User talk:Foroa/archive 2009

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

Upload forms[edit]

Dag Foroa. Ik zag dat je ook hebt gereageerd bij Commons:Village_pump#Vandalism_of_images. Ik heb het nu aangekaart bij Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_&_protections#How_to_change_the_protected_upload_forms.3F. Uit zijn reactie blijkt dat hij niet begrijpt wat ik wil en dat jij kennelijk drie maanden geleden ook al hebt willen aangeven. Het gaat mij er om dat de auteur direct ziet wanneer er iets verandert (vandalisme, aub categorie erbij, verbetering van omschrijving, anderen voegen een categorie bij). Zolang default bij uploaden "volgen" niet is aangekruist, wordt er juist door degene die nieuw is of weinig ervaring heeft dat niet aangekruist. En dat zijn waarschijnlijk juist degenen die het meeste kunnen leren van een feed-back. Misschien kan jij ook nog wat toevoegen. Groeten, Wouter (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouter, ik heb geprobeerd. Maar de laatste maanden is er hier niet al te veel plaats voor subtiliteiten; gebruikers achternazitten, uitschelden en uiteindelijk blokkeren lijkt voor nogal wat mensen de grootste prioriteit te zijn. Bovendien zien wij hier, misschien om dezelfde reden, ook hoe langer hoe minder mensen met echte systeemkennis. --Foroa (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouter, zie daar een jezuieten truk om er van af te geraken. We proberen maar, misschien proberen om er eens deftig in te shotten. Iedere hulp welgekomen. --Foroa (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bedankt voor de support. Sommigen proberen met veel moeite dingen niet te doen die je met minder moeite wel kunt doen. Ook nog bedankt voor de support om het deleten van een aantal Expo58 foto's tegen te houden. Waarschijnlijk heeft de persoon dat gedaan uit racune omdat ik foto's van een kennis van hem had genomineerd voor deletion vanwege copyright omdat er een watermerk met copyright van de auteur in de foto was opgenomen. Groeten, Wouter (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kleinzieligheid schijnt hier dikwijls belangrijker te zijn dan een echte commons geest. Niet opgeven dus. En voor sommigen is het belangrijker om foto's eruit te zwieren dan er content bij te krijgen. Een pluim trouwens voor je Belgische FOP verdediging, we laten ons echt te veel doen door de comma muggezifters. --Foroa (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting old versions of renamed categories[edit]

Hello Foroa - I'd like to thank you for working on the "Requested moves" category. I have recently added a lot of stuff there, and it's great to have all those things shifted.

Can I ask however why you delete the old categories? The description in the "Requested moves" category implies to me that unless the old version was simply nonsense or a very unlikely misspelling, it should be retained, with a "seecat" redirect. This makes sense to me, as sometimes, people will continue to use the older form - or make it up again! - and if it exists as a "seecat", then that takes care of this issue automatically, as anything accidentially placed in a wrong category that is also a "seecat" to correct category X, will be moved by a bot.

In short, it seems sensible to leave the old names of the cats as "Seecat", after stripping them itself from any other contents or categorisation. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes Ingolfson, the indestructible worker from the other side of the world. There are many reasons why I am against category redirects as you can read in #cat suppression and cat redirects and its referred files and discussions. This is a never ending debate, but in the first place, I would not encourage people to learn bad category names (and motivate them to make similar bad names). Moreover, if for each category, you have ten different variations and each of them in 100 languages, then I feel that we will end up with a monster that we cannot manage. Nowadays, the system grows on average with 1000 new useful categories per day. But indeed, there is no simple rule. It is important that the move request is on the first line of the category, so people can find out from the deletion log where it went to. --Foroa (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations. I agree with some of your points, but since there is a bot moving stuff to the correct cats, I am somewhat of a different opinion on the "French actors" -> "Actors from France" part. Surely, it is better to have images sit hidden in a "Seecat" until the bot moves it - rather than have a parallel structure be created (and recreated, and recreated...) for us to constantly have to set a bot at moving and deleting this - by hand. The user who SORTS images wrongly into the "French actors" category in my mind is more likely to eventually look INTO the cat after the second or third image... and see the "seecat" note - and thus learn - rather than learn from having his category deleted much later, when he may not be uploading anymore... or may recreate "his" category. So I am still for the seecat rather than the delete version. As the seecat is hidden, we are not really training anyone to do it wrong.
This is a matter of opinion. I think that the red category shows immediatly that something is wrong and most people try to correct it (I am convinced that category redirects train the users in bad habits). Some people however, even very experienced commons users, don't bother to correct and just create quickly a category to get rid of the red thing. Anyway, I don't bother anymore with French xxx, German xxx, Enlish xx categories. I just do what wastes the least of my time.
Lol, indestructible? I just spent over an hour clearing up a muck-up when "Category:Narrow gauge railways" contents were accidentially moved to "Category:Rail transport by type". What a drag... I am done for today. Ingolfson (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is much more involved with category moving than what one would think at first sight. --Foroa (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Arte[edit]

Hi Foroa, before re-adding the TV-cats to cat:Arte [1], did you realize the problem of the cat? IMHO, this cat name is not understood (as 99% of the files sorted therein show) and this problem will continue. The TV channel Arte is known in France and Germany and hardly anywhere else, whereas the generic words arte is probably understood by most uploader as similar to art. --Túrelio (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I stumbled on the undocumented Category:Arte when cleaning up uncategorised categories. I know Arte myself and on w:Arte on the English and other WP's, there seems to be no naming conflicts, except on the Spanish where Arte means art. Most items in the Arte category are there since several months and are indeed originating from loozy categorised "art" files from Spanish speaking people. Exactly like the Category:Art that attracts general "artwork" related rough categorisations (591 by now).

I don't know what the best solution is:

  • redirect the arte category to art (or delete it)
  • create a new category:Arte TV as more specific name for the TV channel ?

Anyway, using category:Arte GEIE makes no sense as this GEIE is unknown for most peope and is not generally associated with the broadly known TV channel. Removing the categories from the Category:Arte is no solution neither. What's your preference ? --Foroa (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Foroa, stumbled on the undocumented - the same happened with me. Actually, even today I don't know what GEIE means. To me, your proposal of Category:Arte TV is the best idea for all ARTE-related media (actually the Arte GEIE cat interwikis to :es:Arte (TV) ). In addition, we might totally remove or redirect the current arte category. Cheers --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
category:Arte GEIE: Arte est un "Groupement Européen d’Intérêt Economique" (GEIE). This is the actual company on which we can hook the actual channel and the various programmes (different per country). I will clean that up one of these days unless someone "steals" this job. --Foroa (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this out[edit]

SieBot recat feedback based on your command[2]. Cheers! Siebrand 15:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your change structure Military of Germany[edit]

Hi Foroa! Excuse my bad English, I better read than I write.

Various kinds of structure about military are possible:

1. One structure only by point of view of military and another besides by point of view of history, so it was till December 2008. In this case some subcategories must be in both structures, to find pictures from a different way of seeking. For example: Category:Military of Germany -> (sub)category:Wehrmacht -> [ (sub)category:Wehrmacht (Heer) ] <- (sub)category:Military history of Germany <- Category:History of Germany, like as one picture can be in ’’Catagorie:history by country’’ and in ’’Catagorie:history by period’’. I think it is the best way for searchers from various starting points.

2. Only one structure point of view of history and military themes are a substructure of history. Problem: until to what point continuous history, on what point begins present? For example: What pictures of Bundeswehr are ‘’History of Bundeswehr’’, what present ’’Bundeswehr’’? Problem: Some former historical periods have no special name.

The kinds should be discussed like here before anywhere begins to change! But, now the new structure is installed and I tried to life with it.

Some notices by the present structure:

  • ’’Category:Military of Germany by state’’ is not exact, because states are BRD and DDR and Deutsches Reich = exact name = Weimarer Republic + Drittes Reich (both were by law of nations one!) too. I think in this structure ’’Category:Military of Germany by historical states’’ is better.
  • Many pictures were and are in the old structures correctly in ’’Category:Military of Germany’’ and also correctly in ’’Category:Military history of Germany’’, but in the new structure the correct place is only one. Who corrects the double categories after your change?

--Milgesch (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all, I did not do the category move request; this was done by an anonymous user. I only executed the move request after a long wait, mainly because the category name "Alte Heere vor 1919" was not a correct name.

I have no intention to interfere with your discussions, but I can help you if needed. I would suggest you to formalise your needs more precisely on Category_talk:Military_of_Germany (not here) in the sense of:

When you agree on the structure, I can implement it and do the necessary moves. Where possible, please add links to articles or categories to the German Wikipedia. If a category need be renamed, I suggest to use the following example notation:

--Foroa (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Foroa! Excuse me, when I supposed you changed the categories. I don’t know so exactly all finesses of Wikipedia/Commons.

Generally I agree your structure above.

But if we use german expressions, so it should be called

Category:Deutsches Heer as subcategory under Category:Bundeswehr ist not the formerly Category:Alte Heere vor 1919, but the present (official term) Deutsches Heer. Unfortunately the Heer of the German Empire had the same name in his time. Therefore I think, this old army should have the Category:Deutsches Heer (Kaiserreich), so it is called in the German WIKI here.

Category:Bundeswehr units and formations between Category:Bundeswehr and Category:Deutsches Heer I don’t regard as necessary, because in German ’’units and formations’’ means companies, batallions, … corps and so on. In the structure of the Bundeswehr Heer, Marine and Luftwaffe are Teilstreitkräfte (I don’t know an English expression for this), Streitkräftebasis and Zentraler Sanitätsdienst are Organistionseinheiten (parts of organization) (this difference is a speciality of the german language ;-) ), there is no German common word for all five. In the strucure it is not necessary to give them a common head besides Bundeswehr.

When you implement it so, the Category:Old armies before 1919 and all subcategories should be categoricised in Category:Military history of Germany also.

Another question: Why doesnt appear Category:Reichsfestungen in the Category:Military history of Germany like Category:Bundesfestungen? I think, I have it correct categoricised?

