of utility over your dogged pursuit of Commons consistency in the naming scheme.

Let me ask you for what purpose Commons exist? and what function does the categorisation scheme serve.

Let me put it to you that Commons came into existence as a repository for media files for the various wiki projects, and that the categorisation scheme serves as a tool to allow editors to find and utilise those files. Not expert editors, or editors wth experience of Commons, but all editors. Without a utility to those editors, Commons has no purpose, without a utility to those editors the categorisation scheme is no longer a tool but a labyrinth to be negotiated.

To be a useful tool categorisation should be accurate, consistent (of course) but also natural. Put bluntly it should not create naming schemes that do not exist in common usage, it should not favour names used by a minority over that used by a majority, it should not use names which have a different usage outside of Commons, and it should not be unneccessarily verbose.

Please consider this a Google search for "Miniature rail transport" with the inverted commas produces 7 ghits, the majority from Commons itself, the same restrictive search for "Minitaure railway" 113,000. In your determination to use the word "railway" to be consistent with Commons usage, you have renamed a category understood by everyone and created a category with a name used by no one but yourself. You have destroyed the utility of this category to everyone but yourself.KTo288 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Copyedited to be more coherentKTo288 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Foroa's move seems in line with discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/01/Category:Railways#Return to basics - Category:Railways. Wouldn't that be a better place for this essay? Wknight94 talk 15:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you KTo288 for your understanding. But some debates go so extremely wide and are dispersed over tens of rename requests, user pages, Cfd's and other discussion pages, that they become next to impossible to follow. Some people inject all sorts of special reasons not to move things, very often as a smoke curtain in order not to lose their preferred or sometimes even beloved naming. Other people revert some of the moves because they just don't like it. Such wide debates and movements very often lead to inconsistent naming and categorisation from one country to another.
To be frank, I cannot any longer follow the dispersed debates about the railways, but leaving that in the middle is no option neither. So even if I don't necessarily agree with the names, I follow almost blindly the person that is the most consistent in his approach, has an overall (worldwide) view and tends to complete his reorganisation (many people request a couple of renames and leave the mess behind for the others). So in this case, I follow without too much checking user Ingolfson because I know, in a reasonable amount of time, he will bring the overall railway category naming in a consistent state, and consistency is a priority for me. So, currently, I am not inclined Once we get it all consistent, then I think we can have a look about the proper names and might find more logical, handy or practical names.
So don't hesitate to contact me if you are still disgreeing about a name in a stable category organisation: sometimes I force less practical names, especially in reorganised or emerging categories, just to make sure that the category names (and their logic) are consistent (as newer categories tend to follow the existing tendency/consistency). And we all know that too many category names are just too short, too context sensitive, too complex for non-English speakers, are missing disambiguation ... and so will need renaming one day or another with all the unavoidable hassle and emotional reactions. So thank you for your understanding, cooperation and suggestions. --Foroa (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
So you mean the person I have to convince is Ingolfson not you, thanks for letting me know that. However even if Ingolfson is the originator of the renaming schemes that does not absolve you of the fact that you have become a tool in implementing his schemes. Surely you must have a role in testing coming to an understanding of the arguements for and against before acting.KTo288 (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that in the first place, categories serve as categorisation, a logical way of organising data. Considering the fact that we have relatively much less category moves than say a year ago seems to indicate that we are making progress, but we are by no means at the end. I don't think that google hits give an indication how good or bad the category scheme is. As you noticed in your cockpit discussion, naming depends very much on the way you look at it: from the popular (google) side, from the technical point of view or the specialist in the particular domain. Again, my first priority is a consistent overall scheme; optimising the proper names and specific cases is the next step. Many category schemes went through several iterations before ending in a consistent and generally accepted naming compromise. --Foroa (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Narrow gauge railway lines

Category discussion notification Category:Narrow gauge railway lines has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Português | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Industrial rail transport

Category discussion notification Category:Industrial rail transport has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Português | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cat deleted

Hi Foroa! This causes some international problems. Can you please repair this ? --Gruß Tom (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it will create international problems. Category:Dandy horses is the correct name and we cannot put a redirect for every possible spelling variation: "Dandy horse", Dandy Horse", "Dandy Horses", "Dandyhorse", ... If really needed I can put a redirect, but I am sure, one day a college will remove it as it is a basic spelling error. --Foroa (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can you please close Category:Cycling infrastructure at CfD

No more entries for quite a while, no real consensus for change, at least that is my take. Ingolfson (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is very dispersed and it was dispersed even more after a request to come back to the basics. I will not have time to look into that the coming week. In the mean time, could you indicate the countries where you judge the scheme alright, others where you find it wrong ? --Foroa (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Not quite sure about that query, as we don't close "History of Somethingcountry" because some of the subcategories are in need of populating or named /organised wrong? Maybe I am missing the point of the question? Categories like Category:Cycling infrastructure in the United States looks good to me, as do Category:Cycling infrastructure in Japan. The category discussed itself is also populated with numerous, sensible subcats not directly related to the "by country" subsets. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted categories

The deleting of categories Category:Springs in the Czech Republic, Category:Valleys in Iceland, Category:Valleys in Slovenia and of the category redirect Category:Rivers in the Czech Republic wasn't a good idea. It would better to adjust the other categories which don't meet standards of category names rather than to delete the categories or category redirects, which are adjusted already. --ŠJů (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want argue that for now those names should be rather uniform than correct, look e. g. here, that you disturbed the unity herewith. All changes should tend to the desired stage - it is counterproductive to return some names back to unpreferred form. --ŠJů (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the correct (summary of the) English rule for in/of is "When the feature is natural,'of' shall be used, and when the feature is manufactured, 'in' shall be used ". This can be seen in en:Category:Rivers by country (Category:Rivers by country) , en:Category:Springs by country (Category:Springs by country), en:Category:Valleys by country (Category:Valleys by country) and many other examples. --Foroa (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it a general rule of English language, or it is some special arbitrary convention at Commons or at en:wikipedia? Do you refer to en:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Categories by country, or to some other rule? I can see, that the usage of „of/in“ is inconsistent here. But I'm not sure that there exist clear rules already. For example within the Czech Republic, we have categories "Districts of ... Region", but categories "Municipalities in ... District" or "Churches in ... Region". Does it mean, districts are more natural entities than municipalities? --ŠJů (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is no arbitrary convention as you can see in Commons talk:By location category scheme and en:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Categories by country. As a non native speaker, I could support a uniform "xxx in yyy" naming, but this is not very "English" and I cannot decide about that unless there is broader "worldwide" consensus. Moreover constructs like, "springs, mountains, rivers in "Island xyz"" will lead to very comic constructions. So the solution with the least discussions leads us to the English Wikipedia. --Foroa (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] cat moves by SieBot

Hi there. Could I have your opinion on this? --Eusebius (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Now proposed at COM:AN, you may want to have a word there. --Eusebius (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done Fully support. --Foroa (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cannons of Japan, Cannons in Japan

I guess by now you're tired of my complaining, but I always have a good reason why I categorise the way I do, Cannons of Japan was created specifically for the File:ShimonosekiCannon.jpg because although the cannon are Japanese, their actual location is in France outside Invalides. So to accurately categorise them with the in format they should be categorised with the category of "Cannons in France", which does not reflect their Japanese origin. The file is currently located in "Cannon in Japan" which reflects their origin but not where they are. I did the same thing for British Cannon located in China, but I guess that to was quickly merged without looking at the contents of the category and the reason they were categorised that way.KTo288 (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not tired of this type of complaints. We will always have "gross" harmonisation combined with fine tuning. In your particular case however, I think that you need a category that is standing out clearly from the in/of cases, such as "Cannons manufactured in Japan". Don't count anyway on subtle in/of/from differences; that will not work.
By the way, could you put the conclusions of your discussion of Taiwan/Republic of China somewhere on Category talk:Air force of Taiwan and remove/adapt all unneeded associated move requests ? Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
One of the problems with the in/of/from is that the harmonisation is being undertaken with the belief that they are synonyms, or near synonyms, which leads to difficulties with the fine tuning. A thing or person may be from somewhere but be found elsewhere, the terms are not mutually inclusive or exclusive.
Agreed, but it allows for a fast "groupwise" filtering of the primary category needs and what is understood by it. Subtleties are easily lost in a multi-language context. --Foroa (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
As in real life the whole Republic of China/Taiwan has reached an impasse. There was only one real proponent (User:WhisperToMe) of the view "there is no such thing as Taiwan only the Republic of China, and therefore those files should be moved to the relevant "Republic of China" categories.
My arguement that the current status quo as exemplified by Category:Air force of Taiwan being a subcategory Category:Air Force of the Republic of China is the equivalent to the official formulation of "Republic of China (Taiwan)" rather fell on deaf ears.
The current nesting of Category:Air force of Taiwan<Category:Air Force of the Republic of China<Category:Air force of China, with the PLAAF being a subcat of Category:Air force of China seems to work. I think fixing the capitalisation on Category:Air Force of the Republic of China will make the nesting clearer and that the requested category already exists.KTo288 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I tried to put it back reasonably square. I nicked your comments and put it in Category talk:Air force of Taiwan. Feel free to expand upon; I will not be jealous ;), I have plenty of other battles with regions that want more independence and autonomy. --Foroa (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AN/U

Hey Foroa. You may want to see this. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sunsets on / Sunsets of

Hello,

I am not a native English speaker so I might be wrong, but in order to know what native English speakers say, I made this search on Google : "sunset on" on the website of Metropolitan Museum, New York (715 pages). Compare with "sunset in" (63 pages) and "sunset of" on the same website (0 page). I think it is a bit similar with French "coucher de soleil sur..." or Dutch "zonsondergang op...". Teofilo (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker neither, but what we are missing by guts feeling and experience, we try to compensate by sticking better to the (basic) rules. Anyway, never trust google, especially when striving to correct language use. I am referring to Commons talk:By location category scheme and en:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Categories by country. Anyway, the sunsets are indeed on a specific place/city but they are natural phenomenons of some countries. Exactly as you have skies, clouds above a city, caves in a city, rivers around/in a city, they remain skies, cloud, caves, rivers of a country/region. Confusing, isn't it ? --Foroa (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI, the most common preposition is probably "over" (like "sunset over the beach" or "sunset over the ocean". looks odd in a category though ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 14:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, this "over" one was really missing in our preposition collection. Anyway, I think that a "Sunset over SB_Johnny house" belongs to "Sunsets of the United States", but I could be wrong. At some point, I have been considering proposing a new commons category syntax, in the sense of "Topic OF area", where OF in uppercase was computer parseable (for multi-language wiki's) and meaning any preposition that sounded natural in the context. With the flexibility of JuicedLemon at that time, I did not believe that supporting such a proposition would have been the most effective use of my time. If you want more confusion, it is "churches in Labège" but the "church of Labège". --Foroa (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Google indexes all kinds of websites, including those from people having no special knowledge of English. This is why I restrict the search to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where I expect to find texts written by people with some good educational background. site:metmuseum.org "sunset over" provides 156 results. At least on the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art website, with 756 results, "sunset on" is more common than "sunset over".
I think a sunset over the River Thames in London, can be a "Sunset of the United States", if it is exhibited in a museum in Chicago. But a Sunset over London can never become a sunset over the United States (or perhaps that could become true in the future if Britain becomes the 51st state of the United States). Teofilo (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Query on copyright and accepting the words of well-known / trusted users

Hi Foroa, someone recently did this edit to an image I had uploaded. I have "fixed" the issue by updating the copyright tag, but it worries me, as the implication that the copyright explanation the image ALREADY had was not sufficient to prevent deletion because it did not have an internet link claiming said case.

Basically, there is little difference in me claiming that I scanned this from an Auckland Harbour Board file folder or publication (i.e. a physical one) which said it was taken for the Board in 1947, and claiming it took it from an internet source that said the same (i.e. Auckland Harbour Board, taken 1947, which makes it PD in New Zealand, country of its origin, as explained in the text). Also, the REQUIREMENT to have an online "proof" of this means that if that website ever goes away, so - poof! - do all the images that need it to be copyright referenced.

Thing is, I find myself unable to find the website again where I got this from (and even if I did, the question remains, what happens if that website disappears some day?). Yet I am a profilic, multi-year editor and uploader in good standing (I am intentionally not saying "trusted user", as that is a specific but closely related term). Does my word "at the time I uploaded it, I researched this and determined that it was public domain" - count for nothing? Ingolfson (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that this is a basic (and fundamental) commons problem related to tightening the copyright checking, historically accepted images and vanishing image sources. This is certainly a debate that does not belongs here. --Foroa (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Who's talking of a debate? I guess what I wanted from you (even if I didn't phrase it well) was your understanding of the existing rules on this. Hoping that you'd come back with something similar to my opinion, obviously, but whatever. Oh well - you're busy, I understand. Ingolfson (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
To me, the rule is not clear at all. What I wanted to say is that they are tightening the rules and think mainly in the present. What will happen with pictures you donated and 10 years later, you are no longer here ? I see no real long term vision, not in the future and not in the past. But that is maybe because I just try to stay away from the licensing problems because I don't feel confortable with them and because some of the rules are applied too strictly, especially in respect with FOP. --Foroa (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up lost categories

I have difficulties to find the right command .. but since you say it, I will improve. TommyBee (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Where the heck are the Orphan-image-lists?

Do you mean Special:UncategorizedFiles, Special:UncategorizedPages and Special:UncategorizedCategories ?

[edit] Thanks for deleting incorrectly named categories for me

Thanks for deleting Category:Caneey Beach and Category:Caneey Bay for me. I blanked out these categories but was clueless as to how to delete them. Thanks for finding them and deleting them. I noticed that you took note of my change comment. Thank you again. Fredhsu (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Blanking is not a very good method. For quick deletion of categories, the procedure consist of inserting {{Badname|Good name}} if another category names exist. Alternatively, {{Speedy|reason}} can be used.

Blanking the page makes that the category appears several days later in Special:UncategorizedCategories which we try to keep as empty as possible, but requires significant work as we have to analyse each case if it concerns vandalisme, mistakes, beginners work (that may need assistance) or just a plain categorisation problem. So following the standard procedure saves us all unnecessary work and results in general in a deletion log that explains why the category has been deleted. Thank you and keep up the good work. --Foroa (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Will remember that :) Fredhsu (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Created with IXUS 500

Hi Foroa, I'm watching your efforts to improve this template closely. Though it isn't an uberimportant template, it should work. But t doesn't do any more. Itsays something about an tempalte loop? Like you, I tried to move files with this template to the Category: Taken with Canon Digital IXUS 500, cause that category fits best. But this category doesn't seem to be compatible with the meta template Created with.... In short: Using this template files are always pushed into a category nameld like Created with x or Created with Photoshop. I didn't find out how to circumvent this issue. Well, amybe you know a way. If you didn't know a better way, please repair this template by revertingyour changes. Tschüß.--TUBSMail-closed.svg 07:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I have the same problem as you in getting through the miriad of linked templates. Because of lack of time, I tried a couple of quick patches, and the only effect was that the camera category "Created with ..." disappeared completely from the calling images. Since your last modification, the Category:Taken with Canon Digital Ixus 500 is now filling up (template generated categories can take days before they really display correctly). I think that the fastest way is to get a template specialist on it. If there is no improvement in a couple of days, I will try to debug that myself. --Foroa (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Well yes we'll see. I'm not an expert either. I have asked a question on Template:Created with discussion page. Maybe they can help us. Maybe I try a couple of other changes but somehow I'm as confused as you are. Ciao. --TUBSMail-closed.svg 07:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Semms to work know. If it was you thank you very much. Greeting frm Germany.--TUBSMail-closed.svg 07:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, it seems to work now. It is probably not a good idea to have templates simultaneously changed by two persons. Greetings from ... Commons. --Foroa (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I played around with this template and asked myself: what made it work? How became Foroa so smart? The answer lies in this edit: [6]. But I want to warn you: The Created with IXUS 500 works fine know but now all (?) other Created with ... templates are messed up. E.g.: Template:Photomerge. These templates now try to categorize into categories such as Taken with Photoshop which infact doesn't exist. Could you fix that one too? I can't! --TUBSMail-closed.svg 08:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Fixed all by reverting your changes to "Created with" template and by creating truly new "Taken with" template. My template should now work well as it refers back to new "Taken with" template. Dank u voor uw werk.--TUBSMail-closed.svg 12:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I knew that the template "Created with" was being referenced by 5 or 6 other templates, but I tried to get the new category right first while (secretly) hoping that the templeate creator would give us a helping hand. Anyway, the result is that by now, we both have a little more experience with those templates. Dankeschön. --Foroa (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Universal replace

Hi. Universal replace is confusing me. You removed my request to replace File:18Dez05 (3).JPG, but the file still appears on a couple pages. So it's still in Category:Duplicate. What is happening? Wknight94 talk 11:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but those universal replace deletions were certainly a mistake of me and not intentional. I have not the slightest idea how this could have happened, the only (weak) excuse is that I might have been hurrying too much. --Foroa (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Heh heh, no problem. But I have a secondary question with Siebrand about why it won't do my universal replaces at all, even though it's doing other people's. If you happen to know the answer to that, please do let me know. Thanks as always. Wknight94 talk 13:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can you give a hint?

Hi Foroa! Do you have an idea if other files like these ([7] [8] [9]) exist on Commons? Such files are commonly used by web designer to make text boxes/menus etc. of variable length (by stretching the middle element). If not, can you suggest a name of a new category? The three files will soon be transfered to here from dawiki. Thanks Nillerdk (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I had no idea that such antique design techniques are still used. I could imagine such solutions in the very beginning of the existence of HTML, but nowadays ? There are some pretty weird symbols here for text boexs and so, but no idea where and if they are still used. --Foroa (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Military insigna or Badges of rank?

Hi Foroa. I'm trying to sort the military insigna categories, but I found some difficulties: the main one is about the categories in Category:Military insignia by country that are called "Military insignia of ..." and the categories in Category:Military rank insignia that are called "Badges of rank of ...". This categorization, that is correct in some way (a badge of rank is a military insignia, but a military insigna could not be a badge of rank) present the weakness to be poor clear and to scatter around the images, often in the wrong place. What can we do to correct this issue? --F l a n k e r (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that I understand the problem. Could you be more specific and give examples ? --Foroa (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] sorting cats

hi; im in the middle of organizing the genitalia/human anatomy/sex stuff on here

please do not erase my work!

thank-you

Lx 121 (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


sh*t, i'm sorry, that was a discarded category title; i got confused, my apologies! feel free to delete it again; just please don't mess with the ones i have organized in heirarchical trees; those will be populated

Lx 121 (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of my renaming request

Hello,

I don't understand why you've deleted my request without renaming the category I asked for. Could you explain me, please?

El ComandanteSkull and crossbones.svgHasta ∞ 11:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The delinker is mainly intended for maintenance and categories with obvious misspelling, bad names and harmonisation. I consider your request to
Rename Category:Aztec emperors as Category:Mexica rulers.

, as the category was not documented what so ever and did have no any reference to wikipedia articles, as potentially controversial (Especially Astec versus Mexica). So I suggest to insert a {{Move}} request in the category so that the author and possible other users of the category are informed and can give their opinion. --Foroa (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of renaming proposal

Recently you deleted two category rename proposals of mine at Category:Berne (added June 16, deleted June 22) and Category:Canton of Berne. While I can understand that you may agree or disagree with the proposal, I don't quite see why you removed the proposal entirely. Can you restore them and add your comments on the categories' talk page? -- User:Docu (talk) / en:User:Docu (talk) at 17:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was no reaction in six days time on the various rename request that where hardly motivated. (A rename on the English Wiki is no motivation to me, some cities change name more than 10 times per year on the English wikipedia). Anyway, I don't think that it is a good idea to scatter rename requests of categories that have tens of subcategories that should follow the same rename, over many rename requests. Moreover, such rename request might require the renaming of other Swiss cities, so such a big rename can only be done by a COM:CFD. Although I think that Bern should be the right name, I am afraid to touch the Swiss multilingual balance (and peace) we do have now. Moreover, I feel that such renames should be decided by the Swiss people themselves and personally, I am not looking to find even more (move) work for such small details. --Foroa (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
{{rename}} outlines the procedure to be used. If none contests it in two weeks, it can be reanmed, If you don't want this template to be used, you could name it for deletion. Nobody asked you to rename the category yourself, so I don't understand why you feel compelled to remove the proposal, especially since you seem to agree with the proposed rename. -- User:Docu (talk) / en:User:Docu (talk) at 11:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] deleted category Schipkau

Hello foroa, you deleted the category Gemeinde Schipkau. the reason you wrote was incorrectly name. why is this name incorrect? gemeinde schipkau is something like a district (it's hard to explain in english ;-) ) and this district contains of five villages. is it unusual in commons to create those categorys. greetings --Z thomas 09:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

oh, i just looked on your discussion. i think you are able to answer all my questions, it seems you're an expert for categories ;-) --Z thomas 09:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Foroa versteht Deutsch (-; Das "Problem" ist hier, dass Schipkau der Name eine Gemeinde in Landkreis Oberspreewald-Lausitz ist, aber auch der Name eines der 5 Gemeindeteilen in Schipkau ist. Category:Schipkau existiert schon, obwohl es unklar ist, ob Gemeinde oder Gemeindeteil gemeint ist. Wäre es nicht sinnvoll, die existierende Kategoriedefinition so zu präzisieren, dass sie die ganze Gemeinde umfasst? In Zukunft könnte man dann überlegen, eine Unterkategorie für den Gemeindeteil einzurichten. Nillerdk (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
das foroa deutsch versteht hab ich auf seiner benutzerseite gesehen, aber er gab an, dass seine englihschkenntnisse besser sind, deshalb hab ich diese variante gewählt. ;-) aber nun schreibe ich deutsch weiter ;-)
die category:schipkau wurde doch erst gestern abend angelegt - na egal. du hast vollkommen recht, dass schipkau sowohl die gemeinde als auch den ort bezeichnet. ich kann aber auch mit der kurzform schipkau leben, dort wird erstmal alles "reingeworfen". das heißt alles, was zur gemeinde gehört kommt da rein und später werden vielleihct ncoh unterkategorien geschaffen zum beispiel auch Category:Schipkau (Ort)
ihc wollte nur wissen, was denn an der bezeichnung "gemeinde schipkau" falsch war. gruß --Z thomas 11:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(Indent reset) The commons convention is that we name the countries, cities, villages, communes, hamlets, ... by their name, without prefix. If we would follow your suggested you naming convention, than it should be "Commune Schipkau" and not "Gemeinde Schipkau". Anyway, it is not a good idea to encode the administrative "entity type" in the name of a hamlet as this is not known by most people. Most people know the name of a location and possibly the city/village to which it belongs, so naming should allow people to find a location with a minimum of knowledge of the geographical, political and administrative organisation.

And frankly speaking, how could an average Commons contributor (from allover the world) understand the difference between a gemeinde, gemeindeteil, parish, hamlet, quarter and an ort ? --Foroa (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

thank you. it's a tricky situation with schipkau because it's a village and an commune.
but would an average contributor from belgium, spain or egypt look for schipkau ;-) but i think i understood, what you mean. and by the way thank you for teaching me the word hamlet, i had to use a dictionary ;-)
but if we keep the name schipkau for the commune (no problem) how can we name the village, when further files are uploaded in order to organize the villages in the commune - schipkau (village)? greetings and good night --Z thomas 20:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not as tricky as you might think;
  • People that are travelling the most upload pictures from allover the world: locals don't necessarily take many pictures from their own area. If I would have passed in Schipkau, there would have been a big chance that I would have pictures of it; conversely, if you would have visited some small village in Egypt, chances that you would have pictures of it would be substantial.
  • Their are many cities that have the same name for the city, the (old) city center (or head village after a merge) and even some quarters, but overtime, they get different names as there is equally a need to distinguish the various locations. I could not find immediately some examples in Germany (Berlin-mitte ?), but I am pretty much sure that this situation should exist in many places in Germany, especially if there has been merging of smaller sets of communes into bigger cities. --Foroa (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I did some further checking and I found out that in many cases, the top level city (gemeinde) is only an administrative organisation that has (almost) no additional infrastructure on top of that of the village (gemeindeteil), in which case there is no need for a separate category. If that would be the case for Schipkau, then it would have only four gemeindeteilen, but this administrative "incoherency" is less of a problem than having two different Schipkau's where people confuse the two all the time. In our case, physical organisations are more important than administrative or "paper" organisations. --Foroa (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
in germany there are even differences between the federal states. well the comnune (gemeinde) schipkau consists of 6 villages. their names are "Hörlitz", "Meuro", "Drochow", "Annahütte" (without pictures by now), "Klettwitz" and "Schipkau". the commune is named by the biggest village - schipkau. by the way most of these names have a slavian source. ;-) so we have an administrative organisation "schipkau" and a "real" village "schipkau".
the higher adminstrative organisation is Category:Landkreis Oberspreewald-Lausitz
i hope, my explaination was understandable. i'm sorry, but i didn't had time to look over your changes 'til now. greetings from germany --Z thomas 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I guess that the categories I did create suit your needs. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
fine! were do i have to catogorize pictures of the village schipkau? Category:Schipkau or a new Category:Schipkau, village. greetings --Z thomas 16:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Category:Schipkau will be sufficient to start with. --Foroa (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
ok, so i'm satisfied by now. it was fine to work with you. - but i'll be back, if i have further questions ;-) greetings from dresden --Z thomas 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with "File:ElectionsDepartmentSG.JPG"

Hi, hope you can help with this problem. I used HotCat to recategorize the file "File:ElectionsDepartmentSG.JPG" into "Category:Elections Department (Singapore)", but received several "database error" messages. Later on, I noticed that the recategorization appeared to have worked, but the file doesn't show up in the category when I view the category. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that once in a while, we have strange errors which I would most of the time blame to database delays and temporal coherency problems. Sometimes, the system lags tens of seconds between an action and an update, as you can see in the history of File:ElectionsDepartmentSG.JPG; hotcat should not have allowed to remove twice the same category. --Foroa (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So does anything need to be done, or will the system sort this out by itself after a while? Is it simply a caching issue? It has been more than a day since I last recategorized the file but it still doesn't appear in the category. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange. Because it was indeed still not in the category, I moved it out and in the category again. That looks pretty much like a bug; problem is how to report such a situation. I guess that we should have the details of the "database error" you encountered. No clear idea what to do with that. Next time that this should occur, we should try to move in or out another image in that category to check if the category "heals it self". The latter case occurs when counters are corrupted in a category. --Foroa (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the problem. I was a little reluctant to try recategorizing the image again in case I broke something else! That's why I thought I should report the problem to an administrator. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Models from Asia

Greetings. I was wondering why you deleted this category. You stated "incorrectly named", but it doesn't look like you recreated it under a better name. What name do you think would be better? All the best, Quadell (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, on Commons, all major worldwide topics are created in the first place on a per country level. The categorisation per continent is some side categorisation which happens occasionally later on some topics (and which is some form of overcategorisation) and which I would certainly not encourage as it pushes some people of emptying the per country category. As you started creating Models of Asia, so on the continent level, I know that some people would follow the example and fill up the continent category without filling up the country level as you did. I have to admit that the "incorrectly named" deletion reason was not very clear but I was hoping that my other corrections on your models of Pakistan would make it clear. We have around 2000 per country categories and adding an intermediate per continent category would make the structure much more complex and require the addition of more than 14000 categories. --Foroa (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A discussion is initiated at Commons:Village pump#Categories "by country" vs. "by continent". --ŠJů (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link on Special:RecentChanges

Hi Foroa. Could you please fix the red link here? Thanks. --Leyo 08:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC) PS. There are also quite a few pages on Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Unidentified subject.

I was under the impression that the delinker botmover took care of that. I corrected a number of pages, but since there are 200 or so pages linking to it, I remade a redirect. Thanks for pointing it out. --Foroa (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia categories

Hi, I noticed you moved Category:Macedonia to Category:Macedonia (disambiguation). I'm not quite sure – will the original category page remain quite empty? Aren't users likely to come searching there?

Actually, now that I think of it, I'm not even sure we need a disambiguation structure at all, and I'm also not sure it was a good idea for me to create Category:Macedonia (region) the other day (just because it was a redlink in the disambiguation list). All those Macedonias may be a big complex mess, but there's one good thing: they actually belong together geographically, they are all somehow part of each other. So, we can have a genuine top category that represents en:Macedonia (region), and Category:Republic of Macedonia and the others can be genuine daughter categories of it. I tidied up the contents yesterday, and now Category:Macedonia (region) is in fact just such a top category (with no media directly categorised in it, everything in subcategories.) Couldn't that very well go back to Category:Macedonia now, with just those subcategories as content and perhaps an explanatory note about the intended structure in the category definition page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the disambiguation category:Macedonia because, as very often with disambiguation categories, everybody thinks that the simple "basic" category name, such as Macedonia (same for Iris, Santos, ...), is exactly the category they need without further checking if it is really the category they need. I recategorised already several times the many items in Macedonia, but most "simple" disambiguation categories keep filling up and nobody cares to recategorise them. Last time, there where again 15 images and some categories in it, so I decided to rename it. So yes, the Category:Macedonia (region) is a very good idea and using disambiguation terms for all possible cases is the best solution. --Foroa (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please restore Category:Lindenhof according to Category talk:Lindenhof, Zürich

Hi Foroa, please restore Category:Lindenhof and delete (or redirect) Category:Lindenhof, Zürich created by you: there are two "oppose" oppinions to create another category and none respectively yours (the only one) to remove Category:Lindenhof! Ref. Category talk:Lindenhof, Zürich. Thanks and regards, 11:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I waited three months, and my arguments have not been contested. There is never a reason to give the exclusivity of a particular name, unless it is extremely famous such as Rome, Cologne, Paris, ... Your Lindenhof is only known by four wikipedias, so disambiguation is indicated. This is in the best interest of all commons users. --Foroa (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, maybe a question of "point of view" ;-) As mentionned - please refer to Category talk:Lindenhof, Zürich - two Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (i think not a matter of discussion, a matter of "decision" for pro/con) oppinions were given bevore in a "democratic request to be moved" (2 opposes vs. your oppinion), that's my "point of view". Please tell me, how a "neutral" person/gremium can be consulted to decide in this matter, thanking in advance and closing this discussion from my side :-) Regards, 07:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
For me, this is a standard disambiguation operation that took already too much time and that is closed. I doubt that other people will spend time on such discussions, but feel free. Please carry on your good work in Switzerland. --Foroa (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Roland zh, please take a look at de:Lindenhof to see that "Lindenhof" should be disambiguated. Multichill (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] you seem to have a problem with me?

hello;

im reading your comment on the admin board, you seem to have a problem with me?

could you clarify please, what you have a problem with?

Lx 121 (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Just a side remark. --Foroa (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Statues scupltées

Salut,

Je t'ai répondu sur la page de Jastrow. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 11:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Et en fait je viens aussi de proposer une solution plus globale au même problème sur la page de Zmorgan. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 13:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Categories renaming requests

Hello, On Commons:Administrators/Requests/Teofilo you say : "where plain wrong without any form of concertation". Could you please elaborate on this ? Which category request was "plain wrong" ? Teofilo (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This link you are providing is a diff of User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands between "Revision as of 09:21, 3 June 2009 " and "Revision as of 15:00, 3 June 2009". Do you include in your jugement this request of mine, concerning the renaming of "Golfers from Philippines" to "Golfers from the Philippines" posted at 14:36, 3 June 2009, as "plain wrong" ? Teofilo (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
No. In the beginning, they are plain wrong, in the midlle they are OK, the format of the SVG coats of arms things have been discussed afterwards and took me two weeks to get right (template and bot issues). --Foroa (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Your last statement "have been discussed afterwards" is a "Contradictio in terminis" with your earlier statement "without any form of concertation". You are complaining that you have too much work to do, but why do you refuse help ? Teofilo (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you confuse concertation and discussion afterwards when a conflict arises. I never complained about too much work (work is never finished here and one can only do one thing at a time) nor did I refuse any help. --Foroa (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Svg flags cats

Hi Foroa, we still have a lot of cats with the wrong name. Renaming them should be possible with a bot. Just add {{Move cat}} and {{Catuncat}} for each category to the Commonsdelinker page. Multichill (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SVG categories

Hey Foroa, I would like your input (and maybe help) on the naming of the subcategories of Category:SVG. It's kinda a mess with many different naming conventions being used. I brought it up here awhile ago but no one responded. Things may have changed a little since then but even looking at the categories at the top you can see they're not consistent at all. I don't really like the form of "SVG something" because that can imply that the topic somehow related to vector graphics (and not simply done in that format; for example we have SVG marker templates which doesn't mean the templates are SVG but that they are related). I also don't like the ones with a em dash in them (e.g. SVG — ecology) since that's not easily typed. I'm thinking the best format would be "Something (svg)" or "Something (SVG)" but this is one of the least used forms so that would be a lot of renaming. Probably not a good idea. What's your opinion? Rocket000 (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see you are already doing some work here. Rocket000 (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not really started, because the 740 or so categories are some sort of a mess indeed. I was trapped by the hasty "SVG coats of arms ..." move requests, but since an awful lot of coats of arms images got their category names generated by template prefixes, there was not a lot of choice at that time.
It is indeed completely ridiculous that the category name starts with "SVG ..." but converting to "xxx (SVG)" should be no blocking problem. Basically, I think that those cats should be named as their parent cat followed by (SVG). I'll need some time to look into it, to see how many classes there are, if there are many cat-generating templates involved and how the names relate to the parent cats. Especially, the "svg flags - xxx" might be problematic as the structure of the category naming cannot always be used as is ("SVF flags - historical of xxx" to "Historical flags of xxx (SVG)"; a quite different structure. I suggest to continue the discussion and findings on Category talk:SVG, but I would leave certainly the SVG coats of arms for the end. And I have to try to find out the results/implication of Multichills suggestions in the previous section. To get it moving anyway, we might already start with a clarification on the SVG talk page and start moving the isolated and easy cases. --Foroa (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Why not discus it on Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/06/SVG category names ? Teofilo (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rembrandt

Beste Foroa, gewoon uit nieuwsgierigheid: Waarom heb je Category:Self-portraits by Rembrandt verwijderd en Category:Rembrandt selfportrait behouden? Met vriendelijke groet, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dag Vincent. De categorienaam is inderdaad niet meteen de gelukkigste, maar als je in category:Selfportraits en de vele subcats kijkt dan zie je dat die overeenkomt met de huidige de facto standard. Bovendien waren bij het redirecten twee interessante subcats weggevallen. Hoedanook, dergelijke category renames gebeuren beter in een ruk in plaats van verschillende varianten te laten ontstaan: Self-portraits by Rembrandt, Self-portraits from Rembrandt, Self-portraits of Rembrandt, Rembrandt self-portraits, ... --Foroa (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
ok, dan stel ik vast dat je het niet helemaal oneens bent met mijn eerdere actie. Dat is fijn om te horen en als ik daar de tijd voor heb zal ik category:Selfportraits een keer grondig doorlichten. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Adam Mickiewicz Monument in Ivano-Frankivsk

Hello!

This category contains only one file. Categories containing only one file are very uncomfortable and very discouraging to the traversal. I always notified all found categories containing only one file. Nobody didn't call in question this. --Starscream (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All categories start small and it is better to have a decent category structure. There is no rule that forbids a category with one element, and as you see in the other related category:Adam Mickiewicz monuments, it will fill up eventually. Fortunately, contrary to the past, people start to understand that the sooner one has a proper category structure, the less we are wasting time moving images from a higher category to a lower one. Emptying and deletion of proper category structures is much more discouraging than categories with one element. --Foroa (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The lack of such rule is a fact very strange. Is nothing a hindrance, the category to create after the upload the second file. What for the hurry? Evidence that the category only with one file is very uncomfortable. For me it is the nightmare. Liquidates the pleasure of the inspection. The reasonable quantity of files on few windows, instead of arduous clicking. --Starscream (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
My nightmare is that categorisation work and categories from other people are destroyed for no good reason. It keeps the parent category cleaner. You seem to be one of the rare people that hate categories with one file. We even don't delete rarely empty categories when we know that they are structural and will fill up eventually. --Foroa (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I will not convince you. What a pity. I can't more reason. I speak from the perspective of the person looking through. I speak so if we created the album. But I do nothing illegal. We have almost five millions of files. So one ought to create five millions categories? I cannot this understand. I am rare? You are which second person I met on Wikimedia Commons which forming such categories. But I finish this discussion. I do nothing illegal. Bye. --Starscream (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Objects of <-> Objects in

It seems that you're rather experienced in categorization of geographic objects too, so I want to get an opion from you: User:mircea created new and renamed old categories from "Object of" into "Object in", especially in the area of "bodies of water". Examples are Category:Bays of Europe which were renamed in Category:Bays in Europe. Is this correct? My undestanding is that it should be "River of", "Mountains of", "Islands of", "Bays of" etc. Many other examples are like Category:Waterfalls in Oceania are existing. What do you think? Renaming? Thanks and regards, --Telim tor (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Some months ago, there has been an attempt, mainly pushed by User:mircea, to standardize "Oject in/of xxx" into a unique "Object in xxx". This "of" (natural resource) and "in" (artificial object) is indeed confusing for non English natives, but the "in" only solution is against the English language rule and very different from the en:Wikipedia. So it never gathered the needed support, but User:mircea moved on anyway, especially in his country and on the "continent level" organisation. The latter is seen by many people of some sort of parallel organisation, while de facto, the reference is the "by country" categories (98 %) of the cases. So, so far, when in doubt, align to "xxx by country" category that is the reference so far. You don't have to waste your energy to issue formal move request. You can insert such "harmonisation" move requests on User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands or wait till I have some time to clean that up myself within a couple of weeks. Anyway, my first priority is to have the "xxx by country" categhries correct and harmonised. --Foroa (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, many thanks for your explanations. --Telim tor (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Paintings_of_New_Testament_by_Gustave_Doré

Engravings are not paintings; this new name for the category is thus completely inappropriate except in the case of one image. Doré was a highly noted engraver; he was not at all known for painting. There is one painting int here - suggeest Art depicting the New Testament by Gustave Doré. Absolutely exhausted; sleep now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is now in category:Art depicting the New Testament by Gustave Doré. Sorry and thank you for improving. --Foroa (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. Honestly, I'd have fixed it myself if I wasn't completely and totally exhausted when I got home. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Testament paintings

Painting of a New Testament.