--Milgesch (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have little time the coming days. I suggest that you edit the structure on "Military history of Germany" on Category_talk:Military_of_Germany so that other contributors can participate to the debate and the structure is documented on the right place.
To see Category:Reichsfestungen in the Category:Military history of Germany, you have to switch to the next page, but I added something in the right corner to ease access. --Foroa (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template in basque language[edit]

Dag, Foroa! I have translated the Template:Welcome into basque here. The Template:Welcome/lang page is blocked, so could you please add the Euskara (basque) link? Dank u wel! Groetjes! --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the code you can add:
<!-- eu -->[[Template:Welcome/eu|{{#language:eu}}]] |
--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be OK by now. (almost forgot it, there are so many things to do ...) --Foroa (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's! --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding?[edit]

Hello Foroa - could you please consider changing your oppose on the following cats after my modification of my rename requests. It seems we have simply a misunderstanding here what we are trying to achieve.

I had simply considered that since Wikipedia uses non-disambiguated articles to point to the NZ versions of en:North Island and en:South Island, this would be acceptable here too. But I have no problem with a disambiguated form, and have changed my rename requests accordingly. Ingolfson (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is no misunderstanding. The original category names needed improvement. Whenever there is a chance on disambiguation, we have to solve it before aligning subcategories to them, otherwise we keep renaming the same subcategories again and again. Why I prefer to be proactive on disambiguation. In the long run, it is the only stable solution. Moved now. --Foroa (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the fact that you opposed the move instead of correcting it to what I did now - which caused Siebrand to fail the request and remove it until I found it again. But you may have done that (opposing the move) because technically, such a modification (of the move request to the disambiguated form) could be seen as subverting a users move request? Anyway, its sorted now - thanks. PS, please have another check on my talk page re the railway stations, would be great if you could clarify something for me. Ingolfson (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I try not to touch the move destination as it makes no sense to discuss about a possible destination when it is changing all the time. I correct however spelling/capitalisation/plural errors in the move request, or potential move destinations which I feel are blatantly wrong. For other cases, I remain silent (and execute) or oppose. It is not clear who concludes (I don't move when there is too much opposition) or proposes a new destination. --Foroa (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: regional categories[edit]

Thanks for your comment & the heads-up about the category scheme. I was going by the category scheme used on English Wikipedia's regional LGBT cats, but will check out Commons' cat scheme to make sure I'm staying within Commons' standards. Thanks again, Outsider80 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few minutes ago I checked Category:Culture and Category:Society ... one (society, i think) only uses country scheme (like you said), but culture uses both countries and continents (with countries underneath). I created a by-country category for the root LGBT in (country) categories, but was thinking of maybe trying the dual (one "by country" tree, and a simultaneous by-continent tree (like in Category:Culture)) scheme for the LGBT rights in (country) categories. reasoning being that some of the LGBT rights maps are for whole continents. This situation doesn't exist for the root "LGBT in (country)" categories though, so only having a "by country" tree wouldn't be hard there. thoughts? Outsider80 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dual is probably the best; as I said, here the main "world level scheme" is per country. --Foroa (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok, will do. thanks again. Outsider80 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kategorie - Umbenennung[edit]

Hallo! Ich habe gesehen, dass Du die Category:671 umbenannt hast. Warum? In der Kategorie sollen nur Files der Maschine Nr. 671 gesammelt werden, aber nicht alles über die Serie 23. Abgesehen davon laufen alle Unterlagen über die "671" als Serie 29. Diese Umbenennung ist nur verwirrend und nicht sinnvoll! --Moschitz (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in the history, I did not made the request, I only executed it, but without hesitation. A category name must be unique and explain what it contains. You can hardly say that Category:671 is a meaningful name. Simularly, I am sure that acronyms such as GKB, LTE, TEM, ... will be renamed sooner or later as they not comply with the basic naming rules.

Thanks ..[edit]

...for the RFB support. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RfB[edit]

Hi Foroa! Thanks for giving me your opinion about me in my RfB, and because of some opposes of really trusted commons-users (including you) I withdrew. Now I have got the best 'crate-coach I could think of and I might possibly retry in a few month. To improve my behaviour/editing habits here on commons till then I'd like to hear what you want me to change in detail. Especially examples you're not happy with would be great. Feel also free to e-mail me if you don't want to say this in public. Thanks for your help, abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 14:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my style to waste time and critic old conversations. Just have a look at the discussions from most other bureaucrats and you will see that they are just more constructive than yours. Next time I see conversations from you that could be improved, I'll try to chime in. And yes, most browsers do have a spell checker; a detail in normal conversations, important if you want to be convincing. --Foroa (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change allowable scope of userpage content[edit]

I have made a proposal to specify more clearly what is and what is not allowed on usepages. You have expressed interest in this issue, and you may wish to comment at Commons_talk:Project_scope/Pages,_galleries_and_categories#The use of userpages to advance personal political opinions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-empty category redirects[edit]

Hoi Foroa, kijk jij nog wel eens in Category:Non-empty category redirects? Valt me op dat het nog wel een mis/gebruikt wordt om categorieën te hernoemen. Multichill (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaat nogal, soms zijn er tientallen per dag. En sommigen, zoals Evrik, willen inderdaad niet inzien dat dit niet de juiste manier is (is ook nergens beschreven). Sommigen wachten ook gewoon tot ik protesteer/revert voor ze de move zelf doen of laten doen. --Foroa (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Het staat zo te zien op Commons:Rename a category. Ik weet niet welke grapjas dat bedacht heeft. Wordt het trouwens niet tijd voor een archiefbotje? Multichill (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naar aanleiding van het onderwerp rename category een vraag. Wanneer een category van naam verandert en de oude naam wordt verwijderd, in hoeverre wordt dan tegelijkertijd de {{commonscat|XXXXX bij de diverse Wikipedia's aangepast? Wanneer ik bij een categorie "iets te doen heb" en er staan verwijzingen naar Wikipedia pagina's, dan loop ik de meeste langs om te kijken of er een Commonscat verwijzing is en zoniet er een te plaatsen. Wouter (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Op dit moment loopt dat helemaal in de soep. Zoals je bijvoorbeeld in het log van Foroa kan zien, nemen de meeste admins niet de moeite om een linkje naar de nieuwe category achter te laten. Iemand moet daarna de moeite nemen om een van de Commonscat links te herstellen en daarna pikt m'n bot het vanzelf op voor de andere wiki's. Als admins standaard een link zouden achterlaten naar de nieuwe categorie dan zou dit alles volautomatisch kunnen. Multichill (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zie onder andere ##Deleting_old_versions_of_renamed_categories maar er zijn meerdere discusssie daaromtrent (waarom ze nog niet in de archieven zitten). Ik move doorgaans honderd tot twee honderd categories per week. Checken of die elders gebruikt worden met een toolserver die meer faalt dan werkt is onbegonnen werk. Bovendien ben ik compleet tegen het linken van categorieën. (kan wel in verschillende talen via galleries/artikelen, die veel stabieler zijn). Ik heb voorgesteld dat de move bot de nieuwe cat in de deletion log zet, maar geen nieuw daaromtrent. Indien de nieuwe gemovede categories IW's hebben, dan is er geen enkel probleem die links te gaan restaureren. --Foroa (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ik zal die bot aanpassen en een lekker lui delete linkje aan move toevoegen. Multichill (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lekker lui inderdaad. Het belangrijkste lijkt mij dat wij die move request category overzichtelijk kunnen houden, hetgeen sinds juli 2008 lukte, maar de laatste weken niet meer. Je ziet, iedereen doet zijn best, maar dat is niet altijd genoeg. --Foroa (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ik heb gezien dat bij het uploaden van een nieuw bestand, evenals met Hotcat bij een bestaand bestand, zonder probleem de redirect categorie - bijvoorbeeld "Bike shops" als keuze mogelijkheid beschikbaar is. Wanneer dat voorkomen kan worden worden die categoriëen minder makkelijk gevuld naar mijn idee. Wouter (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inderdaad. Wij hebben geprobeerd om de geredirecte cats (zoals in op de nl:wiki in een ander kleurtje/italic te krijgen omdat ik vermoed dat de meeste mensen de cats aanpassen tot ze allemaal netjes blauw zijn (zonder te checken wat er achter zit). Bij Hotcat (user Lupo ?) hebben wij dat ook geprobeerd en de compromis dat uit de bus gekomen is dat wanneer je OK zegt, HotCat dynamisch de cat vervangt door de bestemming van de redirect, maar weinig mensen weten dat of beseffen dat. Beter dan niets, maar ik vermoed dat het probleem niet echt begrepen is. Je hebt ervaring hoe moeilijk een simpel probleem uit te leggen valt (defaults voor watch), en nog moeilijker om het aangepast te krijgen. --Foroa (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Foroa, als je even een blik wilt werpen op Template:Nuke en het sjabloon aan wil zetten dan krijg je een handige link op afbeeldingen die zijn voorzien van {{Move}} en {{Category redirect}}. Multichill (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dank je, dat is handig maar niet strict noodzakelijk: gewoonlijk staat de move of redirect op de eerste lijn in de categorie en wordt dus hernomen in de edit summary (anders corrigeer ik die meestal), zodat je een gelijkaardig resultaat krijgt. Het probleem is voor de massieve moves/renames/harmonisaties (en via de delinker talk pages) waar geen rename of redirect op staat, en waar de nuke ook niet helpt. (zie verder) --Foroa (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ziet ernaar uit dat ik de bot niet hoef aan te passen. De standaard deletion summary is Robot: Category was moved to %s. Of mis ik iets? Multichill (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ik weet niet waar je die summary vandaan haalt omdat de bots bij mijn weten niet deleten. Wat wel zo is dat bij iedere "moved" cat waar een nieuwe cat wordt aangemaakt, een dergelijke summary bestaat bij de creatie van de cat, en als je die kan oppikken heb je de meeste renames.
Voor moves naar bestaande cats zou de bot ook een dummy write kunnen maken met een gelijkaardige edit summary (of vb "merged from category xyz") op de destination cat. De meest globale oplossing lijkt mij dat na iedere move, de bot automatisch een redirect maakt van de source cat (en al de rest uitkuist). Als die alsnog gedeleted wordt heb je meteen ook de juiste edit summary. Dat zou ook een aantal problemen oplossen in verband met move requests via de talk page. Ik heb dikwijls geen tijd om die moves uit te voeren omdat er achteraf nogal wat cleanup werk is (0,3 à 1 minuut per move). Ik zie dat er anderen gewoon die move lanceren en zich er verder niets meer van aantrekken, hetgeen ook maar een halve oplossing is. Een bot move met de optie delete (per move (vb {{move cat d}} of {{rename cat}}) of per batch) after move zou ook handig zijn voor massieve harmonisaties. --Foroa (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bots kunnen gewoon deleten hoor, maar het gaat natuurlijk niet onder het botaccount, maar onder het account waar het sysop bitje aan hangt (voorbeeld). Het is helaas niet mogelijk om de summary van de nieuwe cat op te pikken. Mijn bot komt een link tegen naar een categorie op Commons. Neem bijvoorbeeld Category:Egyptian antiquities in the Museo Altaemps. Dan kan mijn bot nooit achterhalen waar deze categorie naartoe verhuisd is, dat kan alleen als er in de edit summary de naam van de nieuwe categorie staat. Al die moeilijke oplossing waar je mee aankomt hoeven niet, gebruik gewoon het nuke knopje wat ik nu in de sjablonen heb gezet, dan staat de edit summary in een keer goed. Multichill (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zoals je wilt. Hierbij een aantal delete logs. Voor een aantal maakt het geen echt verschil uit indien de gewone delete of de nuke delete gebruikt is. Voor de andere is er gewoon geen nuke beschikbaar. --Foroa (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke alleen mogelijk in een kleine helft van de gevallen; comfortabeler, soms betere edit summary, maar helpt de category counters om zeep. --Foroa (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

category move[edit]

Ik heb tot nu toe alleen een category verplaatst met een spelfout en eentje met een grammatica fout. Maar waar kan ik alle regels dan vinden, zover ik weet had ik nog niks fout gedaan. Abigor talk 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geen probleem. Normaal moet er twee weken gewacht worden voor een move uitgevoerd wordt. Vermits ik de enige was die mij geregeld moe maakte met de moves (discussies, onderzoek, move, opkuis) was er niet echt behoefte aan regels. Nu ben ik wel een paar weken achterop geraakt. Alvast enkele simmpele reges voor onmiddelijke moves:

  • Manifeste fouten tegen spelling, woord split, hoofdletters, upper/lower case kunnen direct uitgevoerd worden
  • Idem voor categories die een disambiguity probleem oplossen

Zwaar gecontesteerde moves worden afgevoerd, dat is werk voor COM:CFD. Ik probeer dat later wel nog aan te vullen, maar in de eerste plaats ga ik een reeks moves gaan onderzoeken en deels contesteren vermits de nieuwe namen niet altijd goed of consistent zijn. --Foroa (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alles tot en met de "G" can gemoved worden. --Foroa (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ik moet even wachten op mijn botbit, maar daarna zal ik dermee weer beginnen. Ik zal in het begin vooral die categorieen doen met de duidelijke fouten erin. Abigor talk 17:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category for discussion closure from a couple of months ago[edit]

Hi, Foroa. here, you closed a category discussion, but provided no summary of the discussion and apparently the category was never deleted or merged. Can you clarify? Powers (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concluded, cleaned and deleted by now. --Foroa (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons_talk:Categories#Overcategorisation_of_CATEGORIES[edit]

Hi Foroa - could I again ask for your comment on an issue that grew out of the recent issues I had with Multichill's "by country" template. In short, he is arguing that overcategorisation is not an issue / not prohibited by rule / etc... when applied on CATEGORIES. I think this is a rather strange argument, as I have set out.

Sorry if my requests for you to weigh in bother you (I noted that while you did respond, you deleted my note here on your talk page?). It's just that I feel rather strongly about this, especially when it involves bots changing many thousands of pages - and even the above category in which I am asking for discussion seems pretty dead, so I am unsure how many responses there will be. As I said before, Commons, unlike Wikipedia, can be a bt of many people working alone in the dark. Ingolfson (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. However, I try to avoid splintered discussions (here) and keep my talk page primarily for (recurring) discussions, why I remove messages for attention. I keep all concerned discussions on my watchlist and I try to follow them. You are right about "working alone in the dark", but strangely enough, people come closer together when they have conflicts or similar problems. --Foroa (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beek - disambiguation[edit]

Hey - ik zag dat je op de disambiguation voor Category:Beek, de "Category" had weggehaald? Het idee is dacht ik dat mensen niet "Beek" gebruiken als categorie, maar de juiste specifieke zoals bv Category:Beek, Limburg? Het lijkt me logisch die dan te noemen daar ipv de pagina. Alvast dank. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry en vreemd; het ziet er naar uit dat ik op de vorige versie gewerkt heb zonder dat er een edit conflict message kwam. Nu zou het moeten hersteld zijn.
Persoonlijk zou ik een category:Beek (disambiguation) hiervoor aanmaken: de Category:Beek zal continu opgevuld geraken.
Blijft er een probleem dat een beek in Nederland een "stream" is en in België een "creek". Zie en:Stream#Types. --Foroa (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nadat ik had geschreven dacht ook al aan iets van een edit conflict, vreemd dat er geen bericht was?! Nu ja, het is geregeld - daarvoor dank. Een "Beek (disamb)" heeft geen zin volgens mij, "Beek" zelf zal nog steeds opgevuld raken. En nu komt het in ieder geval op de lijst van "non-empty disamb pages". En ik zal dat van die streams/creeks eens nalezen. Groeten -- Deadstar (msg) 13:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Beek (disamb)" heeft wel zin. In dergelijke gevallen delete ik gewoon de meest evidente cat, in dit geval Beek (en ik zie ook meteen indien iemand die probeert te creëren). Iemand die Beek zoekt denkt hoedanook dat de eerste "Beek" die hij tegenkomt "zijn" Beek is en kijkt niet verder. Daarentegen, als er alleen maar meer complexe "Beek (xxx)" cats bestaan kijkt men doorgaans iets nauwkeuriger. En die "non-empty disamb pages" werkt meer niet dan wel. --Foroa (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha... en nu kwam ik het zelf tegen met "Borne"... de "gewone" cat bestond niet en ik werd gedwongen beter te kijken zoals je hierboven beschrijft. Misschien toch wel zin dus. Zal ik het dan maar zo regelen - Beek verwijderen & Beek (disamb) aanmaken? Weet jij of een bot dan ook "Beek" overslaat (want in dit geval waren het eigenlijk allemaal files die een bot had gecategoriseerd). Dank! -- Deadstar (msg) 15:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC) (✓ Done Ik ga er vanuit dat de bot inderdaad dan "Beek" niet meer gebruikt)[reply]
Sommige bots zijn niet dom en nemen alleen maar echte (en niet geredirecte of disambig) categories, geen redirects (tenzij zij ook naar een cat verwijzen). Manske en commonsense daarentegen zijn heel wat "ruimdenkender". Hoedanook, hoe precieser de categorienamen, hoe minder kans dat de bots die verkeerdelijk nemen. Dus Bergen, Beek, Kapel, Limburg ... zijn beter te mijden als je er geen permanent opkuiswerk wil aan hebben. --Foroa (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and Galleries[edit]

Hi, Foroa: I'm new in Commons. I'm traslating the documentation to spanish. I'm trying to understand the difference between categories and galleries. The documentation in spanish is confuse and the english documentation that I find is very old. Could you tell me what's the diference and what's better to do? Thanks, --Marsilio (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The commons COM:C and COM:G should still be up to date. There is no "best" way. But a less abstract description can be found on Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2007Oct#FLOWERS. OK, I understand that better because I wrote it myself, but who knows, it might help you. --Foroa (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe have a look at very good galleries such as William Lyon Mackenzie King visual chronology, Kölner Dom and Brugge to better understand the potential of galleries. Thank you for your participation. --Foroa (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. In english is Ok, but in Spanish is confusing and the Gallery page is not translated. I would try do to the translation to spanish and I'd try to fix the other one. Give me some days to work and I will be back to give you my impressions. Thanks a lot,--Marsilio (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs in English or German?[edit]

Pieter Kuiper suggested I run this by you. Shouldn't "Category:Deutscher Schäferhund" be name-changed to "Category:German shepherd dogs" with a redirect from the German title, so we don't have to be multilingual plus overly imaginative to find the pretty important page with lots of really lovely pictures in it? Best regards EmilEikS (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am under the impression that Ltshears uses mainly the FCI standard naming standard, so I guess that it is using the naming language of the country of origin. In that case, it is better to use an international standard than just trying to make all sorts of non-standard translations. Translation sounds easy for category:German shepherd dog, but there will be many other cases where translation is quite hard.
I think that the (proper) formal breed names are all spelled in singular, not in plural, again to comply I guess with the standard. Anyway, I think you better ask Ltshears who did a very nice categorisation job in the dog breeds. --Foroa (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I saw somwehere that Wikipedia Commons requires unequivocally that English be used as the standard language. If I am wrong then I bothered you for nothing and apologize. If you still think I might make a valid point with Ltshears I will write to him/her, but I do not want to be writing silliness if my point is way off base. If I didn't know German, I never would have found that category. Quite a few people don't know German. EmilEikS (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about English in commons, but if there is an international standard with proper names, then it is normal that this one is followed instead of using non-standardized and often bad translations. But I would certainly suggest to make a point with Ltshears because all this is my interpretation. There should be at least a documentation stating all this and the fact that dog breeds are proper names and nou in plural. I don't believe that you would not find category:German shepherd dog.

Timber / Wood[edit]

Perhaps we could come to some conclusion in discussion before you just go ahead and change cats for "wood" ... TomAlt (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion please[edit]

Foroa, can I please ask you to relook at your actions on Category:Miniature rail transport, / Category talk:Miniature rail transport which you merged against my oppose (I was the only one who commented at all, and I had given good reasons against it). You also merged this without any further comment or discussion, and even though the merged proposal by user ŠJů was not argued for by anyone.

Also, on Category_talk:Heritage_rail_transport you had just a few days ago agreed on exactly the same issue that a "concept" category sitting above the "railways" cat makes sense!

A "merge", sadly, is pretty much impossible to undo except by moving all the elements back by hand. The bot doesn't keep a list of what it chucked into the other cat. Thankfully, this wasn't a cat with dozens of subcats and hundreds of pictures. Ingolfson (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I have been too hasty. It is difficult to keep track of all those category schemes, especially when immediatly after a move, you have a counter-move request. Although, with the current category population, a merge might be in order, in the long run it is better to have a consistent structure. I will revert that later. --Foroa (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Railways[edit]

Hello Foroa - I am really sorry (including for myself, I would prefer to "get on with it") but can I ask you your opinion on something before I go raring off and again butt heads with user User:ŠJů again? Said user has just "Seecat"ed a number of categories like Category:Railways by country and subcats like Category:Railways in Germany. He has effectively "sneaked in" an inofficial move of the contents of these cats to "railway lines by country".