Beste Foroa, Ik moet je weer even lastigvallen over een Rembrandt-categorie, vrees ik. Ik begrijp niet helemaal waarom je Paintings of New Testament by Rembrandt verkiest boven New Testament paintings by Rembrandt. Het eerste is in mijn ogen in het beste geval lelijk Engels en in het slechtste geval zelfs foutief, omdat het opgevat kan worden als schilderijen van een boek. Wil je "Nieuwtestamentische schilderijen van Rembrandt" juist vertalen, dan is "New Testament paintings by Rembrandt" volgens mij de enige optie of ik moet er helemaal naast zitten. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wel, het is dan ook een lastig geval. Voor mij is "Paintings of New Testament by Rembrandt" net even verwarrend als "New Testament paintings by Rembrandt"; beiden kunnen geïnterpreteerd worden als schilderijen van of schiderijen betreffende het Nieuwe testament.n
De hoofdreden echter waarom ik de naam veranderd heb is om een duidelijker structuur in de cat-naam te krijgen (topic - preposition - qualifier [-preposition - Qualifier]) die ook aansluit met hogere cats zoals "paintings by subject". De structuur is nu "[style] Paintings of <subject> by <Painter>". Een dergelijke structuur heeft meer uitbreidings flexibiliteit, bijvoorbeeld "Romanesque paintings of book 1 of New Testament by <painter> de oude". Met jouw structuur zou het Romanesque New Testament paintings by Rembrandt".
Natuurlijk zijn er nog problemen en verbeteringen mogelijk. In feite is New Testament geen subject, de paintings betreffen eigenlijk dezelfde onderwerpen als het New Testament, niet het New Testament zelf.
Er zou een "the" voor New testament moeten bestaan, maar die "the" vliegt omzeggens altijd weg in het begin van een zin en wordt heel uitzonderlijk niet weggelaten binnen de categories (The Netherlands, the Islands, the canton, the Alps (soms)) vb zonder "the": department, disctrict, province, kreis, rivier namen.
Andere ideeën voor de "of" in "Paintings of New Testament by Rembrandt" "related to", "referring to", "inspired by", ... --Foroa (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Dank je voor je antwoord. Ik zou het alleen betreuren als een bepaalde structuur ten koste gaat van goed Engels. Je schrijft dat New Testament paintings by Rembrandt geïnterpreteerd kan worden als schilderijen van het Nieuwe testament, maar dat is volgens mij niet waar. New Testament paintings laat zich vertalen als "Nieuwtestamentische schilderijen" en laat verder geen ruimte voor overige interpretaties. Bovendien zijn er voorbeelden van categorieën waarbij de sructuur om praktische redenen is losgelaten. Een voorbeeld is Category:Dutch Golden Age painters. Ik zou dus willen vragen om de structuur hier even links te laten liggen om voorrang te geven aan correct Engels. Ook denk ik dat verdere uitbreiding van de categorieën m.b.t. Rembrandt en Rubens niet zal plaatsvinden. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Ik ben het helemeel niet eens met jou en Nieuwtestamentische schilderijen is ook geen voorbeeld van goed (eenvoudig) taalgebruik. Ik kom binnen een paar dagen terug met een tegenvoorstel. Beste groet. --Foroa (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cities in Italy

Mon cher Foroa. Merci beaucoup pour ton message. Je te voulais écrire, mais en savant que tu ne parle pas l'italien, et à cause de mon anglais trop élemantaire, j'ai ne l'ai pas fait. Je me rejouisse que tu t'enteresse de notre problem italien. En effet j'ai trovée un grand chaos pour le municipalités d'Italie, dispersées partout. Maintenent un User me travaille contre (au moin pour le cités de la Lombardie), et il y a donc des problemes, qui au moment ne sont pas encore résoulu. Je n'ai pas compris parfaitement ce que tu voulais dire dans ton message. Mais je te remercie beaucoup pour tous ce que tu pourrais faire pour la solution des notres problemes. J'ai rappellé au bar italien ta discussion il y a un an, avec Tano, qui avait détruit la catégorie des Cities in Italy. A la fin je l'avai arrété; mais en tous cas il avait fait alors beaucoup de dommages. Salut à toi, DenghiùComm (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

C'est difficile des fois d'avancer quand il y trop d'idées fixes. Je te suggère d'essayer de trouver un consensus dans quelques provinces ou régions (une bonne partie des utilisateurs ne s'intéressent uniquement de leur coin), de se mettre d'accord sur les définitions des municipalités, cities, villages et de foncer dans une partie d'Italie ou ca va le mieux. (Step by step: d'abord les définitions, puis les relations et structures) Si vous trouvez des solutions avec des templates, ça ira beaucoup plus vite. Comme j'ai étudié le latin il y beaucoup d'années, et avec l'assistance de google translate, je m'y retrouve pas mal dans les discussions, donc si tu veux mon opinion de certaines discussions, n'hésite pas à me demander. Ce processus est en train de se faire aussi en Espagne, et il faut sans doute compter sur un ans avant qu'il y a un nouveau "de facto" standard. S'il faut, nous pourrions trouver de l'assistance des bots pour insérer des templates dans certains catégories des provinces par exemple. Bon courage. --Foroa (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour Foroa. J'ai relu avec tranquillité ton message en anglais et j'ai parfaitement compris ce que tu voulais dire. Merci pour tes indications sur l'existence de la Discussion en Category Scheme Italy, que je ignorais. Maintenent je trouve ici dessus ta réponse. Ok, merveilleux! si je te peux entraîner dans nos discussions en italien (quand ce sera absolument necessaire, of course!), je serai bien hereux de le pouvoir faire. S'il y auras des grands changements à faire après tout mon grand travail de réorganisation des cities, municipalities, villages etc. d'Italie, alors je te le demanderai de le faire à travers la SAINTE institution de Commons Delinker! Mais c'est correcte ce que tu dis, que c'est mieux d'arriver à un accord avant! Je te salue très cordialement! --DenghiùComm (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: La dernière signalation que j'ai fai à Delinker, c'est à propos de Nicosia en Italy-Sicily. C'est un problème que je reconnaisse partout dans les Cities in Italy. Certaines noms qui peuvent être confondu avec d'autres localités, parfois sont distingués par la nation (Italy), certes autres fois avec la région (e.g. Sicily), autres fois avec le sigle de la province en Italie (e.g. RC), autres fois ils suivent ce qu'on a decidé dans la it:wiki, sûrtout pour les hameaux, q'il faut mettre la commune de référence (e.g. Castellabate pour le village de San Marco). Quel est la façon la plus correcte que je dois suivre? Un jour il faudra aussi faire ordre en ce petit chaos... Merci pour tes conseils! --DenghiùComm (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sjabloontjes en cats

Hoi Foroa, wellicht lukt het jou om ze aan het verstand te peuteren dat categorieën via sjablonen toevoegen een slecht idee is, zie Commons:Village pump#Bundesarchiv categories. Multichill (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bixi ain't Pixiu

Those are two entirely different creatures. There was no reason to move stuff from Category:Bixi to Category:Pixiu! Would you kindly undo the migration? Vmenkov (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I will try the coming days to undo the move and improve the documentation to decrease the confusion and faulty moves are no repeated. --Foroa (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thanks

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA which just closed as successful. I really appreciate the trust that the Commons community has placed in me and look forward to expanding my contributions to Commons. Thanks again. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained reversals

Hi Foroa, you reversed two edits of mine, notably on Category:Zürichsee. Can you explain? -- User:Docu at 06:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your move request had no support, only opposition. So no reason to execute it unilaterally. --Foroa (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The move was executed by yourself (diff) without prior discussion and against stated policy and category description. You really should have undone it yourself. -- User:Docu at 08:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC), edited 08:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I will not do the debate again here. The moves have been executed in the context of an overall harmoonisation in the Zürich categories which was going on since many months. None of the moves had been contested before you (and only you) started the Zürichsee one.
With your bot, you executed moves, without any prior discussion, without any central visibility, so please remain coherent in your statements and refrain from hidden bot category moves. --Foroa (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
There wasn't really any other lake in the canton of Zürich you changed and it's not really located within the canton of Zürich, but I'd happy to read any discussion about this "overall harmonisation in the Zürich categories". Where was it? -- User:Docu at 09:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with my closing of the debate, you should really have it reviewed by someone else rather than edit war of its implementation and resort to unsubstantiated accusations. Besides, I still haven't seen any reference to the harmonisation you mentioned. -- User:Docu at 17:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I was awaiting a third party administrator to make the final decision which I would accept. I admit that my priority goes for naming coherence and people feeling at home when working in their country while yours goes for "English naming". Since you unilaterally decided that the time was over for the move request and that your opinion should be executed, I reverted back to the state before you issued the move request. Feel free to reissue the name request if you want.
Concerning the harmonisation. Several months ago, a couple of persons started a badly needed clean-up and harmonisation process in Switzerland. I received hundreds of Swiss category rename requests on the delinker talk pages, most of them I did execute without any serious problems or only slight modifications. In the end, we formed some trusted team that worked smoothly together with almost no discussions because they did a real good job. During that process, there possibly slipped a couple of renames from English names (most of them where "pseudo English" names) into German names which I failed to recognise as bad renames.
I should indeed have mentioned that my remark on your bot move was a side remark that has nothing to do with this discussion. I maintain however that potential controversial bot category moves should at least go over the delinker so that we have one single point of follow-up and for tracking it back. --Foroa (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
How long do you think would be an appropriate time to wait? I think that two weeks had passed and the request on notice board was there for long enough. My priority is to keep the names consistent with the agreed convention and to avoid forcing the names to be consistent in some subcategory while ignore all others. I do make sure that the current solution is working even for those attempting to categorize with another name, rather then breaking everything through changes.
Well, if this request stays open for one week, or five weeks, it is not going to change a lot, don't you think so ? On Commons, we have continuously a backlog of hundreds of thousands of images that need attention. To me, if one closes such a request, some subcats need be moved at the same time (3 or 4 in this case), so closing takes some work (some move requests take me several hours of investigation work before taking a position). Moreover, I noticed that move requests with a lot of emotional/political arguments can be executed easier when some time has passed over it. If you would have asked me to close it, I would have done all the necessarily moves at once, probably a couple of days later. --Foroa (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's an excellent idea of yours to review one of the other lake's names at Wikipedia, but I think you should take time provide more references to justify your point of view. The one you questioned isn't necessarily the one that most needs changing.
To me, a name is a real "English name", such as "Lake Zürich", if there is only one such name and one finds it in one or more reference books (encyclopediae). I trust less the Scholar books and google searches or so called official sites (en:WP:OFFICIAL and en:WP:OFFICIALNAMES) make me laugh as they copy paste from the web without any sort of control. So for me, there is no shadow of a doubt that Walensee is the only correct solution. --Foroa (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
In any case, I'd glad to know what you consider the appropriate time to wait. -- User:Docu at 17:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If you are really in such a hurry, you could have asked any administrator (including me) to close the requests. I prefer not to close requests in which I am involved in the discussion, but I have to do it all the time anyway. But I have a problem if a requesting user starts to do so unilaterally without any consideration of the huge backlog we are facing all the time. --Foroa (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The standard timeframe to wait is two weeks since the initial request according to {{move}}. Despite that, I see you frequently moving around categories before, even despite ongoing discussions. If you want to reduce your workload, you could easily wait until people request moves here or let them being done by Siebot automatically. No intervention from you is really needed.
As I did ask for the closing to be done after this timeframe and none did, I closed it myself. I don't understand how you could argue that you ignore my closing while considering that you could have closed it myself. You even went on to reverse the implemention of the closing without asking it to be reviewed.
I can understand that you may agree or disagree with some of the conventions of Wikipedia, but if you are looking for encyclopedia to confirm your namings, it is a good place to start with. -- User:Docu at 19:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please refrain from hidden moves

As it doesn't have anything to do with the previous discussion, please detail what you mean with "hidden bot category moves" I should refrain from. -- User:Docu at 09:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I will not waste my energy on discussions on actions from the past, just the example I stumbled upon recently. Your bot moved, without, as far as I can see, any form of discussion, category:Walensee to category:Lake Walen. The latter seems to be a "fabricated proper name". Both Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta know Walensee. Britannica does not know "Lake Walen", Encarte associates Lake Wallen (two l's) with Walensee. --Foroa (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Foroa, you are just imaging things. There is nothing hidden about it, it's a standard move.
But it is clear that you, Foroa, as with Lake Zurich, did do such a move in the opposite direction without proper consultation, undoing things we took years to build.
Anyways, please refrain from making such projections in the future and keep in mind that neither Britannica nor Encarta are Wikimedia projects. -- User:Docu at 13:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eine Idee

Moin Foroa,

sorry das ich auf deutsch schreibe, (eng lesen ok, schreiben ;-() ich hoffe Du kannst es vergehen.
Ich habe "Category:Harbour (Pescara) Touristik" angelegt weil es schon
"Category:Harbour (Pescara)" gibt, wenn man nun bei Category:Pescara schaut, steht Harbour unter H
der Touristik Port aber unter T.
Meine Idee wäre da "Category:Harbour Touristik (Pescara)" um beide unter H wie Harbour zu haben.
H
Category:Harbour (Pescara)
Category:Harbour Touristik (Pescara)
oder sogar Harbour in Pescara /Harbour Touristik in Pescara Was denkst Du? Tschüß --Tschüß Ra Boe (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone requested a category rename because the naming was not comliant withthe Commons naming standard and Touristik is not very much English. I changed the (piped) sort keys, and I think that it should now follow your wanted sort order. Right ? --Foroa (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry ich dachte Du hättest den Bot gestartet, und ok Touristik in not very English, hast Du eine Idee? btw. ich spreche mal User:Siebrand an. Tschüß --Tschüß Ra Boe (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
G.Dallarto was the requester, I accepted and executed the request. But that doesn't matter. The question is if, after my modifications, the new name and new sorting satisfies your needs ? --Foroa (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
ich bin auch damit einverstanden, war nur eine Idee, Ihr seit im englischen sicher besser als ich und von daher Danke und Tschüß --Tschüß Ra Boe (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Oaks in heraldry

I recreated Category:Oaks in heraldry and you restored the history. I could have tried to find out how to ask for that, but I didn't (lots of work, probably hardly any use), but you did restore it anyway.

  • Was I wrong to not ask for the restoration? Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As it happened, there was some use for the old versions, thanks for restoring them. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I speak Dutch. If I wasn't wrong, you may just delete this remark (possibly answering in the summary). Erik Warmelink (talk)

If I see popping up a new category in my watchlist, most of the time it means that it has been deleted, so I restore it (most of the time). It seems a good idea to try to get the history of categories intact (and to verify if it is not the fifth time that a certain category is being created). And sometimes, it proves useful as is in this case. Recreating is quicker than relying on someone to undelete it. --Foroa (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't know the difference between "recreating"/"restoring" and "undeleting"; if I did nothing wrong, you don't need to explain it. In general it is a good idea to keep the history, but I somewhat knew the history, since I asked for the move. "Oaks in heraldry" was often 99% "Oak trees in heraldry" (98% or 97% if new coats of arms with parts of oaks were added). Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact, it is such a good idea to keep the history that it might be useful to have a link where people can ask to "recreate"/"restore" and/or "undelete" a category. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Undeletion requests or COM:UNDEL. --Foroa (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping for something like MediaWiki:Recreate-deleted-warn (not for pages, but for categories). Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguated category titles

In regards to [10], should the part in parenthesis really be capitalized? What did you mean by "Unmotivated request"? How can a request lack motivation? :) Rocket000 (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's not really disambiguated in normal sense. Rocket000 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That's correct: I saw an unmotivated rename request, no links to wikipedia's and a category name for disambiguation which did not correspond with what I would call a correct title, such as "actors in the space exploration", ... (Space exploration is larger than space flight, dogs are no people nor organisations). Moreover, the request was issued by an anonymous IP, which tend to stay there for ever without response. So I reacted the quickest possible way to force a clarification. And it worked;) To be honest, I did not take the time to check further "seriousness" of the IP contributions. --Foroa (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
{{Move}} has a reason/motivation field. --Foroa (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, now realize that it was simply a language issue (on my part even though I am the native English speaker ;-). Usually, when I hear "motivated" or "unmotivated" I think of the first definition of it: wikt:motivation, not #4. About the capitalization, I was just curious because "Space flight" is not normally capitalized. Rocket000 (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If you have another short word for unmotivated (unreasoned seems strange): welcome (motive in motivation is the first meaning to me). To be honest, my first thought as reason was the change from organisation to US-English organization: a game with which I don't want to waste my time with. But you are right, Space flight should not be capitalized, but since the whole name is shaky ... --Foroa (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The name's crap either way; I wasn't suggesting you do anything about it. It just made me curious. Unmotivated is fine although it's normally interpreted as "lacking motivation" not "lacking a motivation" (or more commonly "lacking a motive") in reference to people, e.g. "I can't get any work done because I'm unmotivated." Rocket000 (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Nature of Grenada

Hello,

Why did you make the change http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3ANature_of_Grenada&diff=25320700&oldid=16089006 -Arb. (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Mistake, should be corrected by now. --Foroa (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ta very muchly. -Arb. (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Subcat's of Category:City gates in France

Hello, Foroa, can you uniformise the subcat's of Category:City gates in France by department by changing all Category:City Gate... into City gates... (pluriel, no capital for gates). --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, one of the coming days, or even today ... ;) --Foroa (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "The" University of Tokyo

Thank you for telling me an important information. I just created the category without looking for the rules of wikimedia commons... I'm sorry. And thank you for moving all files in "Category:Tokyo University" to "Category:University of Tokyo". --Hohoho (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. I noticed your reply on your talk page, no need to fragment discussions. Anyway, the "The" rule is the same on the en:wikipedia; see the various interwiki's such as en:University of Tokyo. --Foroa (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:2004 in the United States

As you can see from the subcats to Category:United States by decade, the proper format for the year/country categories is "[year] in [country]". That's true of the United States (only the 2000s United States categories were created in the "[country] in [year]" form, contrary to every other decade), and almost every country. Consistency requires that the 2000s U.S. categories be fixed, not the other way around. --skeezix1000 (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a funny way of doing: decades as "country by decade", years as "year in country". That is asking for troubles. --Foroa (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Completely agree. I think "United States in 2004" is better than "2004 in the United States" for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately, almost all of the country/year categories follow the "[year] in [country]" format. If someone proposed a wholesale switch, I'd support it, but in the meantime I am just trying to keep everything consistent in this one category tree. --skeezix1000 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Bell towers in Calvados

Hoi, Foroa, Category:Bell towers in Calvados should for the moment contain only Category:Beffroi de Honfleur, all other items (files) should go in Category:Church towers in Calvados. Can you fix that. --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See also User talk:Coyau‎ about Bell towers in Calvados, there is inconsistency arising here. How to handle this? --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Before doing anything, you should have some central discussion point on the talk page of the related categories or so. If the discussion point is volatile (Bistro, pump, ...), I would suggest to copy it on the talk page of Commons:Category scheme France. Suggestion to document conclusions/resolutions in the concerned parent categories (Bell towers in France, Church towers in France) with reference to the discussion. --Foroa (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
See intro at Category:Church towers in France. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done All fixed now. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay: this item was the next point on my list. --Foroa (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrectly named

Please tell me why this was done and where I could find the help topic about correct naming? Massalim (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that in an international mullti-lingual project with a system that is basicaly mono-language, names cannot be used in all possible languages and characters sets (Wikimedia supports/serves hundreds of languages and tens of charactersets). Since you kept reverting some categories in Cyrillic named categories, I used the bot to make it more clear. Language rules are in Commons:Language policy. Other naming conventions are spread out but you could start with COM:CAT and Commons:Naming categories. Best. --Foroa (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
If you have a problem finding correct names, I can always try to help or find some assistance, but I noticed that you are quite fluent in English and created already more than 10 categories in English. --Foroa (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess the problem is that you’ve told the bot to merge the categories into a single one. --AVRS (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose so. I was alerted by several reverts and move back into Cyrillic named categories, so when I looked in the parent category:Valaam Monastery, I noticed that the user started to diffuse the content of that category into 9 cyrillic named categories. Those categories were not documented whatsoever. I understand the frustration of some people that, because of their wikipedia policy, they are forced to put all their images on Commons. So they try to force categories in their own language and characterset. On the other hand, I spend a lot of time of trying to find the proper translation of categories in Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Hebrew, Farsi and Arab, most of the time without any sort of cooperation or help. In this case, I considered it a clear attempt to create quickly a series of cyrillic categories and since the operation just started, the quickest solution was to merge it all back where it came from. --Foroa (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Hi! I'm an administrator from Polish Wikipedia. Please delete this file. A vandal from Poland has uploaded this photo and used it in an article about his girlfriend. Best regards, Wiktoryn (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Place in century OR century in place ?