And that after he just recently fought pretty bitterly with me to keep pre-eminent such categories like "Heritage railways" when all I wanted to do was place a concept category above them! Inconsistent of him to now try to remove "railways" cats, but then I sometimes I do wonder whether he appreciates the distinctions between the terms fully. I have done my own mistakes, but at least mine were (mostly) with fully open-for-discussion move proposals and merge proposals rather than this way through the back door.

Now apart from the fact that I believe such changes should be discussed, I am also asking whether that is something that we should support at all. A "railway" could be either a company OR a railway line. A "railway line" is a much more specific thing. By moving all the companies categories into the subcategories, I think we are lumping things incorrectly.

Sorry if this constant wrangling is frustrating you as much as me. But I wasn't going to go off after ŠJů without sounding off others this time. Ingolfson (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed yesterday some weird things but did not have time to look into it. I had several disputes with that user. Although he is very much involved, he is stubborn (sometimes an advantage here), not very communicative and lacks sometimes an overall international, community and long term view. To avoid escalation, I think that in the long term, we better have a small category scheme (basically a small tree) in the family of Category:Commons category schemes. Once we have some agreement, we can take a more strict position. I reverted the most important changes and left him a warning. --Foroa (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a category scheme direly needs to be created, or we (or someone else) will end of in a constant fight with ŠJů (or someone else)! As below, he has now proposed such a discussion. Ingolfson (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railways[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Railways 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

There are discussed the subcategories too. --ŠJů (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World War II artillery of the Soviet Union[edit]

Hi there, I created this category and Category:Soviet Union in World War II because Westerners, especially young westerners, are not familiar with the Great Patriotic War. Hence if they look under categories looking for the Soviet Union in Category:World War II by country or Category:World War II artillery by country they will not find it, they will just see Great Patriotic War and not realise it is what they are looking for. That is why I created the Category Redirects to G P W. But if you insist in removing the category Category:World War II by country the redirect is useless as it does not appear anywhere. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the problem. The reason why we don't want categories in redirects is that it attracts all sorts of (re)categorisation bots (and commonsense) and trains people on the wrong names (you will find many discussions on redirects on this page). I disagree that a redirect without categories is useles: HotCat captures it (too) easily, it pops up in searches and when doing a preview with such a category, it will show blue (although I would prefer a special colour).

In your case, the best solution is to add the needed galleries with the name you want (and a short text and a picture) or simply redirects to the associated category. Another solution might be to use a more descriptive category name such as "Great Patriotic War (SU WW II)".--Foroa (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Farnetella[edit]

I'm afraid I did not understand your question. What kind of potential damage? --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. remember to sign your posts, when you write. It's easier to answer, this way.[reply]

Sorry, I was too much in a hurry. Have a look at Special:Contributions/82.57.125.136 and you will understand better. --Foroa (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little change in Category:Cities and villages in the province of Valencia[edit]

Hello. This category is blocked for edition by you. Please, could you mind to make a little change for me? Is to set the following categorization: 

 [[Category:Cities and villages in the Land of Valencia|Valencia]]

And to change as shown below: 

 [[Category:Cities and villages in the Land of Valencia|#]]

The goal is to grouping categories of province level into Category:Cities and villages in the Land of Valencia. Thanks. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasue Joanot. Unprotected by now. Enjoy Commons and the weekend. --Foroa (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of a category without discussion[edit]

Wish you would have discussed the deletion of Category:Belgium "Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests with me first, before deleting it. Please take a look at Category:"Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests by place. Every single other category has the location name, first, for ease of category sorting. Please delete the category you created and restore the other one, for uniformity with all of the other categories in this parent category. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the other categories in Category:"Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests by place use the same naming conventions - for ease of sorting. For example, United Kingdom "Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests, and not British "Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests. Please undo your changes, as I already requested, above. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but it was highly inappropriate of you to perform an administrator action, and delete a category with zero discussion about it whatsoever. Perhaps you do not understand: Take a look at the entire categorization sorting setup of all of the categories contained within Category:"Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests by place - and all of the subcategories contained within, and all of the hundreds of images already categorized as such. It makes things very easy to maintain as far as sorting issues. Please undo your changes. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but when I noticed the category with a spelling error and against the Commons naming rule, it was the only category existing then. Blatant errors and commons naming rules are changed without discussions. For the "De facto" standards, see Category:Categories by country. --Foroa (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are moving hundreds of such blatant syntax and commons naming violations per week. The quicker we do it, the less damage there is. --Foroa (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much time would it have taken you to drop a note to the talk page of the user that created the category - before performing a unilateral administrator action and deleting it? Cirt (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have done that indeed in this particular case and I apologize for that. Just too much behind my schedule. --Foroa (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Now can you please respect that every single sub-category within Category:"Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests by place is organized a certain way so as to have ease of category-sorting, and every single file within those categories is already categorized as such, and please undo the changes you made? Cirt (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only repeat that the names are a blatant syntax error and against the basic Commons naming rules (topic of/by/from location) and that the other categories will be renamed sooner or later by a bot. --Foroa (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point me to the Commons rules that states this? Cirt (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:By location category scheme explains it, thanks. Cirt (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test page deletion[edit]

Hi Foroa,

I noticed you deleted 一-j/nobarasha with a message recommending users to use the Commons:Sandbox. This test page was not to test markup, but transclusion in order to help organise content on the COM:SOP. As the sandbox is a general purpose scratchpad for everyone, it won't do.

This page may well be deleted in the future, but is useful for the current discussion. I'd, therefore, like to ask you to undelete it. Cheers, --Swift (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I try to keep the blanked and uncategorisaed page list empty. Too many peope leave galleries and categories in some sort of empty state. I delete about 100 to 200 of them per week, mostly because people changed idea or name. If you put a category to it, you will escape from my cleaning. --Foroa (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Will do. --Swift (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons category vs. gallery[edit]

Please see the talk page. Category_talk:Requested_moves#Category:TAM_Linhas_A.C3.A9reas_needs_to_be_moved_to_Category:TAM_Airlines - Also please be aware I am referring to the category, not the gallery page (although I don't see why moving the gallery page is not kosher - is there a policy or guideline that states that the original author's decision is proper?) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the category name, I will respond later on the referenced page. For the gallery names, for which there is no language rule, I have seen here too many language related gallery moves back and forward. You would be surprised how many areas have three or more languages (3 official ones in Belgium + English), so you would be surprised how much problems this can produce. So I consider that the person that does the effort of creating a gallery has priority for the naming. I consider it rude of trying to hijack other people's work into a language that suits better his taste/needs. It is even more rude to change it when the name of the gallery corresponds with the name of the mother company under which it is known in most countries and by almost all wikipedia's. --Foroa (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On EN there is a saying that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." - So it is expected that other people can alter what the original author states. I do not know if this maxim is implied on Commons, but I wouldn't see why it wouldn't. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously living in a unilingual country where you don't have language problems. Most people are already very frustrated that they cannot use categories in their own language, so you should not take away the last little language freedom on Commons. And you have probably not been involved in edit wars where articles and picture descriptions have been moved back and forward between various languages. Just have a look at the history of en:Basque Country and the surrounding articles, and you might understand the problem better. Or try to rename the Köln or Brugge gallery. --Foroa (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foroa, the paragraph above was not a response to how languages should be handled; it was a response to the idea that what the original author does should be preserved. I was saying that on EN (which has people around the world) there is a reminder for people telling them that their work will be edited somehow. The original authors of anything on a wiki know that generally their work will be edited.
Now, as for how languages should be handled, I think that discussion is best continued here: Commons talk:Language policy - So far there is no policy, just practice. If you feel that original language categories and/or other practices are the best way to go, this talk page is the place where your voice will be heard and others will listen to you. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference of editing files and renaming them. EN:Wiki is not an international project, it is an English speaking project that is open for an international English speaking community; here we have to serve all wikipedia's in 200+ languages, even when they know only 20 words in English. If you sustain your idea, then you should have no problem that we will rename the galleries in Houston in French or German or even Japanese and Arabic. And for some strange reasons, you can live with Swissair, AlItalia, Lufthansa, KLM, ... But his is indeed only part of the answer.
I feel no need for another language debate, I have my fair share. Suffice to say that technically, we are limited to the roman characterset on one hand and companies/institutes that have only a non readable name (for me) in for example japanese/Chinese/Hebrew/Russian/Araboc/... characters, well they don't probably care that their name is (badly) translated. --Foroa (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach inkblot test[edit]

I was just about to report this, and ask for the page to be protected. Thanks for saving me the trouble! --Tryphon (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one was for free. Next one will cost you a good cognac. I will end up by loving vandals. --Foroa (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you would drop dead (and me ruined) by the end of the week with that kind of deal... but I'm willing to try :) --Tryphon (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A generic thank you[edit]

No less sincere for being non-specific ;-) I find you are doing lots of very useful work (especially considering I see only a fraction of it) and I've found you a reasonable person to deal with, even where we disagree. Keep up the good work! Ingolfson (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but there are so many reasonable persons here doing very valuable work. Most of them are not seen as they avoid any possible conflict. Anyway, you are certainly belonging to my top of the contributor list, but cleaning up and uniformisation is not always a very visible nor grateful work. --Foroa (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helping categorisation[edit]

Hi, it might be a good idea to discretely give a helping categorisation hand here. With your expertise in the domain, it should help the user to find his way in war related categories. user:Foroa 08:27, 4 February 2009

This person appears to have uploaded a load of images just for the sake of uploading them, with no understanding of how anybody could/would use them.. without data about what, why, when, where, images on Commons are worthless. We really need to have the Upload facility tightened up to force users to provide this info before the upload is accepted. I'll put a note on his talk page... Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but whatever system we have, this problem will be recurrent: we can not slam the uploaders till we have all the questions answered. And frankly, for most people, the Commons category system is something barbarian. So the best weapon we do have is to help new uploaders, in the first place to categorise their uploaded images. In this case, I think that with your expertise in that doamin and a little investment from your side, you might educate the user to become a valuable image provider. --Foroa (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a friendly note on his talk page... I'll expand the note with some examples. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That user did already do some good work by creating the Category:Military decorations of the United States Army tree. --Foroa (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Helping a user can indeed help. I do it sometimes depending whether the user has sufficient useful images or asks for it. See for example talk:Weglinde. A teaching video as they sometimes give with certain software may be useful. Wouter (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Taiwan and Republic of China categories[edit]

As the main creator of this nest of categories please allow me to explain the reason for doing things this way. (If you can't be bothered to read the long version, the short version is that it is done this way to both respect reality as it is whilst attempting not to upset the political sensitivities of all sides.)