Hallo! Before messing more up, I though I might better consult you. Do you prefer Category:20th century in Denmark or Category:Denmark in the 16th century? If you prefer the latter style, please use the category delinker to replace the former by its proper name. Do you have any other comments to the categories like Category:1945 in Denmark I have created (mostly for the 20th century)? Thank you Nillerdk (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hej. As you can see in the discussion #Category:2004_in_the_United_States above, there is a mess, but the mess is consistent: "year xxx in country" but "country by decade xxx" and "century in country" again. I suggest to follow the same messy logic till someone finds the time and courage to set that right. --Foroa (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Soest

I'm afraid I don't understand why you moved Category:Soest to Category:Soest, Germany. Since Category:Soest wasn't occupied by anything else there was just free space for it. Therefore in my eyes the moving doesn't make more sense than making things long-winded and difficult. If you know any logic and comprehensible reason for the moving please enlighten me! -- Ies (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand why you moved Category:Soest, Germany to Category:Soest. I avoid conflictual names (de:Soest (Begriffsklärung)) (and leave the space for it) and in my eyes, it makes no sense to try to claim priority of a name and not to avoid conflictual names. If you have a problem with the subcat names of Soest, Germany, I'll change them for you with a bot. --Foroa (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Soest isn't really a conflictual name. As you see from (de:Soest (Begriffsklärung)) there is only one Soest listed. If you think that it should be Category:Soest, Germany because for instance there is a de:Soest (Niederlande) / Category:Soest, Netherlands think of
to understand the trouble you caused with the moving of Soest. To make a long story short: I'm asking you to revert the moving. Thanks. -- Ies (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
These are major world cities anyone will know. Claiming that the German city is more important is not very logical in an international project like Commons. As you can see at en:Soest, the enwp people seem to agree. Multichill (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Those are moot arguments and you are twisting the truth. When looking in the interwiki's of de:Soest (Begriffsklärung), for example nl:Soest and en:Soest, one can see that all other wikipedia's have a disambiguation page on Soest. Of course, for the German wikipedia, your Soest is the most important, for the Dutch wikipedia, it is theirs but they avoid that sort of confusion through proper disambiguation.
Soest, Germany has been moved, quite rightly, after a move request 10 months ago (without any complaint). Although the German Soest seems 5 % bigger than the Dutch Soest, I refuse to waste my time in silly debates which one is the most important. To me, each person from whatever what nationality has to be able to work on his city, region, ... with equal priority in terms of "exclusiveness" of the name. The only exceptions I accept is for countries (Georgia) and very international (capital) cities with many historical connections, like Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, London, Berlin, ... All the others, I disambiguate as quick as possible as this avoids the type of needless time wasting discussions like this one.
I am proud to cooperate on Commons in an international community, but we have to behave like an international community too: it is important to me that each contributor feels that he has equal priority, even when working on the media for his little village. And again, I have no problem in renaming all Soest subcategories myself if that solves the problem. --Foroa (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Categories "Buildings and structures in xxx"

I´m sorry, I didn´t know that now there are diferent categories. I didn´t realize about that. In the future, I´ll change the categories that I´ve been creating this days by others, broken buildings and structures. Thanks for the warning. --Iago Conversation 14:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Commons is an international cooperation and we have to work together. --Foroa (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Belgian Mills

I'm trying to categorise these by province to make it easier to add the the the various lists on windmills in Belgium on the English and Dutch Wikipedias. Hence the split by type and province. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have the name of the town or city, you have it all. No need for more; it is more important that the pictures of the mills are in separate categories than in intermediate category levels. --Foroa (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There are a sufficient number of photographs to justify the breakdown. Once I've finished, the Category:Windmills in Belgium will only have subcats showing - at least that is the plan. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Diasgree and I will reintegrate them. Categories per mill are the only good long term solution. --Foroa (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Categories per mill are a good thing. But only when there are a sufficient number of photos to justify the category. Thus - individual mill > province/county > country. Is it really worth creating a cat with just one file? Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Because there are no rules for image names (so in a category full of pictures, you have no proper sorting, naming or location), an encapsulating category per item is the only way to have control of the naming and sorting, have clean lists and multiple categories (location, type of mill, age of mills, operational/not, museum, ...). The wikipedia rule that you should have several items before you make a category does not apply in Commons at all (I would say on the contrary: what sense makes it to have a category that is containing mixed subcats, galleries and lose images ?). Large categories are very well manageable with categories (category:Cities and villages in Belgium), not with images. The latter however is extremely useful for visual search (for example to find green mills or mills with a copper roof) and selection without having to dig in hundreds of subcategories. A cat structure takes a couple of tens of bytes, nothing compared to the multi-Megabyte images. For the mills, I think that it is useful to maintain a global mill category as most people don't know the differences between the types of mills. --Foroa (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously we are in disagreement here. Is there somewhere that this can get wider discussion amongst the community? I'll not recategorise any more images if you agree not to undo those I've already done pending further discussion elsewhere. what do you say to that? Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Raised at COM:VP. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) Per the discussion, it would seem that a split by province is a good idea. Would you mind if I split the images by province, and also categorise them as post, smock or tower mills in Belgium (which is how other countries mills are treated)? Mjroots (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I leave it open for a couple of days and then I close/conclude. --Foroa (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category deletion

Hey, I was wondering if you could explain to me the reason behind the deletion of Category:Oriental Institute and its associated subcategory. For the record, I created it to replace Category:Oriental institute (also deleted) and its associated subcategory, which needed to be capitalized because "Oriental Institute" is a proper noun. Thanks DroEsperanto (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You made indeed a requests to the delinker. As you moved the files by hand, you can see on your watchlist that the bot moved it to category:Oriental Institute, Chicago because that is the en:wikipedia name and as you can see in en:Oriental Institute, there are several Oriental Institutes, so we absolutely have to insert a disambiguation term to avoid confusion and mistakes. --Foroa (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks! DroEsperanto (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A request/question

Hello. I'm not intimately familiar with how things go on Commons and I was wondering if you could help me out with something. I have some concerns with the file contributions of User:Unbiassed. He has licensed virtually all of his uploads as PD-self. However, I find it highly unlikely that he was around in the early 1900s to take this photograph, and then made a comeback in the 1960s to make this duck stamp, especially since from former revisions of his user on English Wikipedia, I believe this image is of him when he was a child (note that that image is also marked as PD-self). Granted, the first image may be in the public domain (the subject died in 1935, so there's a good chance that picture was taken before 1923), but for many of the rest of his uploads (including the photograph of him when he was a kid) I think there may be copyright issues at hand, or at least licensing technicalities (PD-old instead of PD-self). I feel bad bringing it up, because I recently AfD'd an article he wrote on English Wikipedia, but I think it needs to be done. DroEsperanto (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I am mainly active in the category area, I moved your request to Commons:Village_pump#A_request.2Fquestion_on_licenses. --Foroa (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category deletion

Dear Foroa, this is just to explain the existence of a few empty categories of villages at Commons, at least one of which (Category:Jaronice) you have deleted. There is a photo grant to take photos of municipalities that do not have their photos at Commons at Czech wiki yet. All the photos need to be categorized of course but within 3 days of the date of the journey, participants need to fil in a chart to describe their photo journey. The photos need to be uploaded within a month. I had some extra time when filling in the chart so I prepared the Commons categories of villages but I am uploading the photos now, some days later :-) : Cheva (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I normally don't delete empty categories unless there is a very good reason (being empty is most of the time no good reason). I deleted Category:Jaronice because it was not properly categorised and no history of real usage. --Foroa (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thijs, Gar en Harmonie

Ik zag dat je Thijs, Gar en Harmonie liever naar Thijs (tugboat) bracht. Prima, niks mis mee. Maar kijk even bij de Belgische boten, die staan bijna allemaal op (tug) in plaats van (tugboat). Dat zou dus mijn voorkeur hebben. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Geen echt probleem, je kan dat gerust veranderen. Maar ik kan ook de tug's veranderen naar tugboat als je wilt. Tug is (voor mij)niet echt duidelijk en schept verwarring zoals met Category:Yzer (tugboat) en Category:Yzer (tug). Nu is het nog doenbaar om te uniformiseren (ship, tug, tugboat), binnen een aantal maanden niet meer. Je kiest maar en ik doe het binnen een paar dagen. --Foroa (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Dan denk ik dat voor iedereen tugboat de duidelijkste versie zal zijn. Maar laat dan even een zoekslag over de tugs gaan, want het zal best meer voorkomen. Die Yzer leverde het probleem dat er twee sleepbootjes met die naam zijn. Dat heb ik maar opgelost de de één tug en de ander tugboat te noemen, maar wellicht zijn daar beter conventies voor. Nummeren of zo. Die leer ik dan weer graag. Ik doe dus zelf even niets tot je meldt dat ik weer iets moet doen, anders zitten we elkaar in de weg.
Inderdaad, (tugboat) lijkt mij het meest logische/herkenbare. Tja, de een "Yzer (tug)" heten en de de andere "Yzer (tugboat)" lost natuurlijk niks op. Ik blijf me afvragen waar je al die details vindt. Kan er geen "Yzer, location (tugboat)" van gemaakt worden ?. Of iets anders die ze onderscheidt (gewicht, hp, lengte, streek, rivier ?). Een nummertje bijplakken geeft een verkeerde indruk van de naam, desnoods kan het, maar dan gescheiden door een comma. Je ziet wel. --Foroa (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Als ik een plaats erbij vind kan die vermeld, maar dat is bij deze foto's vaak lastig. De man maakte plaatjes in een lage resulutie en dan zijn details lastig te vinden. De eerste Yzer was niet zo lastig, de naam staat erop en dat het een Belgisch slepertje was zie je aan het (in België verplichte) vlaggetje op de kop. Hij is ook te vinden via Tugspotters
Zoals gezegd, ik blijf me verbazen over je doeltreffendheid en je energie om al die details uit te spitten.
Het heeft geen zin om foto's te verzamelen als je ze niet terug kunt vinden. Voor zeeschepen gaat dat per IMO- en binnenschepen per ENI-nummer. Het is sport om ze terug te vinden. Ik heb inmiddels een lijstje met sites waar je details kunt vinden. Hopelijk hakt iemand een keer een knoop door over de IMO category. Ruim 2200 schepen en dan zou ik best wel eens willen weten of er ook naar gekeken wordt. Als je met Google zoekt komt ie meestal snel bovenaan. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Alhoewel ik vind dat er hier dikwijls te ver en te variabel gecategoriseerd wordt, vind ik juist de IMO en ENI categories de rol van Commons. Ik denk niet dat die IMO/ENI categorie systemen kunnen verbeterd worden en die job gaan spreiden over verschillende wikipedia's is zinloos. Zo hebben wij een unieke database die alle verbanden legt. Nogmaals, hoed af voor dat werk en ik zie niet in welke knoop er nog doorgehakt moet worden. (Sommige mensen hebben het blijkbaar moeilijk om de rol van die nummers te begrijpen) --Foroa (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Niet anders dan dat ik vervelend vind dat er nog steeds boven staat: "This category is being discussed in accordance with Commons's Categories for discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the pages or files in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized." --Stunteltje (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Overigens: Was het je opgevallen dat ik na de enorme klus van categoriseren van Category:Frederic Logghe Maritime photo collection de Category:Ships maar weggehaald heb? Ik dacht al z'n plaatjes in kaart gebracht te hebben en dan kon ie wat mij betreft daar weg. Als dat op tegenstand stuit hoor ik dat wel. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Natuurlijk kan die Category:Frederic Logghe Maritime photo collection aan de kant gezet worden als alles ervan netjes geklasseerd is. --Foroa (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] STS-Categories

Hi Foroa - I just saw that you undid three of my edits where I removed the STS-categories from the astronaut categories. We have over 130 STS-categories and there are altogether only 15 astronauts in them. We should be consequent and either add the STS-categories to the astronauts or remove all of them. In my opinion it's better to remove that few. --myself488 (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To me it looks perfectly natural to link astronauts with their missions. I think that there are many more astronauts than 15 on STS missions, but they are probably not all created yet. Moreover, those category linking is one of the domains where commons excels, so people will link them anyway, so why removing them without a valid and documented reason ? A logic that, if it is only partly done, just remove it, is not in line with the Commons and wikipedia philosophy: they keep growing and improving. If you add a number of random connections between astronauts and missions, you will see that a couple of months later, they will be significantly improved. --Foroa (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rowing blades of rowing clubs from the Netherlands

Hallo - kan ik even wat vragen? Ik heb een aantal Rowing blades gevonden voor roeiverenigingen in Nederland. Die wilde ik dus maar verzamelen in een categorie, maar kon me niet goed inddenken hoe ik dit eens zal noemen. Er is Category:Rowing blades en Category:Rowing blades of Amsterdam rowing clubs, maar het wordt allemaal een beetje omslachtig? Wat dacht je van Category:Rowing blades from the Netherlands (of/from etc.)? of toch maar uitgebreider zoals hierbover met "rowing clubs" er ook nog bij? Voorbeeldje van een file dat daar dus in moet: File:Amphitriteblad.jpg... alvast bedankt. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ik had geen idee dat er zoveel soorten bestonden; hopelijk woekert het niet zoals flags en coats of arms ... ;). Als syntax, die met het extra woord wat omslachtig lijkt, zou ik verkiezen: Category:Rowing blades of the Netherlands en Category:Rowing blades of France. Category:Rowing blades of rowing clubs of Amsterdam is de theoretisch correcte versie, maar Category:Rowing blades of Amsterdam lijkt mij meer dan voldoende (er zijn waarschijnlijk niet veel blades die niet van de clubs komen). --Foroa (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ja ja, leuk werkje :) Ik hou het maar op Category:Rowing blades of the Netherlands etc, en zal die van Amsterdam ook hernoemen tzt (het is even afwachten hoe druk ik het heb elders) Bedankt voor het snelle antwoord & in het algemeen natuurlijk bedankt voor alle hulp die je me al gegeven hebt. WikiThanks.png Groeten -- Deadstar (msg) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IMO Nummers

Bij dat laatste sluit ik mij helemaal aan. Dank voor de verwijdering van de nominatie. Overigens, het gekozen voorbeeld geeft precies aan waar de hik zit. Twee namen voor hetzelfde schip. Je zou zelfs kunnen overwegen om ook Category:IMO 7126322 erbij te zetten, maar er zijn geen aparte categoriën per scheepsnaam bij en slechts 1 foto. Magertjes --Stunteltje (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Church category naming convention

Did you see my notes at COM:DL? I don't see much pattern to the church category names. Some are in other languages (so obviously that even I could translate them) and some are in English. Wknight94 talk 17:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have the same problem, especially in the east of Europe. It is very time consuming to find proper translations, especially for categories in Russian. The problem is that only after a while, when there are interwikis and other types of church categories are added that you have a better idea what could be a proper English name. If you spend some time, or look here, you can decode the structure of the 300 or so Kostel/churches. Frankly, I don't know how to respond, but we have to do something. The two Czech administrators seem to stay clear of that type of discussions. I have personally no problems with church names with a name structure as in English which are easily recognisable (st/saint/san xxx church/kyrka/kirche/kerk) but when the words AND the structure are completely different, I think that we have to react more strongly. I guess that we could give it a try to put a {{Move}} request on those cats with a proper English name and see how it goes, but I feel that if we don't react, its going to get out of hand. A real coopcooperation from a Czech person seems necessary to tackle this. I will issue a note for the administrators.
A church in Russia often doesn't have an English proper name, it almost always has a Russian proper name (and sometimes a Tatar &c proper name). What you have to do, is learn some languages or at least stop telling people that only West-Germanic and Romance dialects are allowed on Commons.
Alternatively, you could do what most speakers of English do: name them "bomb target", that solves the naming problem too. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As an example, File:Martinus kerk.jpg, File:Martinikerk.JPG and File:Martinuskerk Groningen.jpg are all St Martin churches in the municipality of Groningen, the last two were both within the city walls. OK, the Martinuskerk has been destroyed (ending the naming problem) but Groningen has had both churches for quite some time without a naming problem. Translating to English will lose information; I think it is a good idea to have descriptions in several languages, but I also think it shows typical western culture to ignore (or even destroy) the things which one doesn't understand. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I am one of the rare opponents of "inventing" English proper names, but it has to remain workable, especially in the category naming system where you can have only one single category name. I am sure that any suggestion that will improve cooperation and communication on Commons in 100+ languages and that are workable on all computers over the world will be greatly appreciated on the forum. --Foroa (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Why would having Czech names for Czech topics be "unworkable"? Forbidding people to create categories if they don't speak/write English, doesn't promote cooperation. If one doesn't understand the language of a country, one could just stay away from topics of/in/about that country (*cough*, says I, after I messed up category:Lipetsk Oblast). Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Initially, one could think of isolated local category "corners", in the end, they come all together through architecture, style, history, color, age, patron saint, religion, ... --Foroa (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] French — in category names

Bonsoir oui en effet le — est propre à la langue française, l'article lui aussi est nommé de la même façon. si je supprime le trais il faudra modifié énormément d'articles.

cordialement

--Parisdreux (d) 17:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

La majorités des catégories sont avec un trait standard. Je ne comprends pas quels articles il faudrait renommer. De toute façon, renommer les catégories est le plus fatiguant. Si tu parles des références interwiki's, nous pouvons en discuter, mais ce problème n'est pas énorme. Cordialement --Foroa (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

oui sauf que pour le nom de certaines gares françaises on utilise se tiret donc je pense que le mettre aussi sur commons est normal.