The long version:- The Republic of China existed as the main recognised political entity in China from about 1912 to about 1948 so any files related to the Chinese military of that time can be legitimately and almost uncontroversially be included in categories titled the Republic of China. After 1949 according to the PRC the RoC ceased to exist and today there is no political entity called the Republic of China whatever the authorities on Taiwan may chose to call themselves. Of course the reality is a little different with many nations continuing to recognise those on Taiwan as the legal government of China until the mid to late 1970s. After this point most nations recognised the PRC as the government of China. Today very few countries,not even its closest ally the USA, recognise the RoC as a sovereign state. The PRC has alsoworked hard to pressurise international organisations not to recognise or use the words Republic of China, in order not to offend PRC sensibilities it is now usual to refer to Taiwan rather then the RoC, for example there is no Republic of China at the Olympics but there is/was an entity called Chinese Taipei.

There are four ways to categorise files with regards the military of the RoC/Taiwan, which reflect the different positions taken.

i)There is one China called the PRC, the RoC no longer exists and the forces there are the remenants of a warlord faction which will be integrated the PLA as soon as the malcontents there see sense.
ii)There is one China called the RoC, those calling themselves the PRC are rebels who will be crushed when the beloved homeland is liberated.
iii)There is a nation called Taiwan which exists, its culture, people and language are distinct and independent of that of the mainland. In 1948 its people were brutally invaded by forces fleeing China, who in the intervening years used military force to supress the local people and culture. The nation of Taiwan will throw of the shackles of these invaders and their desire for a single China and will one day chart its own way in the world.
iv)The status quo is a mess of names, interests and sensibilities and is far from perfect, however its the one people have gotten to know and accept so lets turn a blind eye to its inconsistencies and try not upset the apple cart.

The existing cats are organised in such a way as to reflect the fact that an entity called the Republic of China existed between 1911 and 1948. That an entity exists in Taiwan with many of the trappings of a nation state including a military, however these categories are nested in such a way so as to reflect the fact of a single China whilst at the same time trying to maintain the differences between the two.

In my opinion any attempt that implys the continued existence of the RoC after 1948 is likely to inflame those who lean towards the PRC. Any attempt to deny the existence of a polity in Taiwan that sees itself as the legitmate government of all of China will inflame the majority of those in Taiwan. Any attempt that there are two soveriegn nations one called China and one called Taiwan will inflame both a majority in Taiwan and China.

Like the world we live in the status quo with regards these categories here on Commons has natural inconsistencies, and cannot satisfy the opinions and hopes of everybody. However thus far the status quo seems to have worked so lets not upset the apple cart.KTo288 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kerken - episode zoveel[edit]

Hallo Foroa,

Er is - voor de verandering - weer eens een gebruiker die denkt het licht gezien te hebben m.b.t. de Belgische kerken; maar blijkbaar weer niet weet waar hij mee bezig is. Ditmaal is er ene bezig alle kerken van deelgemeenten in de kerk- of gebouwencategorie van de centrale gemeente te zetten.

Dat zou een optie kúnnen zijn, ware het niet dat we ALLE Belgische foto's op commons zo strikt mogelijk gescheiden houden per deelgemeente. Dat betekent dat dat we inderdaad wegen, bruggen, kerken, mensen, voetbalploegen in de subcategorieën van de deelgemeente zetten. En aangezien de centrale deelgemeente (hoofd(deel)gemeente) die zijn naam geeft aan de gemeente evenzeer een deelgemeente is, plaatsen we daar over het algemeen daarom maar enkel die foto's die betrekking hebben op de hoofd(deel)gemeente zelf. (Strikt genomen zou je 2 gelijknamige categorieën kunnen maken: een voor de gemeente zelf en een voor de hoofd(deel)gemeente, maar goed, dat lijkt nogal overkill op dit moment). Maar uiteraard is het NIET de bedoeling dat men dus allerhande foto's van de deelgemeente in de subcat's van de hoofd(deel)gemeente gaat gooien, of men heeft geen enkele categorie meer die enkel en alleen de hoofd(deel)gemeente omvat. De categorisatie per dorp (en dus vaak deelgemeente) lijkt op dit moment trouwens te volstaan.

Ik probeer eens vanalles terug te zetten (hier en daar heeft de gebruiker categorieën aangemaakt die wel OK waren, voor gemeenten waar een kerk of 4 in de hoofd(deel)gemeente zit). Maar als je deze week tussen de soep en de patatten even tijd hebt, wees zo vrij om te kijken of hij er niet verder een zootje van maakt ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ook dit ( Category:Churches in Belgium by city ) blijkt trouwens een blunder. Deerlijk, Kuurne, etc.. zijn bij mijn weten nog steeds geen steden ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Het is wel zo dat de categorieën "kerk in gemeente" en "Sint-blablakerk (gemeente)" bijeenzitten als subcat's van de categorie:Churches in Belgium. Misschien zou het zinvol kunnen zijn Churches in Belgium by city or village te maken, dat weet ik niet....
Trouwens, het probleem werd zelfs erger dan alleen deelgemeente/gemeente. Zo bleek de gebruiker plots de gemeente Schaarbeek binnen de gemeente Brussel te leggen; wat al helemaal te gek is. Wel moeten we misschien eens een deel oudercategorieën maken voor het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest (maar dan in het engels), want er zijn heel wat "Brusselse" foto's die helemaal niet tot de gemeente Brussel behoren, maar die ik bv. niet meteen goed kan lokaliseren (en anderen ook niet blijkbaar...) --LimoWreck (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Misschien moeten we eens ergens op enkele overlegpagina's samen heel duidelijk opsommen hoe de categorisatie ineen steekt. En bv. heel duidelijk uitleggen dat categorie:Harelbeke als oudercategorie op de hele gemeente slaat, maar dat je daarna voor gebouwen, kerken, bruggen, etc... specifiek naar de deelgemeente moet. En dat bijgevolg, de subcategorieën van categorie:Harelbeke énkel op deelgemeente Harelbeke(-centrum) slaan. (op enkele categorieën, zoals die met kaarten of politiek na bv.)... Op die manier zouden we mensen die het niet snappen makkelijker naar zo'n uitleg kunnen doen verwijzen. --LimoWreck (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voilà, inhoudelijk zouden de dingen weer wat moeten goed staan niet. Al doende kwam ik jouw naam trouwens ook af en toe tegen, blijkbaar had je zelf al opgemerkt dat er wat niet snor was ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Het is inderdaad al maanden dat ik denk dat er een documentje moet gemaakt worden betreffende de Belgische categorisatie. Met een beetje geluk kan dit binnen twee à drie weken omdat ik niet over één nacht ijs ga voor dergelijke dingen. Je moet je niet inhouden voor mij ;). Hoe meer ik de Nederlandse cats zie (met weinig gemeenten maar wel veel provincie tussencats, afhankelijk per topic), hoe meer ik zeker ben dat wij op goede weg zijn. Voor België en cat-freaks denk ik dat wij er nog "topic by location" kunnen bijplakken; dan is het probleem van city, commonality, village en gehucht ook opgelost en uniform met de basis geachte. --Foroa (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt voor terugzetten van het wissen door Patricia Rios[edit]