--Parisdreux (d) 20:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cat mergers

Hi Foroa. Waar en hoe stel ik een cat merger voor? (betreft Category:Venus (dea) en Category:Venus (mythology)). Groetjes, Lycaon (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Niet nodig: Category:Venus (mythology) is een redirect naar Category:Venus (dea). Je kan {{mergeto}} gebruiken, maar {{move}} is in het algemeen sneller (er moet niet gekozen worden). Beste groet. --Foroa (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Modeling vs modelling

A both British/American variants are about equally used, it makes no sense to move for and backwards from one variant to the other. --Foroa (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry: Is the double "l" British? I just thought it was a misspelling. Funny, I usually know British spellings when I see them. - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Javascript for User:CommonsDelinker/commands

Hi. Thought you might be interested in User:Wknight94/monobook.js. It puts a new [delete] link at the beginning of each {{move cat}} row in User:CommonsDelinker/commands. If you click on the link, it autodeletes the replaced category with a deletion comment that includes a link to the new category. I'm far from a Javascript expert but it worked well for me. Firefox only at the moment. Wknight94 talk 00:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am not allowed to use FireFox on all of my computers. I will try it later on. Anyway, I guess that these links (or autoredirect) should be done systematically by the botmover. --Foroa (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Undiscussed category move

Hi Foroa. Just a quick question: is there a specific guideline which made you move the category:Inn to Category:Inn (disambiguation) just after I created it? -- User:Docu at 18:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to keep the categories in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories and Category:Disambiguation empty, as media in those categories are not visible for most users. I have been watching those for more than a year.
Many "simple" categories, such as Category:Jura, Category:Hall and Category:Iris fill up with 10 to 50 images per month and noone really bothers to empty them. This is probably caused by what you could call "lazy categorisation", in other words, someone that looks for a category that matches first the category he has in mind, tends to get the first one that matches. So if you make a disambiguation category of the most/first matching category, you attract many images that are in fact not properly categorised. Many people don't check at all if it is really the right category: if the name is in blue, then it is alright. The same happens with some of the bots such as commonsense. Adding the word "disambiguation" to the category name avoids many wrong categorisations and forces the people to be more precise about the category name. (examples: Category:Jura (disambiguation), Category:Iris (disambiguation) and Category:Inn (disambiguation)) I got to keep Iris as a redirect because it got several upload bursts of tens and even hundreds of uploads.
On the other hand, since I deleted categories with "basic" words, like Inn, Jura, ..., each time someone attempts to "reuse" that name for a category, it appears on my watchlist, so I rename it properly before it contains many files and links, and add it to the disambiguation page. --Foroa (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
As an experiment, can we undelete Category:Jura and see what it does? I will sort them. Depending on the result and once I checked a few of the existing ones, I might agree to add your reasoning to Commons:Categories. -- User:Docu at 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome, you could try Inn too. In User:RussBot/category redirect log, you can have an idea about "lazy" categorisations, but the picture is not complete as several other bots do redirect moves. Category:Hall gives an idea too. --Foroa (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I did the two. Inn is likely to be full of "inns" rather than images of the river. As we generally don't keep singulars around, this one might not be such a good sample. I think the "Iris" sample you mention is a good way to use it. One could now search for "+Iris -Iridaceae" and most new additions end up in the correct category and are less likely to end up in uncategorized.
The ones moved by User:RussBot/category redirect log seem fine to me. In some categories, one sees that frequently hotcat resolves them directly. "Lazy" is more like adding them to Category:Ships instead of some of its subcategories, but it's easier to scan through uncategorized for some type of image and add them to one main fields and then categorizing them further. -- User:Docu at 04:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] editwar op Jenever

Ja, interwikis zijn voor de lezer, maar ik zie niet in waarom interwikis naar artikelen (in tegenstelling tot naar een categorie, zoals nl:Categorie:Jenever) de lezer zouden helpen (behalve dan van de wal in de sloot). De links naar de artikelen staan al vermeld in de inleiding. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

De de facto standaard zijn de interwiki's, die dus standaard op de linkerkant van het scherm staan. Bovendien zijn ze, voor zover ik weet, de enige standaard hier die, op een weliswaar onregelmatige manier, bijgehouden wordt door bots. Het feit dat jenever slechts in een twaalftal wikipedia's van de meer dan 270 wikipedia's bekend is en vermoedelijk nooit in meer dan 2 of 3 wikipedia's een categorie gaat hebben, wijst erop dat de begripsverklaring belangrijker is dan een equivalente categorie. Bovendien heb ik mijn grootste twijfels betreffende de gebruikte category heading. Hoe hou je dat leesbaar en zoekbaar met 300 verschillende talen en een categorienaam die uit vijf woorden bestaat ? Die categorieheader zou eigenlijk enkel maar de Engelse vertaling, de lokale naam en de user language mogen bevatten. Vergeet ook niet dat er veel categoriën zijn waarvan de header beschrijving en de categorie definitie sterk afwijkt van de interwiki's, zoals in Category:Rectories in the Netherlands en Category:Streams. --Foroa (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
De bots lijken mij een extra reden om niet tegelijkertijd zowel categorieën als lemmata bij de interwiki's te hebben.
Je zegt heel vaak "standaard", maar geeft geen link naar die standaard. Misschien is die standaard er wel, maar nu lijkt het toch een beetje op dat jij het zo doet.
Dat "zoekbaar" is makkelijk, ze staan op alfabetische volgorde naar taalcode (en dat is aan de linkerkant niet gegarandeerd). Dat "leesbaar" is volgens mij ook makkelijk, de meeste mensen kennen hooguit een handvol talen en die kunnen ze opzoeken in de lijst (die alfabetisch is geordend).
De Engelse vertaling helpt alleen als je een taal spreekt die erg op Engels lijkt. Wat dat betreft, is Category:Rectories in the Netherlands een triest voorbeeld van slechte naamgeving, er zijn nauwelijks Anglicanen in Nederland, en de rooms-katholieke pastorieēn zijn zelden een en:rectory. Dat is een nadeel van te vroeg vertalen, zelfs binnen het Nederlands lijkt de betekenis al regionaal gekleurd, in mijn Noord-Nederlands:
  • is een decanaat het gebied (niet de woning) van een deken;
  • is een pastorij een zelden/nooit gebruikt woord; is het meervoud van pastorie pastorieēn.
Door een stramien op te leggen dat niet past bij de taal en cultuur van een gebied voorkom je dat bestanden in de categorie terecht komen, terwijl ze wel in een vergelijkbare categorie geplaatst zouden zijn. Als je weet welke connotaties rectory heeft, plaats je een protestante pastorie niet zo snel in Category:Rectories in the Netherlands. Category:Streams is ook wel een aardig voorbeeld, maar dan de andere kant op: Category:Streams in the Netherlands is niet alleen zo asymmetrisch gevuld omdat Overijssel zoveel beken heeft, dat ligt opnieuw aan een te vroege vertaling waardoor "beek" ooit eens "river" werd, waarna dat als voorbeeld werd gezien. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Totalic (band)

File deletion warning Category:Totalic (band) has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца) | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (nynorsk)‬ | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Occitan | Polski | Português | Русский | Српски / Srpski | Tiếng Việt | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

--Soulkeeper (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 in Leeds etc

You have deleted the page category:2009 in Leeds. These pages were needed as the titles of the categories are reversed. Collectivley there are over 100 images in these categories so changing the names is out of the question (its a minor issue and would take a long time to address). The page redirects were required so that the links at the top of the page would work. If you do not know a way around this could you please re-instate the redirect pages with a standard redirect tag (the others inhibit the utility of the redirect). Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of categories "year in xxx". Redirects do not solve the problem of giving "alternative" names to categories: using the right naming convention is the only long term solution and avoids all sorts of "exceptional handling" hassles. I moved them for you. You can make move requests on COM:DL. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FYI...

...I mentioned your name here: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Categories. Wknight94 talk 11:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization issue

One user seems to have a problem with the fact that Category:Bozen is a redirect to Category:Bolzano; see, for example, this edit history. I have tried to explain it to this user, but the user doesn't seem to get the picture. Just FYI. --R'n'B (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a typical problem in areas where one has more than one language (German in Italy), combined with a person that does not understand the limitations of one worldwide category system. I am afraid that it will need some time and patience (and patience). --Foroa (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Checking of links

Previous you delete some replaced category, please do check and correct all links to it. You deleted Category:Direction road signs and you didn't corrected "see also" in the description of Category:Fingerpost. Thank You. --ŠJů (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We are moving around 2000 categories per month, which means that we can hardly follow the requested moves and verify broken redirects. Moreover, the checking and possible adaption of the links (in "What links here) could not be automated by a bot. So it is up to the requester (Jacklee in this case) to do the necessary adaptions. I updated the text in COM:DL. Best regards. --Foroa (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

Hello, Foroa. About Miley and Trace categorization thing. I don't think they're a "part" of their father, so I don't think a subcategory is the best solution in this case. What do you think about something like "Category:Cyrus family" which contains Miley, Trace and Billy categories? Thank you!--OsamaK 13:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Being/having part of their father: that's in principle the case. But anyway, categories are used all the time to express relations that are broader than just "being part" of. I have seen it in family relations, rivers flowing in another, causal relations (fire causes smoke and heat), timing relations, friend/family/assistant/spouse relations, ownership relation (Neverland from Michael Jackson), producer/artist --> product ... Don't forget that we don't have many articles to explain all those relations and that the commons categories serve equally for easy navigation. I don't think it is worth to create an intermediate category each time we want to express a family relation. I think that the categories are very handy to draw family trees, even if you create a family category (that remains flat). --Foroa (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nog even over Rembrandt

Beste Foroa, ik wou nog even terugkomen op de naamgeving van een paar sub-categoriën van Category:Paintings by Rembrandt. Ik kwam zojuist de categoriën Category:Old Testament figures en Category:Old Testament stories tegen. Mijn voorstel om Category:Paintings of Old Testament by Rembrandt te veranderen in Category:Old Testament paintings by Rembrandt zijn dus niet helemaal uit de lucht gegrepen. Ik hoop dat ik je hiermee kan overtuigen. Als dit betekent dat paralelle subcategoriën (van andere schilders bedoel ik) hernoemd moeten worden, bied ik me graag aan als vrijwilliger. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Beste Vincent, (nog steeds) niet meee eens. Wij zitten in de category:Paintings by subject, category:Paintings by subject by country, category:Baroque paintings by subject, category:Sculptures by subject, category:Busts by subject, ... klasse.
Ik heb er wel verder over nagedacht en ik denk dat Category:Paintings of Old Testament by Rembrandt beter hernoemd wordt naar Category:Paintings of Old Testament themes by Rembrandt. Ik blijf er dus by dat categorieën in simpel Engels (dus eenvoudige, systematische en uniforme structuur) moeten zijn dat zowel door niet Engelstaligen kan gebruikt worden en op termijn door computers kan vertaald worden (hetgeen problematisch is met de naam die je voorstelt). Groet. --Foroa (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Het spijt me, maar ik geloof toch dat ik hier in mijn recht sta, want het eerste is m.i. onmogelijk en het tweede niet waar. Als elke categorie aan die vorm moet voldoen, zou je bijvoorbeeld Category:Genre painting in Category:Paintings of genre en Category:Religious paintings in Category:Paintings of religion moeten veranderen, en dat slaat natuurlijk nergens op. En over het tweede: "Old Testament paintings" laat zich uitstekend vertalen. Ik ben ook een voorstander van simpel Engels, maar niet als het leidt tot lelijk Engels of, zoals in dit geval, foutief Engels. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Ik begrijp niet op welke stelling je zin "want het eerste is m.i. onmogelijk en het tweede niet waar" slaat.
Die Category:Religious paintings en zijn globale thematische container categorieën. Binnenin zie je wel dat, behalve enkele andere globale thematische container categorieën, vrijwel al de categorieën terugvallen op de "painting on xxx (by yyy)" structuur. Ook in de subcategorieën van Category:Religious paintings, vb category:Baroque religious paintings, category: Renaissance paintings of the Bible en category:Paintings of the Bible zie je die structuur terugkeren. Als ik jouw stelling zou volgen zouden er speciale structuren moeten zijn zoals bijvoorbeeld "Romantic bible paintings", "Renaissance New Testament paintings", "Baroque Old Testament paintings", die dan binnenin terug categorieën als de klassieke "painting on xxx (by yyy)" structuur hervatten zoals "Renaissance paintings of Adoration of the Magi", "Renaissance paintings of Annunciation", ... --Foroa (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Ik sta geen structure voor. Ik sta pragmatische oplossingen voor. Ik stel vast dat de structuur die je noemt alleen goed werkt voor objecten en gebeurtenissen. Zo zou het bijvoorbeeld inderdaad beter zijn als Category:Village paintings hernoemd zou worden naar Category:Paintings of villages. In het geval van genres werkt hij echter niet. category:Paintings of the Bible bijvoorbeeld is hoe je het ook bekijkt foutief Engels en betekent niets meer dan "Schilderijen van de Bijbel" als object. Ik stel dus voor om de structuur (waar deze ook geformuleerd staat, maar misschien weet jij dat) aan te passen en onderscheid te maken tussen objecten/gebeurtenissen en genres. Misschien zou je hier zelfs een mooi schemaatje van kunnen maken. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Akkoord. Zover ik weet bestaat er geen structuurdocumentatie omdat dit organisch groeit en verschillend is van onderwerp naar onderwerp. Precies omdat het niet gedocumenteerd is/raakt moet ik duizenden renames uitvoeren, en dan wordt je wel wat kritischer omdat er nogal dikwijls back and forward hernoemd wordt tot er een soort kritische massa ontstaat en dus ook een de facto standaard. Wij moeten even denken hoe we dat proper kunnen oplossen, misschien in de zin van "paintings of Bible/Maritime/... themes/genre" maar waar ik, als cultuurbarbaar, niet goed mee weg kan is het religious genre en het "genre genre". Suggesties meer dan welkom. Bestaat er ergens een lijst van al de genres/thema's ? --Foroa (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Ja, zo'n lijst bestaat. In de kunstgeschiedenis wordt gebruik gemaakt van de iconclass (een taxonomisch systeem om kunstwerken mee te beschrijven). Zie http://www.iconclass.nl/libertas/ic?style=index.xsl. Maar het zou wel heel ambitieus zijn om dit systeem op commons toe te passen. De lijst op Category:Paintings lijkt me trouwens redelijk compleet (je zou er evt. "genre paintings" aan toe kunnen voegen). Maar om naar rembrandt terug te keren: Stel je voor je bevindt je op in Category:Paintings en je zoekt een schilderij uit het oude testament van Rembrandt, dan klik je dus op Category:Religious paintings, vervolgens op Category:Paintings of the Bible (wat m.i. hernoemd zou moeten worden naar Category:Biblical paintings, maar dit terzijde), en vervolgens op Category:Paintings of Old Testament by Rembrandt (wat dus ook hernoemd zou moeten worden). Category:Paintings by subject komt in dit verhaal dus helemaal niet voor. Trouwens, ik zie ineens dat Category:Paintings of Old Testament by Rembrandt in Category:Old Testament in art staat en dat Category:Old Testament in art in Category:Bible in art staat. In deze laatste categorie is "Bible" niet bedoeld als genre, maar als object, als boek dus! Ook hier is dus iets fout gegaan. Mvg,Vincent Steenberg (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gothic Revival architecture

Hi, I noticed that you deleted Category:Gothic Revival architecture in the United States as being "Incorrectly named" and moved it to Category:Gothic revival architecture in the United States. I don't think that it really matters if "revival" is capitalized or not, but as an architect I can definitively state that the style is almost always referred to as Gothic Revival, rather than Gothic revival, in the United States and several other English speaking countries. But I realize that the category structure was already following the precedent set by other Gothic revival categories for Gothic Revival architecture. My personal volumes that deal with subject include Eastlake's A History of the Gothic Revival (2007), Andrew's Australian Gothic: The Gothic Revival in Australian architecture from the 1840s to the 1950s (2001), Brooks' The Gothic Revival (1999), Whiffen and Koeper's American Architecture, Volume 1: 1607-1860 (1990), and Faber's Neoclassical and 19th Century Architecture: The Diffusion and Development of Classicism and the Gothic Revival (1987). A very reliable internet source that deals with the subject is Boston College's Digital Archive of American Architecure. Although I don't advocate restoring the category as I originally created it, I thought that I should make you aware. Altairisfartalk 22:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and I appreciate your comments. I know that there is a problem there. Although I have to comment that Commons don't use title cases, which is the case for most reference work titles. I did a while ago some research on the en:wikipedia, and there too, in many articles and categories, the capitalisation is not consistent at all, although they did some major harmonisation last months. An example in en:Category:Revival architectural styles and en:Category:Romanesque revival architecture. The whole capitalisation issue is a tricky business as it seems to be much more present in the U.S. (and Germany), probably under influence of the title cases used in the titles, while in 70 % of the longer articles they mixup the lower/upper cases. This is often the case with reference works too, not to mention the mixups with the generic word castle/cathedral/house/building/church/... in the so called proper names. Another inconsistency is that lower case revival is used in almost all cases that are not in the architecture area, such as Bleus revival, Punk revival, ... Anyway, I never have seen a clear simple unambiguous uppercase rule and on Commons, the most important is that it is consistent, at least in a category three, if possible in all related category threes. And that is what I try to maintain. --Foroa (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is definitely a tricky business, as you do see lower cases used in the U.S. on occasion for the subject in question, just not very often in academic works. I wasn't aware that naming conventions were a little different here than on the English Wikipedia. Now that I am aware, I'll keep it in mind when creating new categories. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain! Cheers. Altairisfartalk 13:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mari Wikimedia Commons

Hello! Why did you delete main page of Wikimedia Commons in Mari language? Azimbaj (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there were several reasons why to delete that gallery page in the main space:
  • it contained template like wikicode, quite similar to the header of Commons:Пагален_ӱжына, so this should be in the commons or template name space
  • besides some small icons, it was not referring to any media, which is the basic purpose of galleries: documenting media on commons
  • it contained not a word of description of its purpose
  • it was not categorised and because of the lack of description, difficult to categorise myself.

If you provide me a proper destination name, I can copy the contents of the deleted gallery into that destination. --Foroa (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Foroa, I'm just passing by but I guess this page didn't need to have content like images because its created as a Mainpage and for those we have a other policy than we have for gallery's. I think it would be okay to undelete the file :) Huib talk 08:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for undeleting! :-) Azimbaj (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome. I cleaned/created some useful categories. Please remember that categories must be in English on Commons. --Foroa (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

[11] ????????? Lưu Ly (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Many reasons: categories must be categorised, cannot be categorised in a circular fashion on them selves and categories must be in English (I had no clue about the meaning of the category and it was not documented neither). According to the images in the category at that time, it corresponded with the content of category:An Dinh Residence, so I made a redirect. --Foroa (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
See also User talk:Siebrand#why ?. It's apparently a user category. Wknight94 talk 15:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Now, I know that it is a user category; when I did the redirect, I was struggling with categories in Vietnamese, Armenian, Chinese and Russian, I did not notice that the user name was buried in the category name. Citation from COM:CAT: The category name would be enough to guess the subject and Category names should always be in English . --Foroa (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see Category:User . Thank. Lưu Ly (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the text was confusing. I clarified the sentence: "Category:User - this is for categories that contain commons users galleries, images and texts, sorted by things like the language they speak. This also contains the Category:User galleries, which is for user specific (i.e. non-topic) galleries that don't need to be in English language."
Anyway, that does not override the rule that all categories must be in a category and category names are to be in English. You might propose another rename destination, such as "Images from user:Lưu Ly", which I know (with the current version of the google translator) corresponds better with what you intended to use. --Foroa (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, vi:User:Lưu Ly asks me to explain this situation for him. First to talk, "Hình truyền lên bởi thành viên Lưu Ly" is translated to "Images uploaded by User Lưu Ly" in English. As you quoted the COM:CAT, I suggest rename this category to the English name and categorized this category by Category:User categories. Besides, your "category redirect" is not careful, you did not understand the meaning of this category or try to understand it, either. I hope that this mess will be resolved. Tân (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Should become alright now. Maybe that my category redirect 3 months ago was not careful enough, but I was struggling with with undocumented and uncategorised categories in Vietnamese, Armenian, Chinese and Russian, and at that time I did not have a Vietnamese translator neither. And I must admit, when plowing through lists like this, one tends to get a bit less careful. The move from new redirects is only started after a week or so, so people have some time to respond. Thank you anyway for your help.
I have discussed and created a new Category:Files by User:Lưu Ly for him, and have placed {{category redirect}} in Category:An Dinh Residence and Category:Hình truyền lên bởi thành viên Lưu Ly. As a sysop, could you ask for recategorizing in User:CommonsDelinker/commands? We would not want to redo about 100 images manually :) Good luck with your job. Tân (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Should be mostly restored, including most of Category:An Dinh Residence. You can check here. Thank you for your assistance. --Foroa (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Next time, trust your friend Google Translate. ;^) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Topfer

Hi, I guess you have deleted the wrong cat: Deleted Category:Georges Topfer, kept Category:Georges Töpfer. But the most uploads name him Topfer, and there is a serious bibliography to be found in the web: http://www.eroticabibliophile.com/artists_topfer.php (no livedates). Sometimes he goes also as A. Smit. Regards User:Mutter Erde 78.55.24.144 13:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That was an almost capital error. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome  :-). Regards 78.55.24.144 14:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • by the way: What do you think about of the last edits of this encyclopedian? [12] see also his talk page 78.55.24.144 17:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It is really sad, but like in many divorces, the responsibility is diffuse, the triggers however are clear. --Foroa (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
haha, that's so true. I have started an undeletion request. Regards User:Mutter Erde 78.55.202.74 11:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Little help

Hallo Foroa. Can You me help, please, to find the discussion about the recent deletion of the most part of the Coats of arms of Italy? I am not able to find it again... Many thanks! --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I am on Commons, I hate coats of arms. These COA animals seem to multiply like the rabbits in my backyard, they keep coming back in other breeds, mixtures, colors, names, .... You turn your back for a couple of days and bang; 200 new COAs without a proper label. It must be related to viruses, maybe we have to find a myxomatosis related remedy.
But I'd love to help you. Any clue about a possible date (range) of deletion, file names, category names, uploader ? We have reasonable tools for tracking COA's when they appear. But when they disappear, its kind of more complicated. Not a quasar or big black hole, but difficult if you have no real names. --Foroa (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I search only the big discussion (like a tool bar) about the opportunity to delete or not delete hundreds of COA of Italy. There was a problem of license. Finally they deleted all (if I remember it's happened in july 2009). I am interested to know the reasons for this big deletion. Thank You so much! Saluti --DenghiùComm (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC) PS: yes, COA are like rats or viruses...! :-D
Foroa, I found it! . Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Me too. I tried via Google "site:commons.wikimedia.org "Deletion requests" Italy coats of arms" and finally stumbled on Commons:Deletion requests/Italian CoA. Not easy to find because the 2000+ files are hidden in a pop-down list. I hope that this is the one. --Foroa (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Two laghi

Would you move the two lakes in the other direction? Siebot moves so fast, I think it already went through. I'd rather not do them myself. Anyways, I think we should find a solution for proper nouns, these shouldn't really go through Siebot unchecked. We wouldn't want to resemble www.economy-point.org . -- User:Docu at 22:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I mistakenly assumed that the transfer was not completed. For most moves in combination with proper names, there must be at least Interwiki's provided (most of the time, I do it myself before executing the move). For some names, I spend one to two hours investigating and checking. I started already adding Interwiki's for those lake moves, but someone else launched the move before it could complete the checking of the list. --Foroa (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lakes of Italy

Hallo Foroa! Few days ago I discovered that there is a chaos in the italian lakes, and so I asked to delink a lot of Lakes of Italy which are categorised in italian. I see, there is a big problem: Lake XYZ, XYZ lake, Lake of XYZ, Lago XYZ, Lago di XYZ; and then we have all the lakes in South Tyrol (I let they be!!! Can you imagine why...?) with XYZsee and XYZ See. Now, some lakes was moved, some other not, some others was moved and then rollbacked. Can you please explain me which is the rule for the move cat they are done, and for they are not done? I will be very greatfull to you, then this will be an important help for me for the next time. Thank you so much! Cari saluti --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not very impressed with your move requests because you started translating your self, some of them very bad translations. For example Lago Piatto (without knowing the real origin of the name) : I guess that nobody ever can find "Flat Lake", but it becomes comic with "Lake Flat" (Like using "Big City" and "City Big"). Anyway, as a general rule, I align in the first place to en:Wikipedia, why I am asking Interwiki links on the categories to be moved. After all, we try to use the names that are the most common in the English speaking world and have the best chances to be found without disambiguity. On the en:wikipedia, they are not always consistent with the names, and for several names, I disagree, precisely because they are not really common. But I will come back on that subject later this week. --Foroa (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Foroa. I don't translate Lago Piatto in Flat lake: I found it so. You know: I am against to translate geographical names...! But I absolutly agree what you say, and I am happy that you look for the correct solution of this big problem of the names of the italian lakes. Thank you so much! Waiting on your next communication, molti saluti --DenghiùComm (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The continuation will be in a couple of days. You can have an idea how I proceed when looking in en:Talk:Walensee. --Foroa (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You critizised my initiative to rename the category "Lake Maggiore", although the half translated name is absolutely artificial. Don't you think that half translated geographical names are a way to hide the material? --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am completely against half or badly translated names. But to change names (and to find out how good they are translated), it takes me a couple hours of research work while if I have a case, I launch a rename request on the en:wikipedia too. But I am tired of seeing all those Swiss and Italian lakes renamed back and forward because some people "feel" that the native name is better, other require "English" names. So I block such moves till there is a clear case that we can close once and for good. --Foroa (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NSA

Plz answer to the discussion--Sanandros (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of language

I went ahead and archived the discussion at Commons talk:Galleries#Naming conventions, only because I would like to centralize the discussion at Commons talk:Language policy. Also, I would like to come to agreement on the page as it currently stands because there is enough common ground that we can elevate what we have as policy and come to consensus on the rest. Evrik (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in an effort to move the Commons:Language policy closer to completion, I have been editing it and cleaning it up for the last few days. I have tried to make the page as neutral and consistent as possible with the relevant policy and guidleine pages that it cross references.

I would appreciate it, as someone who has discussed some of these policies in the past, if you could look at Commons talk:Language policy and contribute your thoughts. This is the version that exists as I am writing it and I am encouraging everyone to consider the "static" page until everything gets sorted out.

Many thanks. Evrik (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tag removal

Hi, just curious if I got things wrong with the reversion you did here? I added the template according to Commons:Rename a category which does not indicate that the category should exist. Should I have created the category before placing the tag to get the category renamed? Keith D (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems obvious (to me) that a redirect to a non-existing item is a broken redirect and has to be repaired or deleted. Anyway, all redirected items can only redirect, cannot be categorised themselves and should eventually become empty. I clarified the text in Commons:Rename a category. --Foroa (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Please that this procedure leaves only a very small door open for discussion. In your case, the destination category was not only non existing but contained a typo (paranthesis at the end) as well. Someone who disagrees with the new name can simply put another destination category name. --Foroa (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I will create the category and try again. Keith D (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] porsch597?

re: category porshe 597

the category was listed under: uncategorized categories. i added the cat to the logical super-cat "porsche vehicles"

i'm not clear on why you've de-listed it?

Lx 121 (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

nvm, sry; media wiki is acting cranky on my present webbrowser. now the cats are back...

>__<

Lx 121 (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Sylvia

Sorry, I disagree very strongly, and concur with User:Ö on Category talk:Sylvia, that disambiguation is not necessary here. People are not going to add images if persons named 'Sylvia Xxxxx' to Category:Sylvia. You have also deleted a whole lot of work I put in to Category:Sylvia. - MPF (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I placed a move request on [[Category :Sylvia. I disagree very strongly that you move specific categories into more generic categories without any form of move request or CFD. There is "Sylvia, Kansas", "Sylvia movie", Sylvia gate, ... and within a year, I guarantee that there will be at least 10 other "Sylvia items". I have deleted nothing; everything is easy to get back. You did the same move from "Apus (genus)", which was not right neither as there are other Apus (constellation), and since we are serving 270 languages (that might confuse Silvia and Sylvia), one can never predict precisely what sort of other uses of a specific word are needed. Please keep in mind, that by the end of next year, we will have twice as much categories as the en:wikipedia, so we have to be very areful withh the use of categories with one single word, especially if it has so many uses.--Foroa (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Little information

Hi Foroa. Sorry if I came to you with stupid questions. In the most part of the pictures (files) you find this ''<!--{{ImageUpload|full}}-->'', What means this exactly? Is this important or not? When for a file I change the categories, can I delete this inscription or not? I never do it, but every time I ask myself if it is possible or not. Sometimes there are files they are so "crowded" with all kinds of inscriptions which have not to do with informations or license or categories...! Thank you very much for your answer! Saluti --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that it relates to the template that has been used for the upload itself. I don't think that they matter after a certain time (more like debugging information) and sometimes I delete them if I am changing in that area (along with things like NOTOC). But it would be a very good question for the pump: what secundary information can be deleted from image files. --Foroa (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "at" or "in" with Place Names

Good evening, Foroa. I was wondering why several categorie names were changed from the structure "Houses at ..." to "Houses in ...", the first version being denoted as "incorrectly named". As far as I know, most place names can be used with at or in, this making no vital difference, and therefore the changes appear unnecessary but irrelevant. However, whereas the new category names cause no problems where a whole town or village is its subject, a thing as Category:Houses in Lindenhof (Quarter Zürich) sounds rather odd to me. Kind regards, Abderitestatos (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right; "at" or "in" is not that vital. What is vital is that we have a consistent naming over all categories, villages, cities, cantons and countries (In is even weird on an Island). That's why your college from Zürich requested the move and why I executed it. Commons is supposed to be some sort of community with some things in "common". --Foroa (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion request because duplicate

Hallo Foroa. Please, tell me about this doubt: in categories like this, do you think that it's necessary / correct to make some deletion requests with {{duplicate| }}, or it is not necessary /possible? Thank you very much for your answer. --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your question. If you mean that some files seems identical, (if the system says so), then you can indeed insert {{Duplicate|original image}}, but only if they are identical at the bit level. They are only 9 KB files, and basically, bots could do that automatically, so I would not spend my time on it. --Foroa (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The template {{Duplicate|}} speaks of "...files that are an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of other files" and that "There should be only one exact copy of an image". In that category of the locator maps of the italian regions I put all the maps that I find round in all categories (and I continue to find others...!). Now I see that there are so much duplicates (for each region 3 until 5 copy!), files they have the same image, the only difference is the resolution in bytes. Is it useful to choose the better file (one for each region), and for the others (if they are the same, of course!) to ask the deletion because they are duplicate in a less quality? Thank you! --DenghiùComm (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem if you start about subjective assessments of quality. Moreover, many images are nearly identical but there are often details that are marginally different (text placement, cropping, color settings, ...). So we don't delete those as that would give rise to endless discussions and frustrate many users when their images are deleted. --Foroa (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I understand what you means. It's right so. Thank you, Foroa. Saluti --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why do you change upper case to lower case?

LAHAT, SPYDER, LORA are abbreviations, they should stay in upper case like TOW, LAW, IRIS-T. Moreover, there is no such thing "Spyder missiles" - SPYDER air-defense system uses Python and Derby missiles. NatanFlayer (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick first (rough) round of naming harmonisation because the longer one waits, the more things go wrong (as you have seen with Arrow missile). Concerning your comments, naming is not simple in this case for several reasons.
  • Normally, acronyms and all uppercase names are not allowed on Commons, but there is a gray area for type numbers
  • Many devices start their "career" as an acronym and end up to become a "common" name written normally. So even if names are abbreviations, but they have a "meaning" as a word (Spyder, Lahat, ..), we write them as a normal word.
  • There all already many missile names, such as RAFAEL written in lower case
    • So, indeed difficult to find a good compromise
Because Spyder was categorised as a missile, and there was no interwiki what so ever, I assumed that it was a missile system. So it was not correctly categorised nor had it the right name. --Foroa (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Rafael is no longer an abbreviation. NatanFlayer (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] info about life forms

Commons:Categories: Category names should always be in English (except life forms, for which the scientific Latin name should be used). Please also consider, that Wikimedia Commons is an international project. --Snek01 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Answered on User talk:Snek01. --Foroa (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Taunton, Somerset

Why was Category:Taunton moved to Category:Taunton, Somerset needlessly? en.wp has Taunton in Somerset as the page you get when entering in Taunton, and I thought in cases like these we follow en.wp naming conventions. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There was already a move request on it for a month. The basic category name rule from COM:Cat: "The category name would be enough to guess the subject". This is clearly not the case here where Taunton en:Taunton (disambiguation) exists in several countries as cities and with several other meanings. There is no rule for the biggest/most important/richest/most media/first Taunton on commons... We make only exceptions to that rule for capitals and cities with a major cultural/historical heritage (and for other practical reasons) such as Rome, Paris, Venice, London, Amsterdam, ... I understand that "your" Taunton is the most important one, but for the people in other parts of the world, ... their Taunton is the most important too. In most wikipedia's, the "main" one is the one that has been created first (so mainly US and UK ones), but you can see on the interwiki's that in several other wikipedia's, they don't see your Taunton as the most important one. We will not waste our time (as tried with category:Soest (disambiguation) and User_talk:Foroa#Category:Soest) to try to find out which one is the most important as this changes anyway for each of the 270 wikipedia's we serve. --Foroa (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You and Snek01

I got an email note from this user... says you're too involved to be blocking. Do you have any views on this? Would it have been better to get an uninvolved admin involved? ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I have plenty of patience and I block very rarely. I have seen the damage and conflicts caused by Snek01 lately, and considering the fact that he makes major category changes (and reverts it over and over again) without entering into discussion, I thought that a preventive blocking was the right decision as he seem to change first, think later. I have no problem that someone else takes it over, but as soon as I see his pattern of renaming, redirecting and reverting categories again, I will step in again as this harms too much the community. --Foroa (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Nod. My big concern is the alleged level of involvement here. I don't have the context to know, but do you think there's any validity to this "you're too involved" charge? Where do you normally edit? I thought it was at least in part in this area? ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I am probably too much involved. I work mainly in categories and Snek01 has been very disruptive in category renaming and redirecting without proper consensus, so I consider him harming the community. I just blocked him for a cool down period and to try to convince him to use proper discussion in stead of wildly changing category structures. He has been recently blocked for 24 hours for a similar pattern, why I blocked thiis time for 3 days. --Foroa (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably would have been better to get a less involved admin, then, I suppose. (like asking Tiptoety perhaps since he gave out the first one and has the context) Please consider that approach if there is a next time. I've commented on Snek's talk page... I'd be inclined to decline an unblock at this time, despite this issue. Best. ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem for me, but I think that my block confirmed and supported the position of Tiptoety; it is not always easy to handle such conflicts all alone without other administrators stepping in and investigating the problem. --Foroa (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

← Hi Foroa. I hope you are doing well. Now, about the block. Could you provide me with a few diffs that resulted in this block? While I agree you may have been too involved to have issued a block, the block itself may have been warranted. Tiptoety talk 19:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well not a lot to say; see here and the message User_talk:Snek01#Unidentified_species on his talk page, along with the various redirects, reverts as can be found in his contributions of today. Just like you've got to stop him to make continuously reverts, I felt I had to block him again as this seems to be the only way to force a discussion. And frankly, I am getting a bit nervous when people are redirecting wildly several important categories without listening; category structures are not always easy to repair. --Foroa (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I considered blocking Snek01 for editing my message to delete a block warning with the edit summary "cleaned up".[13] At that time, I suspected that Snek01 was not currently able to contribute constructively, but decided not to act. An hour later, Snek01 reverted Foroa a final time and was blocked. I endorse the block. It may have been better done by a less involved administrator. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The more I look into this the more I think the block itself is warranted. Snek doesn't quite get it yet. And I think Foroa has agreed about being too involved, we don't need to belabor that point. If Snek01 still hasn't gotten it after this block and you can't find an uninvolved admin, (any of you) please feel free to ping me. Best wishes everyone. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that it is important to clarify that I did not block in the first place because I am involved: I have seen, survived (and repaired) worse. I blocked because of a repeating behavioral pattern that is too much harming the community. But I have no problem stepping back. --Foroa (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright. A few things. First, I think the reason for the block is sound, but the reason placed in the block log is poor. Blocking someone for "Repeatedly ignoring other opinions" in and of itself is sort of hypocritical. Can it not be said that the other people are in fact repeatedly ignoring his opinions? And to top that off, the person who's opinion he ignored in this case is you, the blocking administrator. I really do not like what I see here: [14]. Edit warring with a party, then blocking them is not a good thing to do. I would have rather seen you contact another more uninvolved administrator, and if you did choose to block use the block summary "Edit warring" or the like. Regardless, I support the block. I just hope that next time you are a bit more careful. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that I was edit warring. --Snek01 (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category names

Hi, yes, I realise that. But there is a very big job to make on these categories "Districts of Nice". Many of theses one have to be renamed because they does not fit with the official names of districts of Nice. I will do it soon and I will specify "Name of the district, Nice". Assalit (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Content que vous le comprenez. Using COM:DL might be more efficient. --Foroa (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Languages of categories

First time I hear that all categories should be in English. That is true for the content ones, but there are hundreds of important help categories in all sorts of languages. Here is an example from the page I was just working on: Template:Lang-CatHelp. Do you see only English there? --B. Jankuloski (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the basic rule, otherwise Commons becomes unmaintainable. Because there are hundreds of uncategorised and undocumented categories in all sorts of languages and scripts, we have to be more and more strict. I must admit that we are indeed much more tolerant with other languages in Latin script than in other scripts. I can live with one toplevel help category in Macedonian script. --Foroa (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pagina Bagdad

Bij het categoriseren van plaatjes was er de noodzaak om een disambiguation categorie te maken Category:Bagdad. Er is een pagina Bagdad die een redirect was naar de pagina van بغداد. Dit heb ik veranderd in een redirect naar de disambiguation categorie. Maar hoe krijg ik op die redirect pagina de verwijzing naar de categorie weg? Groeten, Wouter (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Enkel REDIRECT [[Category:Bagdad]] veranderen in REDIRECT [[:Category:Bagdad]] (dubbel punt ervoor: een verwijzing naar, geen inclusion). --Foroa (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek, location Danzig

Hello!

This category added FotothekBot among other things to this file. I think that worth suitable redirect. --Starscream (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from Gdańsk --Starscream (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that Fotothekbot had finished all uploads, so that intermediate categories are no longer needed. I was equally under the impression that the Fotothek categories are just temporary, till the images found their home in normal categories as can be seen here. Is that not the case ? --Foroa (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The upload is finished for now so the temp categories can be deleted. I tried to describe the categorization process here. Multichill (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I attend that it is the very good category. What for to cancel? I remember that once category:Images from the German Federal Archive contained subcategories according to the location of photographed places. Without these subcategories we have probably most capacious aller of the category. Almost 100.000 files which one should segregate. --Starscream (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Mixing source and topic categories is bad. Multichill (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Gustav Jahn (Maler) gelöscht

Hallo! Warum wurde die Cathegory gelöscht? wo ist die Löschdiskussion? --alpinus5 (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hallo! Why was Category:Gustav Jahn (Maler) deleted? Where is the discussion?--alpinus5 (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I found only:Category:Gustav Jahn. Do you mean this one: Category:Gustav Jahn (painter) ? That is the correct name according to commons rules, no need for discussion: commons category names must be in English. --Foroa (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Repair redirect

Do not delete the page Category: V2 rocket, it all correctly (!) it is forwards. Please return to its former condition, my editing was done for a reason. Balamutick (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't redirect categories that have errors against the basic naming rules (plural in this case, capitalisation, punctuation). Moreover, Category: V2 rocket contained: #REDIRECT V-2 , meaning a redirect from a category to a gallery, which of course cannot work technically on commons: the categories of media's can simply not be redirected to a gallery (see User:RussBot/category redirect log). Redirects from galleries to categories have no restrictions and we are much more tolerant on those. --Foroa (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I understood you correctly, you also know what you are doing.
Well, then fine, let it be so if it is so exactly better. I apologize for disturbed or whether a little sharpness in terms of English I speak is not ideal.