Jij ziet kennelijk ook alles Foroa. Bedankt voor het terugzetten bij de Huétor-Tájar en Alcalá_la_Real. Bij mijn systematische werk om goede plaatjes zonder link naar een categorie van een link te voorzien geeft ik bij veel categorieen een korte beschrijving en repareer waar nodig. Soms is het even puzzelen voor je door hebt dat bijvoorbeeld de pagina Bojano over een plaats in Italië gaat en de Category:Bojano over een plaats in Polen. Toevoegen van tekst bij de categorie is dan wel nuttig en ik was gearlarmeerd door het wissen van info door Patricia Rios. Groeten, Wouter (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ze is zeer efficient, maar heeft geen enkel respect voor de lokale gevoeligheden zoals bij de basken, catalanen, valencianen (en andere autonome zones), grensgebieden met Portugal; nochtans is het in Spanje dikwijls echt op eieren lopen om daar compromissen te vinden. Het ziet er niet uit dat ze zich in het Engels uit de slag trekt en heb ik haar al een aantal keren geblokkeerd (en de baskische cats zijn beveiligd tegen haar Spanje-alleen visie). Bovendien is het enorm tijdrovend met de diepe hierachische categorieën om uit vissen waar je echt zit Bovendien lijkt er geen enkele Spaanse administrator echtr geneigd de Spaanse boel wat op te kuisen. zodat wat documentatie (IW's) zeker geen overbodige luxe is. Je hoeft er niet mee in te zitten haar veranderingen meteen terug te draaien: ik kan je vier spaanse adminstrators opnoemen die al tientallen (of zelfs honderdtallen) van haar veranderingen teruggedraaid hebben. Als er nog problemen zijn geef je maar een seintje en laat je niet afschrikken. --Foroa (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches in Belgium[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to help in sorting the medias in this category. The fact is that there are so many files there that you cannot find what you are looking for. I thought the best option was to sort them by gemeente/commune, because sorting them by deelgemeente/section will lead to the creation of too many sub-categories, most of them only containing 1 or 2 files. On the other side, the deelgemeente/sections are categorized inside the gemeente/commune category (for example Category:Thuin contains a Category:Gozée, so I think it would be a little incoherent not to have a sub-category Category:Churches in Gozée inside Category:Churches in Thuin. I am aware that the term city isn't the most appropriate to describe places like Deerlijk, but I haven't found categories such as category:churches by municipality or category:churches by town and on the other side I have found categories such as category:Churches in Murau or Category:Churches in Makó inside Category:Churches by city, and Murau and Makó are rather towns than cities. Finally, I categorized Category:Churches in Schaerbeek inside Category:Churches in Brussels, because Category:Schaerbeek is inside Category:Brussels. I think we could maybe have renamed Category:Churches in Belgium by city into Category:Churches in Belgium by municipality, rather than simply deleting it. Nevertheless, I don't think creating a category by deelgemeente/section would be a good idea. I don't think either it is suitable to leave Category:Churches in Belgium with so many files and sub-categories. Anyway, I don't think I will help again in this project (I mean for the catorisation), because LimoWreck removed almost everything I had made, even Category:Churches in Bierbeek, for example. He suggests to create category:Sint-Hilariuskerk (Bierbeek). Fine, but why not creating it instead of placing the file again in the overpopulated Category:Churches in Belgium? BrightRaven (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your good intention, but if you read the long discussions, amongst others, in Category_talk:Churches in Belgium, you will see that we are truly trying to find an optimal solution (which I feel is far from optimal in most countries). While I feel the village categorisation in Belgium is optimal, along for finding easily their churches, Category:Churches_in_Belgium is another problem. In many aspects, such as visual searching, it is optimal but it might indeed be improved. In the coming weeks, I will try to propose a document about Belgian categorisation, which is different from most other countries, not at least because municipalities are just artificial/politicial constructions from 30 years ago to make it more manageable by the federal state, because a city like Brussels is the only city where there is little or no "village" chauvinisme or sensibility (most people don't know where the current border (that changed frequently for electoral reasons) starts or stops), because basically, Belgium consists of 2000 (mentally autonomous) villages that have nothing to do with each other. The positive side is that Category:Churches_in_Belgium is often the first place that people try to find a specific church style or look as it is one of the few that has such a great visual search capability. --Foroa (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your "rules" are nothing more than sheer arbitrary conventions: [3]. (I can tell you most people don't know that there is a municipality in Schaerbeek and not in Laeken, so why treating them so differently? On the other side, I live in Mons and I don't know where exactly is the limit between Ghlin and Mons, so I totally disagree with your statement about "autonomous villages".) I have also found this and I see you also think the overpopulation of Category:Churches in Belgium is a problem. So why not trying to solve it? Maybe I did it the wrong way, but I think something like a category Churches in Belgium by location/village/municipality should exist, because there are simply too many subcats in churches in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I reverted you. Do you know this: Commons:Categories#Category_structure_in_Wikimedia_Commons? BrightRaven (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need a better solution for the churches, especially due to the poor display capabilities in Commons when there are many images and many subcats (long time ago, I was hoping that this software problem would be solved soon). Concerning overcats, as you can see in category:Cities and villages in Belgium and User_talk:Foroa/archive_2008#Category_Cities_in_Italy, the primary categorisation in Belgium is a two level system. Most category systems however have a parallel system to express relations such as the regions/provinces/cities/villages/hamlets/churches and architectures by style, by place and by architect. I don't think that we have to be a purist on that as the goal is that people find easily the things they are looking for (which implies unavoidably some redundancy or parallel structures). I think that for churches, in the end we need a category Churches in Belgium by location, Churches in Belgium by name and keeping churches in Belgium for the postcard type of pictures. I will formulate a proposal in the coming weeks concerning all that.
It is true as well that the Brussels category is a strange mix between region, the overall Brussels city and the center. This has historically grown like that and it is most probably not easy to untangle that. And it is true that it is not easy to find a consistent system where village borders in a city are much unknown, such as in Brussels and Mons (Hainaut) (and probably a couple of ther dense cities, and artificially composed cities such as Kortrijk. --Foroa (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine you think there is a problem with Category:Churches in Belgium. Let me tell how did I come to edit pics of this cat. I was looking for pictures of a church I visited a couple of years ago. I remembered the name of the church in French (église Notre-Dame des dunes, so I guessed Onze-Lieve-Vrouw-something in Dutch) and the approximate place (not far from the coast, not far from the French border). Unfortunately, it was not inside Category:Saint Mary churches in Belgium. The only way I had to find it was to browse the Category:Churches in Belgium. I had never thought this mess was the result of a convention! (It was not the first time I was looking for a long time in this cat.)
If there existed cats for gemeenten/communes, finding pics of église Notre-Dame des dunes, would be quite easy: a quick look at fr:Province_de_Flandre-Occidentale. Near the French border, I see 2 gemeenten/communes : De Panne and Koksijde. Actually, the church I was looking for is in Koksijde.
If there existed cats for provinces, this would also have helped: Category:Churches in West Flanders would probably be overpopulated, but in any case less than Category:Churches in Belgium.
If there existed cats for locations, this would not help me, on the contrary.
So I keep thinking creating cats at an intermediary level (provinces or municipalities, or both) would be a good idea. Your statement about "independant villages" is maybe true in rural area, but it is not the case in urban ones. The same holds for Brussels and Laeken, Mons and Ghlin, Mouscron and Luingne, Charleroi and Marcinelle, etc. One of your argument to discard province level was very interesting: "if there is one intermediate level that will disappear one day [...] it will be the province level." You are probably right, but there is a level who has already disappeared 30 years ago, and it is one of the two you have selected (with LimoWreck).
In addition, your two-level dogma can lead only to two situations:
  1. The present one (almost all the files are in Category:Churches in Belgium).
  2. The creation of a large number of subcats, with only one or two files inside most of them (there are +/- 2,700 deelgemeenten).
Finally, what is the added value of forbiding cats by municipality? Creating cats by municipality does not prevent categorising by deelgemente, on the contrary.
If your two-level dogma cannot solve the problem it was supposed to solve ("This category contains more than 1000 church pictures, and is not very workable/usable anymore."), maybe you should question your dogma. And don't be surprised if regularly benevolent users try to solve in their manner this evident problem. BrightRaven (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Category:Saint Mary churches in Belgium does not exclude Category:Churches in Belgium, rather it's an additional interesting category-tree. I do add churches to the categories-by-patron-saint too, from time to time, but that doesn't not exclude them from the usual category scheme were people expect them to find.
  2. Also note that Saint Mary as patron saint is NOT the same as the Assumption of Mary and other Virgin Mary related names; though people have made that mistake on commons. I've seen you made similar mistakes as well...
  3. Finally, Belgian towns and villages are very much oriented towards the individual village and/or deelgemeente level in everyday life; in fact, it's almost natural to categorise so. I don't know why you seem to find some difficulty with that affinity towards how things are conceived in Belgium, but the fact that different people almost interdependently started to work like that on commons a couple of years ago should give a clue ;-) And I don't see how cats-by-municipality would be "forbidden", as you state ? Actually, the main category at that level IS a category for each municipality. Under that category, everything (bridges, buildings, people, parks, whatever) is simply categorized by the village and/or deelgemeente, as that corresponds best with how things are in Belgium. (as a simple example, the database of protected monuments (heritage) [4] in Flanders is nicely conceived per deelgemeente (similar for the walloon lists by the way); it also follows the way articles are conceived on wikipedia (one of the main purposes of commons); even hobby sites [5] use the same way of "categorisation"). Moreover, all those categories ARE in fact added under the parent municipality category. You should not move categories from one deelgemeente under the category of another deelgemeente, however. That doesn't make sense, it's even wrong; you don't move French bridges under German bridges either, don't you? And adding another indirection category level everywhere is rather redundant, doesn't have much added value at this moment and really doesn't help usability... --LimoWreck (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 & 2 are just vain attempts to change the subject.
3: As I already said, I am not against categorizing by deelgemeente. On the contrary. I think it is very useful to find this picture in this category and I will never remove this picture from it. It seems to me that category by gemeente are forbidden, because for you a category named churches in gemeente X can only contains pictures of churches in the deelgemeente who has the same name. So the fact is that a category that would contains all the files about the churches in the gemeente Mouscron is forbidden. The only cat who can exists is a cat about the churches in the deelgemeente Mouscron.
I don't agree with about the conception of the articles on WP. The article fr:Mouscron is not about the deelgemeente Mouscron, it is about the gemeente Mouscron, as you can clearly see on the maps.
Your statement about French and German bridge is simply stupid. In Category:Mouscron, I see a subcat Category:Luingne, so it is perfectly coherent to have churches of Luingne inside the cat Category:Churches in Mouscron. A good comparison would be: I put Category:Bridges in Auvergne inside Category:Bridges in France because Category:Auvergne is a subcat of Category:France.
"Doesn't have much added value at this moment and really doesn't help usability": so you really think Category:Churches in Belgium is easy to use? Let me paraphrase your own words: I think you probably have seen the light a long time ago, but it has blinded you for good. BrightRaven (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. and 2. is simply an answer on the subject you started above, don't remember?
  • At this moment, as Foroa has stated, a subject-by-municipality category is simply redundant for many subjects. E.g. buildings: various websites already naturally use this grouping per village, as shown above. Of course category:Mouscron is used for the deelgemeente (former municipality), as it is the only category available to do so. There are no two categories - Mouscron (current municipality) and Mouscron (deelgemeente). Duplicating everything by adding another intermediate category-layer to group parks, streets, squares, churches, buildings, monuments, museums, ponds, sports, people, culture, ... by municipality - between the country-level and deelgemeente-level category - will add LOTS of redundancy. Everything is already accessible by municipality, adding 589 x 20 or more sparesely filled categories in between, though theoretically correct, will hardly improve usability... --LimoWreck (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never proposed to create to cats such as Mouscron (current municipality) and Mouscron (deelgemeente) or worse Churches in Mouscron (current municipality) and Churches in Mouscron (deelgemeente). I just suggest that the existing cat Churches in Mouscron could also contains files about churches which are not in the deelgemeente Mouscron, but are in the gemeente Mouscron. Where would be the reduncancy of such a policy? The redundancy would be to create 2,700 a cats like Churches in Luingne (or a cat by church for deelgemeente with only one church, as you suggested). Another point that there is no rule saying that exactly the same cat structure has to be used for everything about Belgium. Category:Bridges in Belgium is not as full as Category:Churches in Belgium, so there is no reason to create a lot of subcats there. I will summarize my arguments there. BrightRaven (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salon International de l'Agriculture[edit]