Thank you for your contribution to the wiki. Balamutick (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AN:Blocks & protections

Please see COM:AN/B for a discussion related to the Statue of Liberty matter.[15] Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Walter. I am getting really tired of those arbitrary non written "priority naming" discussions. I thought that commons was for the whole world, but some parts or the world seem to be more "world" than the others. --Foroa (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I abjure US cultural imperialism and respect the work you do on categorization, but I fear that some of my fellow citizens (United States of America) will take it hard that an important symbol of our country (one that has no symbols much older than 250 years — e.g., the Liberty Bell, cast in 1751) needs to be disambiguated. This is despite the fact that the "Statue of Liberty" is only a bit more than 120 years old, its name is more properly "La Liberté Éclairant le Monde", and Bartholdi was French. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, we have all to add some (or a lot of) water to our wine. On your side, you are stating that for "your" symbols, there is no place for disambiguation to avoid confusion: people have to learn your celebrity list. But the "others" have to translate most of their symbols into your language (often when not really needed). That seems to be the going definition of multi-cultural. --Foroa (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, this is not my argument. It doesn't matter to me. I support internationalization and if Statue of Liberty needs to be disambiguated, so be it. But, you can see from the discussion that others are not quite so mellow.
I didn't find much guidance relevant to this matter at COM:CAT or Commons:Naming categories. In particular, I was wondering if "it is just the basic rule of the commons category system" may be found in a policy or guideline.[16] While "[t]here is no rule in Commons that gives a priority for a name over another in case of disambiguation" seems to be true, I wasn't able to find much of anything on disambiguation other than its mechanics.[17] I wonder if it wouldn't be fruitful to improve the guidance on disambiguating categories so that such may be cited when disputes of this sort occur? Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The most-common-name guidelines at Wikipedia are simply based on the most likely target when someone types in a phrase. While this isn't Wikipedia, you have to agree that when someone types in "statue of liberty" in the search box here, there is a 99% chance that they are looking for the one in New York City. That's not me as an American saying that - it is simply a fact. Making that 99% of the population try to navigate around nasty category redirects, etc., would be a silly and unnecessary inconvenience and would only make us look foolish. Wknight94 talk 23:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
First, I don't really care how the "statue of Liberty" is finally called (for me, it is the most important statue of liberty too); what I do care about is a consistent naming system that is valid for all people from any cultural and language background. If you have 14 categories with a disambiguation and one without, you are implying that we give priorities to the names and that priorities override naming rules. That is fine on a wikipedia, such as on the English wikipedia, where for many articles that start with for example "National ...", you don't know of what country it concerns, mostly US and UK of course, but that has been improving last years. So far, there is no Commons rule for priorities, so a disambiguation rule must apply. The argument that there is 99 % chance that people or looking for "THE" statue of liberty is not valid for a categorisation "system" (and not true neither, again this is looking through American/Western glasses). If people from other countries are mainly working on their "statue of Liberty", then at that point in time, it is the most important while they might be completely ignorant about the symbolic meaning of THE Statue of Liberty. So, if the rules need be improved, then the only way is clarifying that there is no priority as priorities are subjective and wikipedia/culture/country specific, change often and a source of endless debates and override simple and consistent naming rules. Saying that we have ad hoc naming rules that are based on (cultural) priorities looks even more foolish for a world-wide naming system. I don't have the ambition on spending the coming years moving categories because priorities have changed once again. I moved about 20000 categories, and I start to understand the system. --Foroa (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not unhappy with the view that we have a experts in various aspect of Commons and they should be encouraged to do their work unimpeded by those who have little experience or knowledge of the matter in question. The results tend be more consistent, although possibly a bit idiosyncratic, an occasional attribute of single author systems, than work performed by a group with little coordination.
So I can be clear in my own mind, I think you may be suggesting something like the following:

Disambiguation of categories
Commons is a multicultural international project. Don't assume other users share your background. A category should be disambiguated when its meaning may be unclear for some of our users.

Disambiguation categories should be designated by appending (disambiguation) to the category name. Do not create ambiguous categories without (disambiguation) appended. Such categories will likely attract a mishmash of badly categorized files.
In response to whether US city categories should always be in the form Category:Cityname, State, User:Juiced lemon (indefinitely blocked) proposed the following. "I support the following general rule: for the naming of Wikimedia Commons categories, disambiguation suffixes are restricted to disambiguation cases."[18] What do you think? Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(Indent reset) Thank you Walter, that goes in the right direction, but I prefer to think on it for a couple of days, try to find less controversial, more obvious examples and try to expand about the rationale.

I recall the sad episode of Juicedlemon, and I always felt he was wrong on "shortening" category names, which is the base for many naming troubles on Commons. The problem of his approach and shortening was that one needs not only to know the subject, but as well as its priority and if there is already a category competing for the name. Consequences are varying naming rules and continuous renaming. Many (if not most) US city names exist in several states and even in other countries. The notation "City, State" is the real standard in the US. So, I am wondering what you will gain by dropping the state part in a couple of cases against loosing a real standard naming rule. --Foroa (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, do take your time. I'm going to be busy with other matters for the next week but will look at this page occasionally. At the moment, my goal is to understand categorization better.
Thanks for commenting on Juiced lemon's approach. I was saddened that Jl's considerable energy could not have been retained for the benefit of Commons somehow. Your response to his/her proposal helps me understand your thinking better. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DISPLAYTITLE and ου

Indeed, that’s very strange. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 16:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] sweet food of italy

Hi! Thank you for creating this category. I was thinking the whole afternoon for an adequate translation of dolci. Dank je wel! --Catfisheye (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Rails in art

Category discussion notification Category:Rails in art has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Português | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Municipalities with german-italian double name

Hi Foroa. What do you think about categories where the name of the municipality (or the city) are double, in german and italian, like this or this or this other? I think that: 1) double names like these are out of standard; 2) in this case, in the german speaking part of the region Trentino-South Tyrol, the names of the municipalities have to be in german, and the name in italian a redirect to this. Now, here we have that the simple names redirect to the double name. Is this correct? Thank you. --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not very enthousiastic for such solutions but in some multi-language countries or border area's (such as Basque country, Brussels), this a compromise that has been accepted as there is not a real "official" English word. (In some areas, they agree to take the name of the one that have been created first). I seem to remember that in South-Tyrol, there has been a fierce battle (with many insults) and edit wars renaming all the time from Italian to German version and backwards, so I would not touch the seemingly accepted compromise. And anyway, this will be a controversial move, so if you want to change it, you should go through a CFD again to agree about the rules. --Foroa (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
For example in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Mar#.22South_Tyrol.22_.3F --Foroa (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for your answer. Saluti, --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Foroa, can you tell me when it's better to use {move| } and when CFD ? Thank you. --DenghiùComm (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no absolute rule. I would say {{tlx|...|Move|New name}} when one expect only small or marginal discussions, CFD's if it could concern more people or categories. --Foroa (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Railway lines

Category discussion notification Category:Railway lines has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Português | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:AMX-32 tanks

Hello Foroa!

Your recent action of moving all tank model categories is in discussion here. Please tell us please, what was your intention to do this without having a discussion before. --High Contrast (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

@Foroa,
sorry that I didn't think first-hand to invite your expertise for this discussion. ( Seems that filing that mass-renaming was complicated enough to exhaust my thinking capacity ;-) ). --Túrelio (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Túrelio. I responded and I am a bit surprised that even the very basic Commons naming rules (why I moved without discussion) are not always understood. --Foroa (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you have gotten the impression that you have to defend yourself. No, this was only meant as a discussion about the cat-names, not at all about who had done what and why earlier. Though, it's true that the initial posting on Forum was somewhat a complaint about an earlier renaming, but not directed at you. --Túrelio (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Short internet communications in a multi-language context lead easily to mis-understandings/interpretations. But sometimes, we have to take the time to explain the complete picture. --Foroa (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How to formalize request for many categories?

Hello Foroa, could you complete request of Category:Fossil Bivalvia and of Category:Fossil Animalia‎ to be as formal as possible, please? It is absolutely necessary to keep the link to the discussion which is not finished yet. This same thing is in more than 60 categories. Formalize it, but keep it. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think, that removing bad name template would be OK, while to keep other things. OK? --Snek01 (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Please read the COM:CFD or the procedure for mass delete. --Foroa (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I do not understand this. Could you HELP me with this instead of deleting, please? And this is not mass delete but "for discussion". This is complicated with a fact, that there is necessary to keep a link to discussion. --Snek01 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I am more used to cleanup such requests than to make them. I can't make it in your place neither. I suggest that you make first a cfd for one category as described clearly in the intro of COM:CFD. Extending it to several categories is kind of tricky, but we will see then how we will patch the other categories to "join" the CFD. Anyway, having a CFD header in a category without the actual cfd is useless. --Foroa (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I made a link already. I hope it is OK now. --Snek01 (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks OK. But you are forwarding to a discussion without a begin nor an end. Not sure that people will find their way in that, even less sure that one will find the point where the conlusions will be drawn. --Foroa (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Hofkirche_(Dresden)

It's not a good idea to delete this. Either fix all the CommonsCat links like in en:Katholische Hofkirche or please restore the soft redirect. --X-Weinzar (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A favour please?

I see you are around on and off anyway. Could you delete this image for me? If you look at the history you will see I have twice tried to re-upload it with a rather indistinct branch upper right removed but the file does not appear to be updating. When you have done it I will re-upload it again. Apologies for troubling you & I hope you do not mind. Regards --Herby talk thyme 17:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No need, just purged the cache. Multichill (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Weird - I tried that but it works now - many thanks :) --Herby talk thyme 17:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Single Image Categories

We seem to have a difference of opinion on creating and keeping categories that have only a single image -- specifically Category:Ten Pound Island Lighthouse. I see subcategories as a useful way of breaking up categories with a large number of images -- which is why, for example, I've created Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places in Maine (and a similar one in Massachusetts), so that the large parent category can have a little more order. Similarly, creating a category for a subject that has five or more images also makes sense by reducing the size of the parent. Categories with only three or four images seem marginal, but a category with only one or two seems wrong. Why take up more space on the parent page with the category link and make the images a little less accessible -- one further link away -- when there's only one or two of them? Better to just leave them on the parent page.

You reverted three edits of this kind:

  • Ten Pound Island Lighthouse -- only one image
  • Owls Head Light -- I added the other two to the sub category, so it has three, seems marginal, but I can live with it
  • Petit Manan Light -- I added the one other image to the sub cat, but I'd really rather eliminate it

Jameslwoodward (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that there are several misconceptions concerning categories; they do not only serve for breaking up categories with a large number of images. Look for example in category:Ships by alphabet, category:Ships by IMO number, category: Lighthouses by name and category:Aircraft by registration. I will try to explain that extensively in the coming days. --Foroa (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Your thought is correct. I don't have a clue why Category:Lighthouses by name is organized the way it is. If you carry it to its logical conclusion, every lighthouse would have a category and there would be no place where you would see a collection of lighthouse images because, as far as I have seen, all of the lighthouse images that have their own category are in that category only. Thus File:Ten Pound Island Light is not in Category:Lighthouses on the NRHP in Massachusetts or Category:Gloucester, MA, etc.
A separate list by name is a great idea -- it would help with images with terrible file names like Maine lighthouse.JPG (Maine lighthouse.JPG), but it should be parallel to the regular list, not exclusive. That is, Category:Ten Pound Island Lighthouse would have only Category:Lighthouses by name as a parent and File:Ten Pound Island Light would be in that as well as Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts and Category:Gloucester, Massachusetts as well, perhaps, as others. This seems to be the way that Ships by IMO number is organized. If that's the intention, then I'd be happy to work with you to get there on lighthouses.... Jameslwoodward (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Indent reset) It is true that most people are working in one category domain (in your case geographic placement), and in that respect, it is true that it is only worthwhile to make a subcategory when you have a number of images for it. I cleanup about 100 empty and not connected categories per week, and, as is in your lighthouse cases, I often reconstruct them. There are several reasons not to delete categories, even when in your specific context, it seems a bit of a waste (a category takes almost no memory space compared to a decent image).

  • most notable buildings will end up, sooner or later, to have more images, so it is a bit of a waste to delete already created categories
  • a category is some sort of container that you have to give a clear and unambiguous name, which is often not the case with image names. The sooner a category is created and properly categorised, the less errors there will be made by individual images that are added afterwards.
  • it is easier to find the right category that is connected to all the needed categories than to find all the categories that should be connected to your images
  • most people that deliver images try to find one category, try to drop it somewhere in a category that looks right and don't really search to connect it to other categories
  • categories with proper names are easy to manage in categories with many entries, such as the "by name" categories.

Let's now have a look at the other category "domains" besides/in parallel with your geographic category system.

  • a sailor that is looking for a specific lighthouse, is not interested to have to go through all sorts of "NRHP in Massachusetts " category trees to find it. Category:Lighthouses by name might be easier, but I would not be surprised to a see one day a category "Lighthouses along the US East coast" or so (as you have already category:Lighthouses of the English Channel and at some point in time, there was a category around Portugal, Italy and the Islands in that area)
  • technology oriented people might want a category to list specific light source technologies
  • architectural people might want a classification according to architectural, building types or date of construction ... as can seen in the many "domain" categories in category:lighthouses
  • when doing a catscan on Category:Lighthouses by name, one can visually search for specific aspects, such as round windows, habited lighthouses, lighthouses isolated on small islands, ...

--Foroa (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your thorough and thoughtful explanation. My concern arose because for some reason -- probably others who do not understand the system you describe -- others would create a single image XCV.jpg and put it only in category XCV and then put Category XCV into parent categories. That, carried to its logical conclusion, created my dilemma -- no pages with multiple images of different related subjects. Thus, I wasn't objecting to single image categories -- only to single image categories that contained single category images.
You will find (if you care to look) that I have often put my images in multiple categories -- Churches, Cemeteries, NRHP, etc. I will, as time permits, add Category:(the name of the lighthouse) to my lighthouse images and then add that to Category:Lighthouses by name. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Leasowe Lighthouse.jpg

Hello Foroa,

I notice you put File:Leasowe Lighthouse.jpg into Category:Montevideo. Leasowe Lighthouse is in Wirral, England so I'm unaware of the connection to Montevideo, Uruguay? Admittedly I know very little about this particular lighthouse, so if could you please let me know what the connection is, I'd be grateful and will add relevant info to the description. Conversely, if it is possible that it is a mistake, then I'll remove it from that category. I don't know whether it is intentional or not? In any case, I've created Category:Leasowe Lighthouse today, so I'll be moving relevant the image cats up to the parent cat later. Thanks for any possible info! Benkid77 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That is long time ago when I tried to quickly structure a bit the hundreds of images in the lighthouse category. I guess that was a mistake with HotCat when I tried to enter Mo(reton) and did not hit the cancel key. Sorry about that. --Foroa (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all. I've now removed it from the cat - I've made the same mistake myself a few times using HotCat.js! Thanks very much for the quick reply. Best Regards Benkid77 (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Köln-Innenstadt

Hallo Foroa, wenn Du Probleme mit dem Bindestrich hast, dann ändere alle Seiten. Dann sind es wieder fünf Bezirke in der Innenstadt. Sonst laß bitte die ständigen Änderungen. --Duhon (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As indicated in the edit summary, blanking pages are bad manners as someone else has to clean out that litter. For the people that created that category, a minimal cortesy is to tell where the category moved to. --Foroa (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Steam locomotives of Russia

Hello Foroa. I am the beginner in Vikipedii. Today did a categorisation in Russian steam locomotives and has seen that you have cancelled my changes. Possibly I have incorrectly made something? Григорий А. Харьков

Hi, I noticed that you tried to isolate several categories and subcategories in Russian while reverting several English categories to Russion ones. As Wikimedia software supports only one single language for categories, in the Commons case the English one, I reverted the Russian category trees. --Foroa (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have understood. It was necessary to create anew the disappeared category and now I have made it using the Latin alphabet. --Григорий А. Харьков (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming of Singapore-related categories

Hello! Any reason why some of my requests to rename Singapore-related categories by removing ", Singapore" from the category name were not acceded to? There doesn't seem to be a reason to add ", Singapore" to names of buildings that are not likely to appear elsewhere in the world, such as "Category:Albert Complex, Singapore" and "Category:Clifford Centre, Singapore". (By the way, the "|reason=" parameter in {{move cat}} doesn't seem to work.) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation from COM:CAT: The category name would be enough to guess the subject (the first rule and and one of the few say "precise" rules). I know that there are in Belgium several Albert buildings, google returns 10000 hits on "Albert Complex" in several countries, Clifford centre/center is even more widespread. Disambiguation terms can only be omitted for unique and very famous names, which is obviously not the case here. In {{move cat|Source|Destination}} there seems to be no reason parameter documented nor implemented, I guess you mixup with {{move|Destination|Reason}} . --Foroa (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, didn't realize that the names "Albert Complex" and "Clifford Centre" were so common. Thanks. As for the "|reason=" parameter, the hidden comment at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Move requests" states: "Example: {{move cat|Source|Destination|reason = give reason here}} End of example.". That is why I thought there was such a parameter. If there isn't then this comment needs to be changed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Files by Odejea

Bonjour,

J'aimerais que vous laissiez tranquille cette catégorie. Je suis en train de reclasser ses fichiers dans les différentes sous catégories et HotCat ne me permet pas de travailler sur des catégories cachés.

Or, le fait de mettre {{user category|Odejea}} dans Category:Files by Odejea la rend cachée.

Dès que j'aurai terminé mon tri, je rétablierai la catégorie comme avant. --Odejea (♫♪) 09:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour, vous pouvez voir tous les categories cachées en mettant le drapeau dans vos préférences/appearance. Nous essayons de garder la liste des catégories non-catégorisées vide, 100 à 200 nouvelles par semaine. --Foroa (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] teach me, plz! :-)

I wonder - Why is it "incorrectly named"? (The name wasn't taken yet and hence isn't conflicting with other uses - or is it?..)--Wondigoma (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See #Renaming of Singapore-related categories above. --Foroa (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category deletion problem

Please proceed per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Category_redirects_undeletion -- User:Docu at 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your assistance please

The record shows you deleted Category:Lakers.

I know I left a note on a talk page, expressing my concern that Category:Lakers -- and any variations thereof -- used a local idiom, inappropriate for a world-wide encyclopedia. I think Category:Lake Freighter, or some variation thereof, is the more appropriate name.

The comments were I expressed my concerns seem to have gone AWOL. Did I leave those comments at Category talk:Lakers? Geo Swan (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved the category to Category:Lakers_(disambiguation) because the Category:Lakers as a disambiguation category end to attract images (especially from bots and Commonsense) and categories that stay there for a very long time as very few people care to clean up Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories. I could not find any comments from you in the related categories nor on their talk pages. --Foroa (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Did you give any thought to my concern that "Laker" was a local idiom, whose meaning wasn't clear to most of the world, and that Category:Lake Freighter or Category:Lake Freighters imposed less of a cognitive burden on readers? Geo Swan (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I did not rename the Category:Lakers (ships) that existed well before Category:Lake Freighter, but considering en:Laker, I find it the most logical name imposing the least cognitive burden for most people. "Lakers" seems to be significantly more used than "Lake freighter". But I can understand that on a local level, especially in its plural form, that might be completely different. Normally, I would delete Category:Lake Freighter and Category:Lake Freighters as none of them respect the basic Commons naming rules (plutal and capitalisation). --Foroa (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of newly created categories

Hi Foroa, looks like you've deleted some of my newly created categories. If you do so please specify a valid reason. Just deleting them as empty or as incorrectly named without the right name is rather counterproductive. Multichill (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

They must be disambiguated. Recreating empty categories that have been deleted before is rather counterproductive. --Foroa (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
So disambiguate them or add a {{Move}}, don't just delete them! Multichill (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm currently creating the whole category structure for villages and towns in England. I do this based on the enwp articles. When the bot is done running I'll do some queries to spot dupes and do disambiguation. If you delete stuff now there's a high chance my bots will recreate them. Please leave a redirect for now and if possible add a Commonscat link at the enwp. I'll nuke the redirects once i'm done. Multichill (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Foroa, it's nuke time for England now. List in my sandbox. I'm going to fix Commonscat links at enwp, move stuff here to the disambiguated category and remove the wrong category. If you feel like helping: great. Multichill (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but finding if a category needs disambiguation takes significant amount of time, why I (over)reacted quickly on your unannounced creation burst of categories I did recently delete. (I normally don't delete empty city/village categories)
  • 09:16, 12 November 2009 ‎Category:Harewood, Yorkshire (hist) ‎[2,401 bytes] ‎Foroa (Talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with '{{en|Harewood ( "HAIR-wood") is a village and civil parish in the City of Leeds [[:en:metropol...')
  • 09:07, 12 November 2009 ‎Category:Kelvedon, Essex (hist) ‎[958 bytes] ‎Foroa (Talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with '{{en|Kelvedon is a village and civil parish in Essex, England, near to the town of Witham.}...')
  • 23:13, 11 November 2009 ‎Category:Elstow, Bedfordshire (hist) ‎[581 bytes] ‎Foroa (Talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with '{{en|Elstow is a village and civil parish in the English county of [[:en:Bed...')
  • 23:12, 11 November 2009 ‎Category:Westham, East Sussex (hist) ‎[730 bytes] ‎Foroa (Talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with '{{en|Westham is a large village civil parish in the Wealden District of East Sussex, [[en:England|E...')
  • 23:10, 11 November 2009 ‎Category:Holbury, Hampshire (hist) ‎[583 bytes] ‎Foroa (Talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with '{{en|Holbury is a village in Hampshire, England. It is part of the parish of [[en:Fawley, Hampshire|Fawley...')
  • 23:07, 11 November 2009 ‎Category:The Camp, Gloucesterhire (hist) ‎[332 bytes] ‎Foroa (Talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with '{{en|The Camp is a hamlet in the south of Gloucestershire, approximately 10 miles south of Cheltenham and 5 miles north-east of [[en:Stroud|Str...')
  • 23:04, 11 November 2009 ‎Category:Lawford, Essex (hist) ‎[370 bytes] ‎Foroa (Talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with '{{en|Lawford is a large village in the Tendring district of northeast Essex. It is around 10 miles northeast of [[:en:Colchest...')
I will integrate these items tonight in your list. --Foroa (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Goalkeeper

Hi Foroa,
is there any reason why it is currently Category:Goalkeeper instead of Category:Goalkeepers? --Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No. It is a quite old category. I checked, documented and initiated a move to Category:Goalkeepers . --Foroa (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:International Space Station missions

Hi Foroa, Category:International Space Station missions is very similar to Category:ISS Expeditions, however there is only one image in it. Would you mind if I would make the category to a redirect? Best regards --myself488 (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem to merge. Most people confuse missions (long term goals) with expeditions (short term, journeys). I don't think that you will need a mission category on ISS. --Foroa (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it's a redirect now. --myself488 (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] UK steam engine categories

There's some discussion of this over on my talk page (the original editor is an anon IP on an unstable ISP, so it's hard to discuss it on their talk). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, such changes need a proper discussion. I semi-protected some of the categories. Please let me know if those are stable, so I can try to set the needed protections and watches. --Foroa (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] My image files marked for deletion

Thank you for checking out my file images that I marked for deletion. I really appreciate it. They were uploaded without my consent as the individual was logging in as me, horrible quality and those used for private scrapbook use. A violation of privacy. I have since changed the password and the account is secure. The only thing left to do to get things back to normal is have all these images deleted immediately! Commons is a top notch project and I know this mishap will be ethically corrected. If you could be so kind as to respond to this message with a time table as to when this will be cleared up it would be greatly appreciated.

Jaderocker (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am focusing on categories, but I am sure that more knowledgeable administrators will help you. --Foroa (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Breg River

There is no river called Brag River. Therefore the images of Category:Breg River belong to Category:Breg that you deleted for some reason. If a clash with another Brag (there seems no other...) must be avoided Category:Breg (Danube) would be acceptable. Sticking on the nonsense Brag River is not acceptable. -- Ies (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Because there are several en:Breg, I moved it back to Category:Breg River where it was since 30 months before you moved it to Category:Breg. Feel free to move it to another suitable name that does not conflict. --Foroa (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll move it to Category:Breg (Danube). Thanks. -- Ies (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Historical British Railways steam locomotives

Category:Historical British Railways steam locomotives: why protected? It's empty, it's not a good category name (who determines what locomotive is "historical"?), it should be speedied. - Jmabel ! talk 22:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

See #UK steam engine categories above. A anonymus emptied, redirected, edit wared on several categories without real discussion and rationale. I just protected it to give Andy some time to repair the damage and restructure as needed. --Foroa (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mt. Pisgah State Park

Just wanted to let you know that the move of Category:Mt. Pisgah State Park to "Category:Mount Pisgah State Park" ignored the official name used by the en:Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), which is Mt. Pisgah State Park. Please see the official DCNR Mt. Pisgah State Park website and here is the picture of the park entrance sign. The official Penn DOT map also refers to it as "Mt. Pisgah" - see here. The article is back at "Category:Mt. Pisgah State Park". Thanks, Ruhrfisch (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not take a position in that discussion, although I have my doubts as google returns 17000 hits for "Mount Pisgah State Park" while 21000 for "Mt. Pisgah State Park ". When looking to official press releases, one can see that your spelling is even not respected by the organisation. So for me, not a reason to quarrel and deviate from Commons naming standards. Anyway, I reverted only the redirect from Category:Mount Pisgah State Park to a non existing gallery, which is completely senseless. Now I corrected it so that it should work properly. And I hope that I don't need to waste further time on discussions on so called "offical names" that are not standard. --Foroa (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Your point doesn't make sense. What does it matter if an official name is standard or not? It's still official. Should we change St. Louis, Missouri to Saint Louis as well? Dincher (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Bloggers to Bloggers from Russia

Are you absolutely sure you want to rename Сategory:Russian Bloggers to Category:Bloggers from Russia? Russian bloggers may be of Russian nationality, write in Russian language, but simultaneously may physically be from any other country other than Russia. E. g. the Russian blogger (writing in Russian and popular among Russians) of Category:Roman Leybov lives in Estonia and was born in Kiev, now Ukraine. --ssr (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, we are facing the problem all the time; there are several people/occupations categories in that class (writers, singers, poets, journalists, ...). Choosing between Сategory:Russian Bloggers and Category:Bloggers from Russia doesn't solve the problem you are submitting. Problem is that on commons, we try to use the simplest possible language and a notion that is extensible and works for continents, countries, provinces, regions and cities. (i.e. writers from Georgia (country), Georgia (US state), Georgia (city)). We tried things such as "writers from xxx" to indicate the origin and "writers in xxx" to discriminate the originating and operating country, but people constantly mixed up the two categories and the categories were not maintainable. For writers, I think that we could end up with additional categories such as "writers in Russian language", but so far, I have seen no attempts in that direction. (except for books, we have books by language and books by country). A pragmatical approach so far, which solves 95 % of the cases, is to indicate all the countries where the concerned people are from and operating; not perfect, but at least simple and understandable for most people, and above all: almost no mistakes nor maintenance. --Foroa (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation! --ssr (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete deletion request

Hi Foroa. I saw that you deleted my request for deletion of Category:Cruising‎ - what is the problem? And why do you not add a comment on my TalkPage about it? But I still would like the category deleted - can you do it?

And have a look on one of the many J-boat images in that category - they are added to way to many categories. I saw in one of them that User:Stuj24 was questioned if he's the owner of the many J-boatimages. How do I check if an OTRS is received? I do not what to correct all the images if they are deleted soon. Prillen (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not contesting the request, you just made an incomplete deletion request without the proper links to discussion pages. Such incomplete deletion request can hang there for months. Please follow the procedure as for file deletion requests as described in COM:DEL. --Foroa (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
But now (here) I have stated why it should be deleted - is it really necessary to do all this work - can't you just delete it? Prillen (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
We never delete a category that is not empty. I issued a request User_talk:Multichill#Overcat here and proposed a merge. --Foroa (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Double categorization

Hi again. Why do you double categorize many yachts like Category:Moonbeam of Fife (yacht) into Category:Ships by alphabet when it is already in Category:Sailing yachts by name (a subcategory of Category:Ships by alphabet?? Prillen (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As you can read in category:ships by alphabet, it contains the name of all ships. Most people don't know the difference between the various types of ships, boats, yachts, vessels, barges, cruisers, frigates, steamers, ferries, lakers, ..., why this category is (along with category:ships by IMO number) a flat pivot category that should lead to all possible ships without knowing its type. We often have pictures with a partial view of a ship and the only thing we know most of the time is just the significant part of the name. Moreover, it permits to check against redundant or slightly misspelled names. It would be all too silly to completely rework the content of category:ships by alphabet, each time someone invents a new "ship type" by name" category somewhere deeper in the category tree and to withdraw all their names from the top level. --Foroa (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Then what is COM:OVERCAT for? Prillen (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
category:ships by alphabet is the first, highest level and main naming category that we need badly. Overcat is only concerning the overcategorisation in one specific domain, in your case, the sailing yachts domain. The categories "ships by ..." in category:ships are all different domains and could be interpreted as overcat. If you have a problem with that, I have no problem in bot merging the less important Category:Sailing yachts by name, which is an overcat in category:Sailing yachts into category:ships by alphabet. --Foroa (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I do disagree about this as Category:Ships by alphabet is not "first, highest level". Since Category:Watercraft contain both Category:Ships and Category:Boats and a yacht is a boat (although the distinction is vague). Hence a named yacht like Category:Moonbeam of Fife (yacht) should be in Category:Sailing yachts by name or in category:Boats by alphabet (non-existent at present) or both. Prillen (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SVG

Hallo! Can you see this svg image that I uploaded? I can´t. Do you know which is the problem? Dag. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hola Unai, I can see it in full screen but not in thumbnail. I seem to have often problems with svg images, so I would suggest to check on COM:GL. Un saludo. --Foroa (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Dank u wel. Groetjes.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation categories

Hi Foroa, See en:User talk:Multichill#Bot function. We should probably disambiguate some of these categories at Commons. Multichill (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am checking, but that takes a lot of work. There are only a couple of hundreds of category disambiguation pages; I am more interested in the 117000 disambiguation pages. Category disambiguation on commons is very bad: images and categories stay there for months, nobody maintains them while they attract lazy (bot) categorisation, why I name them "topic (disambiguation)". I think that we need some sort of Interwiki database that checks the connections between Commons and wikipedia in the two directions till the end nodes. Mainly categories on Commons --> interwiki's --> En:wikipedia articles (mainly) (in general very correct and up to date) en the other way round: En:wikipedia articles --> Commons(cat) --> (categories) on Commons (very often outdated). Was there no general interwiki project proposed to tackle that issue ? Should be great as translation and search engine here on commons (interwiki's are not incorporated in the search index database on Commons) --Foroa (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This is just a list of naming clashes, i don't want to create disambiguation categories here.
Not aware of any central project. Multichill (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Districts of London

Foroa, will you STOP messing up the London category names faster than I can fix them and put them back to as I had them.--P.g.champion (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There will be no problem if you don't create categories that conflict with other namings (or recreate categories that have been deleted precisely because they conflict). See #Taunton.2C_Somerset above. --Foroa (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Requested moves

Ik zie dat het opgehakt is, weet jij of er ergens overleg is geweest? Multichill (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Neen, ik denk het niet. Ik heb al langer gezien dat hij dat probeert in handen te krijgen en alles te robotiseren. De template vertoont ook een storende fout. Tot zover is het misschien niet slecht misschien. --Foroa (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Moving categories against rules

This and this moves are against rules, there was no clear consensus! Please move it back. Thank you. --Ragimiri (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The referenced categories got names that are not in English and that are completely against the commons naming rules: they are normally moved without asking a question. And so will the others be moved. I have seen no trace of consensus to deviate from the commons naming rules. --Foroa (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
These moves are completely in line with Commons:Categories#Category name, so no, these categories won't be moved back. Multichill (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Categories is not official Commons rule. --Ragimiri (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And, if you are so strictly pro-English, why we have categories Category:Frauenkirche, Munich, Category:Bundestag etc.? --Ragimiri (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

We cannot change all at once. Moreover, as you can see in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_17#Category_naming_is_getting_out_of_hand_in_Eastern_Europe, in the Czech Republic, there is the most abuse and they have been pushing it too far. Anyway, all this cannot override the basic English naming rule to which we al::::l agree. --Foroa (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually we use the name Commons in English, see for example Munich Frauenkirche and Bundestag. Multichill (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
"Anyway, all this cannot override the basic English naming rule to which we all agree." Where this was agreed? --Ragimiri (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
It was agreed so long ago and practice for so long that I don't remember where all the discussions took place, maybe Foroa knows that.
Do you want to challenge the fact that we use the commons English names for categories? Multichill (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course, making English names of objects, which are originally named in Czech, is realy bad policy. This must be changed. BTW, for your information, the Czech Republic is located in Central Europe, not in Eastern Europe. --Ragimiri (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Please don't use my talk pages for senseless debates. Meskiene zoe'je wel kunn vôortzoagn in 't west-Vloamsch. Wondering what you will do with Arabic, Chinese, Japanese , Aramenic category names amongst the 700+ languages used by wikipedia projects. --Foroa (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Very well, in that case, I will propose an amendment to this policy. Have a nice day. --Ragimiri (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Multichill, Frauenkirche and Bundestag are original German proper names clearly, not some English-language translation-trials what are preferred by some users for Czech objects. These cases illustrate that often there should be used original foreign proper names in English context (as well as English proper names can stay in English when they are used in no-English text).
Foroa, as I can see here, your problem have a bearing on the fact that you are unable to recognise the essential distinction between categories which assemble more objects or some abstract theme and categories which are defined by one specific object and its name. For the first type, there are rules that category names should be in plural and in English. For the second type, category name should be in singular usually and the name of the subject should be used in the most used stable form (in the local language in most cases). I am Czech, but when I go to search some Spanish or Hungarian object, I use the original Spanish or Hungarian name, no some half-English crossbred-names. We can discuss individual debatable and boundary cases but no such category should be moved without a clear consensus.
Your opinion that the Czech word "kostel" is unrecognizable in contrast to church/kyrka/kirche/kerk is absrud. "Kostel" isn't a Slavic word originally but it is derrived from the traditional and historic Latin word "castellum" which is very internationally intelligible (the first churches were fortified). Btw, if somebody want to deal with images relating to some area, he needs to know basics of local realia and terms. Original names of specific objects are more exceptable, more pregnant, more explicit and more utilizable than ad hoc translation-trials. --ŠJů (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Double standards ?

Foroa, We cannot change all at once does not explain why you personally do not follow the rules you are trying to enforce elsewhere. You have created for example Category:Abbazia_di_Santa_Maria_del_Monte or Category:Church of Kortrijk (St-Antonius) and you opposed moving Category:Zürichsee to English name. I would not object against the policy of translating local names to English (I also prefer Czech names for foreign churches, building, etc. on Czech Wikipedia), but your stance seems to be somewhat biased (and yes, using the term Eastern Europe in the Iron Curtain sense does not help either). --Tchoř (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I will extensively answer on your comments in the coming days as a (promised) complement to the discussion #Lakes_of_Italy above and because consistency is important to me. Sorry for my mistake on the Eastern part; but since I am in the west, most of the rest is northern and eastern to me, and this statement had no bearing with the Iron Curtain, this is not my style. I should have written eastern Europe with a lower case eastern.--Foroa (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You !

Hi, Foroa. Thank you very much for your revelation ! I don't knew the existence of Commons:Bots/Work requests ! Saluti, --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How?

Hi, Foroa, how are you doing this: (Description with data from [19]) ? I did Category:Recoules-d'Aubrac and Category:Aubrac (plateau) but copying by hand makes it incompletely done. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. What is the problem ? --Foroa (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rivers by name

Hello Foroa.

Let me explain why I reverted you here with "Rivers of France".

Category:Rivers of France by name has been created to avoid over-categorisation. Why ? Because of the existence of Category:Rivers of France by department (in Italy as well with Category:Rivers of Italy by region).

When a rivers flows in or accross a department or region, it falls into such a category. E.g.

Let's suppose we want to see all french rivers alphabetically on a same screen (like in Category:Rivers of France by name). If this one was simply Category:Rivers of France, it would become an over-category (see chain above), and Touvre River would have no chance to appear directly under Category:Rivers of France. That's why Category:Rivers of France by name was created.

You have the same problem in Italy, with Category:Tiber. Presently, it is in Category:Rivers of Italy, which is wrong, because it is already in Category:Rivers of Umbria, which is in Category:Rivers of Italy by region, which is in Category:Rivers of Italy. That's why there is much work to do in Italy, too, and create Category:Rivers of Italy by name becomes necessary.

Regards, Jack ma (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As happen often, the concept of overcategorisation is badly understood and very often abused of to force the categorisation system in one way or another. I will come back on this extensively in a couple of days.
Like a {{move}}, a {{merge}} is there to make/suggest a merge and open a discussion. When closing the discussion, the merge is either executed or removed. --Foroa (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Let me doubt that there will be any discussion allowed if you put {{merge}}. Unlike {{move}}, it is not said explicitly in the model. Also the overcategorisation would not be the only problem, but also simply that Rivers of France is well filled yet, and merging some crowded and well organised category into it is not suitable. I don't understand your point of view. The categorisation process is in the other way round : dispatch crowded categories into smaller ones. It is not my fault if there are so many documented rivers in France ;-) And once merged (by a sudden robot, if the discussion is ignored) and if we want to go back, how to do ? Make again all the manual work that I have done ? Jack ma (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
In my mind, this "overcategorization" issue is solved by galleries, not Category:X by name. Same with the Lighthouses by name and Ships by alphabet examples elsewhere on this page. Wknight94 talk 13:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes it could be a solution, but the maintenance appears more difficult, because as soon a river is added, one has to update the gallery. But if the river is added with the proper category ("Rivers in xxx by name"), it is automatic. Jack ma (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Madura

Hi, I object to Category:Madura being redirected to Category:Madura Island. First reason is because in Indonesia "Madura" is well known, just like Bali, not Bali Island, Java, not Java Island, etc. Second is because in my opinion the shorter the name, the better (as long as it's not ambiguous). You can contact me in my talk page or in id.wiki (id:Pembicaraan Pengguna:Benylin). Bennylin (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not check thoroughly, but there was first the name on the English wikipedia that was Madura Island too. Even in your own Indonesian wikipedia, the name means Madura Island. Anyway, the most convincing argument to me was that there are several Maduras as you can see in en:Madura_(disambiguation), so the shortest names leads to the most errors. --Foroa (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arboretums/arboreta by country

Foroa, ik heb zojuist de Category:Arboretums by country gemaakt. In rood staat er nu ook Arboretums. Later vond ik dat er al een Category:Arboreta betaat met daarin 7 verwijzingen naar "Arboreta in ..." en 2 naar "Arboretums in ...". Volgens het door mij geraadpleegde Engelse woordenboek is het meervoud van arboretum arboretums. Wat adviseer jij om verder te gaan? Wouter (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Indertijd heb ik daar indertijd opgekuist en geuniformiseerd. Als je het latijnse woord respecteert, dan wordt het arboreta, hetgeen goed valt in de taxonomie. Een weliswaar vluchtige check op arboreta en arboretums, en het feit dat er meer arboreta dan arboretums in de toenmalige categorieën zaten deden mij overhellen naar arboreta. Maar ik lig er niet wakker van, er zijn tientallen dergelijke latijns/engelse woorden, en afhankelijk van de persoon en de context gaat het meervoud de ene of de andere richting uit. --Foroa (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Bedankt. Ik heb nu zowel "Arboreta in ..." en "Arboretums in ..." overgeheveld naar Category:Arboretums by country. Hoe krijg ik de rode verwijzing naar categorie Arboretum weg. Die categorie maken en een redirect naar Arboreta? Wouter (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Bedankt, ik zag je verandering. Wouter (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Maps by country subdivision

Please see Category talk:Maps by country subdivision. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Category:Rivers of Italy by name

Hi Foroa, can you restore the category? Please participate in the discussion on Category talk:Rivers of Italy by name instead, thanks. -- User:Docu at 16:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that you noticed the discussion above and that you just want to stir up things. Just wait till the discussion above comes to some sort of conclusion in stead of opening the debate on as much fronts as possible. --Foroa (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You are not authorized to use your admin tools this way. Please restore it to repair this error. -- User:Docu at 16:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Did you take your time to think about this? Will you undelete this and attempt to work on it collaboratively? Can I count on you to limit the use of admin tools in the future? -- User:Docu at 08:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Foroa"