Please give me a bit of credit, Foroa. I did in fact CHECK the correct capitalisation - see here, orange bar in the centre upper section - before I put this on the Delinker. Can I please ask you to effect that change? And why should you "waste" your time? Sounds rather negative when I am just trying to improve Commons where I cannot, as I'm not an admin - at the Delinker and at Category:Requested moves I have to depend on people like you. Probably would be the case even IF I was an admin, because it would be problematic if I did my own renames, where the rename might be controversial. Ingolfson (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you proved my point. Have a look in Category:Salon_international_de_l'agriculture, its subcategories and the French Interwiki's and wikipedia: they are all consistent between them and your requested change would break that consistency. See here, orange bar in the centre upper section is some sort of title, so no surprise to find uppercase, and constitutes no proof whatsoever. In most places, it is in lower cases, even in titles on the same site like here and elsewhere. When google searching for "Le salon international de l'agriculture 2009", roughly half of them use capitalisation.
I fully admire your great efforts here to improve commons, and the last year, there have been a great progress in most aspects. This is not a matter of giving no credit, it is just a matter of cultural differences and commons/English rules that are fuzzy and open for interpretation, while most English speaking people mixup title cases with proper naming as they resemble each other so much. So whenever there is a discussion on that capitalisation, I tend to ignore it because there are as many reasons to move it in one direction as in the other. In this case, it is spelled as in the French Wikipedia and subcats are coherent. When I have to create a category, I look always first to the wikipedia article (in the text) because even there, they are not always coherent. So why wasting time on that or other details (one could argue that the top level category should be plural too; Salons internationaux d'agriculture, in which case one could argue again that it should be in English, ...). --Foroa (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So when should consistency take a back seat to proper spelling, and vice versa? I think it is a problematic precedent if we say "Wikipedia/Wikimedia's projects have grown to use this form over that form that everyone else uses, therefore we will continue". I agree that my example may not have been as clear-cut as I wanted it, but still. Ingolfson (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far, it sounds good to me that some of the moves are crossing at least two different cultures as each culture has its implicit non written rules that are not at all obvious for the other cultures. This seems to be the case here.
I don't think that I got my point across: I am under the impression that there is in English quite some mixup between title cases and proper names, as you can read in en:Title-case#Places_and_geographic_terms. Especially generic terms are quite mixed up. Moreover, those habits (as the rules are not very clear and solid), are leaning to the culture of the US and Germany, but not so much in other countries. In the US and Germany, one will find often Xxx Castle, while in other countries you will find Xxx castle, where castle is quite rightly to me, a generic term. All this to explain I don't waste my time executing moves that change case in one direction or in the other, until there is somewhere a clear and unambiguous rule for the title/proper noun case. I often check the use of the title case in the articles and very often they are incoherent with the title, meaning that the title case is often confused with the proper name. So there is nor Iron simple rule that specifies if one has to write the one or the other. Just look in en:Category:Churches in Sweden and Category:Churches in Skåne: if they are so inconsistent, it just proves that we have a problem with the rule in the first place, not with its implementation.
So don't twist my words here that Commons should adapt to incorrect spelling. To the best of my knowledge, on Commons, there is no simple comprehensive rule for capitalisation (besides the unfortunate "No Title Case rule"). --Foroa (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another point. Look here and here. It is clear that in France, the unclear English capitalisation rules apply even less (alhtough coming through under English influence). So, what's the point in accepting "proper" names in French but forcing the spelling rules from another language ? --Foroa (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not (intending to anyway) twisting your words. I was discussing a hypothetical case where we DO have official sources for names and capitalisations (New Zealand for example has a geographic board which defines official place names) yet the Wikimedia sources have consistently spelled it wrong. How would you proceed in that case? Ingolfson (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a problem for you, it is worth looking into the problem in the light of international standardisation and proper names. In Italy, we use equally some "standard" community disambiguation terms/abbrevations and in Switzerland they started with it too although it has been removed I think. Do you have a number of examples somewhere ? --Foroa (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a problem important enough for me to devote serious work to at the moment. After my initial change, which you rejected and explained why, beyond that I was just curious about what we would do in the scenario I described, i.e. whrere we DO have an official source. Ingolfson (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct links before a deletion of a category[edit]

Hello. When you are moving (renaming) any category, please do not delete the old category before all of the links {{Commonscat}} or {{Commons}} in all Wikipedia projects are corrected. If you are not sure, keep the old category as a {{Seecat}} redirect temporarily. By the way, thank you for your permanent activity. --ŠJů (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See #Deleting_old_versions_of_renamed_categories and referred discussions. I try to avoid to keep bad category names as this trains the users in bad naming and causes creations of similar badly named categories. Nowadays, officially moved or redirected categories show in their deletion log to what category they are moved; this is captured by a Multichill bot that updates most of the interwiki's. {{Commonscat}} is in my opinion a bad approach because this is an internal Commons organisation that changes all the time (I guesstimate around 1000 new categories per day) and is quite different on each wikipedia. There can be 256 different wikipedia's pointing to a cat, so no way to check it. As I am moving 120 to 300 categories per week, creating and managing a temporary {{Seecat}} for all is not realistic; I limit them to the cats that are not plain naming errors. For the first time in 6 months, I have a serious move request backlog, so there is not a lot of space for additional work. --Foroa (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is impossible to repair links from wikipedias, then it is necessary to keep all of the old categories with {{Seecat}} until this fatal problem will be solved. For example, now Category:Vítkovice is moved to Category:Vítkovice (Ostrava), but the link in cs:Vítkovice (Ostrava) remained false. --ŠJů (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the bot runs very often, one should ask Multichill. Anyway, if the link is false, you can click through on the category in the edit summary. --Foroa (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support everything that may help to keep the commonscat links on the Wikipedia pages right. One partial solution may be that a bot checks all links to Wikipedia pages at the page of the Commons Category page for the presents of commonscat links and replaces the old name of the category to the new name. Do you think that that is possible? Wouter (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Indent reset)I am against commonscats, but nevertheless, I have an agreement with Multichill for a doable solution (in Dutch in #Category:Non-empty_category_redirects). This should work for the formally moved categories and deleted redirects (and deleted via dupe (that corrupts the category counters, but they seem to recover from that when there are less than 200 items in it, so acceptable). In addition, I suggested a number of additional solutions:

  • For mass moved categories (such as in/off/from harmisations), each move generates in principle a new category; in its edit summary, it is stated when it is moved from a source category. So checking every now and then new categories would allow to build a list of the renames.
  • I think that the move bot itself has specific move logbooks, so this could be exploited too. Since the move bot is maintained by Multichill, there are probably more options open overthere.
  • Finally, as you suggested, for each new category, a bot could check the IW's and check if there is no commonscat on the other side. It seems logical that a bot checks these back and forward referencing (and if the referencing is only one ways, it could autogenerate the back linking (I mean Commons to wikipedia and wikipedia to commons). In that case, the coherency is enforced and becomes autorepairing.

I don't know what Multichill is going to do exactly. --Foroa (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your counter proposal.[edit]

I like your idea and have proposed we go ahead with it for the test run. For the benefit of others who may not have understood what it concretely would look like, could you create a page that would demonstrate how this would apply to Category:Apollo 16? This will also help me as I code the bot, so that I replicate exactly what you meant. One or two languages would suffice. -J JMesserly (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a starter, I added already IW's on Category:Shenzhou 7. Without other instructions, I will continue on that category tomorrow late. Note that I will not necessarily follow navigation box layout (I have to leave some work for the hand of the master) and I plan to present two cases/options. One where the documentation in the relevant wikipedia artciles is sufficient to document the category, another case where the documentation needs to be tailored by hand for this specific category. And by the way, I disagree with you that Commons is English only; you should have a better look around. --Foroa (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at what you got, so if you are pressed, the shenzhous stuff is probably fine. When you get some time, it might be clearer not to have mixed examples so folks could cleanly contrast them. (eg: Perhaps if you propose there be lang links on the main cat page to the subpages- which seems like you would- right?). -J JMesserly (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops- you meant interwikis. Yeah. I will do a bit of Apollo. Could you have a look and correct to suit your design? -J JMesserly (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I will be able to terminate that today. I still prefer to workout a category which has its base in a non-English country and in Which I can create subcategories to show the interest of heritage and subcategories in other countries. I thought that I could do that with Category:Shenzhou 7 without obsetting the authors of the category too much, but you may have other suggestions. Maybe we could clone something more technical (uncommon vocabulary) like Shenzou test, pulprits, Iconostasis. --Foroa (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport category scheme[edit]

Hi Foroa, can I ask your advice on three things regarding this:

Commons:Category scheme rail transport
  • I will soon be ready to make the new category scheme go live (for discussion that is). Can I ask you to vet how I have set it up first (I am not asking you for your comments on the CONTENTS yet, only if you feel I have set it out well, and created a balanced proposal in terms of tone and procedure).
  • I am thinking I need to place a big link at the top of Category:Rail transport to "advertise" it. While I am certain that it won't exactly make the consensus easier to have many more people jump in than are already involved, I think it will be needed to achieve acceptance, rather than coming as a fait accompli.
  • I will also need to be able to respond to and assist the consensus-gathering process, especially if many people weigh in, as I fear they may ;-) I may not be able to do so within the next 1-2 weeks (some big private things going on). What are your thoughts on delaying this a little more - I don't want SJU and the others at the discussion from Category:Railways to feel like I am letting this drag out, but... Ingolfson (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without going into the content, I would strongly suggest:
  • to put on the main page only the baseline scheme which seems already (close to) a consensus from the other discussions. That way, you can maintain a mainline that is updated by one single person as the discussion evolves. Discussions that can start from an acceptable baseline are more efficient than discussions about a number of possible baselines.
  • Keep alternatives and options on the talk pages as to not give an excuse to the debaters to start changing the main page. Moreover, you keep a separate place for other alternatives compared to one single reference. I will try to think on the current proposition in the coming days. Don't forget to mention the UK exceptions.
  • When you use abstract notations like "by function", "by type", insert always a couple of examples; most people are easier with real cases. Showing categories in tree form helps the understanding and discussion significantly.
Process
  • Even if it can take weeks, once there is consensus, we can execute moves in days without waits. The current situation is not that bad after all and some moves cmight be started if there is consensus about parts of the structures. Anyway, it is better to prepare it correctly than to restart the process every 6 months. Just mention that your "real life" activities don't allow to be as responsive as you would like.
  • Advertising the discussion on some categories and in village pump might attract noise and maybe cause some delays, but on the other hand, in the end, you can claim a community consensus, so you might achieve peace on that front for many years. --Foroa (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I sound a bit dense - I am overworked (offline) at the moment. Can you elaborate what you mean with "only the baseline scheme" - what would you NOT put on the "main page" (I assume the first page where I give proposals 4.1 etc...) Are you saying I should NOT give alternatives, and only discuss alternatives if they crop up in discussions? Ingolfson (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Category scheme rail transport Should in the end contain only the final and agreed scheme/policy, no alternatives or discussions. All the rest, including alternatives, should go in Commons talk:Category scheme rail transport. --Foroa (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have stopped the attempt to develop a cat scheme for now. Everyone has their own ideas, and I am not likely to achieve consensus, I am afraid. We will just have to continue to muddle along in the status quo, quibbling over stuff here and there and again. Maybe I am giving up too early - but then I can't see myself arguing over this for weeks for no end results worth said discussion in my mind. Better things to do, online and off. Can I ask you to weigh in on my attempt to at least "salvage" the original discussion starter, the proposal by SJU re fate of category "Railways"? Ingolfson (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Timaska (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi Foroa,
well, I've just seen your post at the COM:AN/U and it made me look on his edits. As far as I see and remember, Timaska is a well-known anonymous contributor to the Polish Wikipedia, especially interested in the Kłodzko County. I am not sure which categories do you mean, as he has created only one: Category:Kanał Młynówka and it seems all right. His pictures do seem all right, too—the only problem is, I think, that he doesn't speak English very well and keeps creating gallery pages in Polish only. I'll try to fix his messy edits if I find any. Best, odder 12:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem whatsoever with Polish only galleries, that is his full right. I just have been alerted by this and the fact that many of his images are blinking with red categories. So sometimes, early detection and guidance can avoid bigger problems. Better safe than sorry. --Foroa (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's right. I didn't see those red categories. I'll create them in an hours or so. Thanks for the information. odder 20:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confundir las churras con las merinas[edit]

¿Por qué en una categoría se tiene que poner enlaces de artículos de wikipedias? Comprendo que se ponga enlaces de categorías, pero no de sus artículos. No tiene sentido, sinceramente. Patricia Rios (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki's are the most efficient way to document what the category is about in all available languages. So people do the effort to place them to help the commons users understand what the category is about. Deleting those interwiki's is an act of vandalisme, and if you continue to remove them, I will react harder. For the tools, it is indeed better that the interwiki's refer to categories, for the humans, references to articles (as they exist in more languages) is better. There is no commons rule about the nature of the interwiki links, except that they are encouraged. But there is certainly not a rule to delete them. --Foroa (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you still follow your old habit to delete category documentation from other contributors and items relating to for example the Galicia structures. From now on, I will revert them straight away without trying to reintegrate your "improvements". I am just tired of having to clean up behind your back while avoiding setting up other Spanish contributors. --Foroa (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Train stations in the Czech Republic[edit]

For advance information: I am preparing at my user subpage User:ŠJů/Train stations backgrounds for an unification of category names of all Czech railway stations. By now I completed a sorted list of used names and some expositive comments and possible variants of solution with some arguments. Then I would move the whole paper to CfD or to an other proper place. Please make needed language correction prior to openning of discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about an unification of category names is opened at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/02/Categories of train stations in the Czech Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ŠJů, this looks like extremely (and I dont use that word often) professional work and proves that you are evolving to a real "international". Congratulations. --Foroa (talk) 15:18, 13 Febrary 2009 (UTC)
I hope you can attract your Czech collegues for constructive contributions as easily as they are attracted massively to delete images. Wait and see. --Foroa (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Foroa, the discussion looks to converge to an unequivocal choice. As it will be concluded, you can use a prepared list of rename templates. I think, we can wait for eventual new ideas about a week. --ŠJů (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Tyrol Categories[edit]

Hello. Could you run your SieBOT over

Sure. For the conventions, I keep forgetting too, so in general I look in the "subject by country" category. The quickest and most efficient way however is to put your move requests in User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unjustified deletion of catredirects without articles[edit]

I believe there was no point in deleting the catredirects Category talk:Languages of North Caucasus, Category talk:Languages of Caucasus: if they existed, they would help to find and use the *correct* category via HotCat (first, when you type, you find this name, but then, when you commit, it is autocorrected). Without this catredircet, it is difficult to use HotCat because you can't always remember whether you should use the article or not. They were not created for fun, they really made the job of categorization easier.--Imz (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience. See #Deleting_old_versions_of_renamed_categories and referred discussions. I try to avoid to keep bad category names (with obvious errors) as this trains the users in bad naming and causes the creation of similar badly named categories. For example, you created some categories using the word "Daghestan" instead of Dagestan. The result is that soon, you will see more categories popping up with Daghestan, even when they are redirected. This type of error, I don't delete as it is language specific, but I spend several days per week on merging and renaming categories to get the system more uniform (I am moving/merging 120 to 300 categories per week). HotCat changes dynamically the cat indeed, but few people notice it, so they are badly trained. When editing categories, they show blue in preview, so OK for almost all people. Upload bots and commonsense often use such redirected categories too (which are only changed by the redirect bot once a day) adding to the bad training. The Commons organisation changes all the time (I guesstimate around 1000 new categories per day) and it is quite a job to discover incoherencies and parallel category trees. --Foroa (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this approach for badly named categories, and support their deletion (e.g., when the idea of the name is not good, or when there is an obvious misspelling). But as for something like spelling variants, I am against deletion. In these cases, deletion just makes the job harder. I can't always enumerate and try all possible spellings and synonyms until I find an existing category; I prefer this to be done automatically. So, such redirects would really be helpful. If they aren't there, there are actually big chances that something doesn't get into the most exact category (for example, me personally would give up trying different spellings very quickly and I will end up putting it into a less exact upper category).
Robots can care about redirected categories.
(As for "Dag(h)estan", I don't think there is a need for excuses from me, and even I don't think that it will be a big problem if another spelling appears in categories, because they can be redirected to the "canonical" one. Simply, my English spelling skills force me to write "gh" (otherwise, "Dagestan" would by default be pronounced incorrectly, with an affricate), and I don't want it to be a torture to add a category (torture = finding out the only existing spelling): I spell it the most natural way, and if it has been already noticed that it should be redirected to another spelling, then there is a catredirect, and HotCat automatically substitutes it.)
If you continue deleting reasonable redirects, this will discourage me (and probably more people) from trying to add good categories, and saving the learned information about spelling variants as catredirects to help future editors.
But, as I said, I support deleting really misspelled and badly named categories.--Imz (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is no complete solution. It works only after a 7 or 8 days cooldown period, not all bots can move audio and video files and it does not work with items that have a category defined in templates. The redirected Category:Daghestan and its containing Category:Languages of Daghestan will stay there till next week. In the mean time, your changes in that language cat area will attract other people and they will be confused by incoherent category structures and inconsistent names. Someday, a nice soul will do the effort to convert the Category:Languages of Daghestan into the correct Category:Languages of Dagestan. In the mean time, people will hesitate and other people will use equally Daghestan in other categories. Why I tend to clean up as soon as possible as I did with some other faulty categories; faulty written words and habits tend to propagate.
I disagree with your restore of Category:Languages of North Caucasus that redirects to Category:Languages of the North Caucasus, as this implies that we should as well support Category:Languages of north Caucasus , Category:North Caucasian languages, Category:Northern Caucasian languages and God knows what other variations. Nobody will dispute the deletion of Category:Flora of the Belgium or "Castle in the France". But I will not waste further energy on such details. Some other contributor will delete it quite rightly one day or another when the dust is settled. The more "litter" is hanging around, the more problems it creates.--Foroa (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/01[edit]

Hello - I have spotted your name on the 'Categories for discussion' boards, and hoping you can help. I saw the discussion about Category:London Boroughs and wanted to express my support. Now I notice that the discussion request doesn't seem to have been set up correctly, and it is appearing as a subsection of the discussion about it, rather than on its own subpage. Is there some way this can be corrected? Also, I don't think the right tags are in place on the category itself, but I'm not certain enough of the processes involved! Many thanks. Tafkam (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be repaired by now. --Foroa (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Tafkam (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gebruik van template voor een Categorie[edit]

Dag Foroa, bij mijn activiteiten kwam ik op de Category:Martinengo. Het blijkt dat die is gemaakt door gebruik te maken van Template:ComuneBG_Italy. Omdat ik zag dat jij ook ook een bijdrage hebt geleverd bij die template richt ik me eerst tot jou voordat ik een vraag in de Village pump stel. Zelf vind ik aan de template meer nadelen zitten dan voordelen. Er zijn veel vertalingen. Ik zie liever alleen Engels en in dit geval Italiaans met daarbij de mogelijkheid dat als bijvoorbeeld een Vietnamees er een vertaling bij wil zetten bij die specifieke categorie, dan moet dat makkelijk mogelijk zijn. Bovendien houdt de template er niet rekening mee dat als de naam in bijvoorbeeld het Nederlands anders is dan die in het Italiaans. De categorie Martinengo verwijst naar Category:Municipalities in province of Bergamo. Dat is echter alleen te zien via de edit van de template. Samengevat vind ik dat met zo’n template de categorie minder makkelijk aan te passen is. Is over de wenselijkheid van het gebruik van zo’n template al eerder een discussie geweest? Groeten, Wouter (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Een beetje om te plagen heb ik ook de Japanse tekst erbij gezet. Wouter (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dag Wouter. Die discussie komt om de zoveel weken terug, nogal dikwijls bij Multichill omdat templates die een category aanmaken nog een ergere nachtmerrie zijn en zich niet laten moven door de bots. Vooral by coats of arms en chinese tekens zijn ze een echte miserie. Wat de documentatie kant betreft, ik ben een prototype aan het maken aan wat ik een goede categorie documentatie zou vinden, dus nog enkele dagen geduld, zodat wij een fris debat kunnen aanvangen met eventuele alternative oplossingen. (Zie Commons:Village_pump#Multilingual_search_on_cats-_any_objections_to_this_sort_of_approach.3F). Als je echt ingewikkelde templates will vinden, dan kan je die vinden bij de chinese/japanese lettertekens en by sommige wikipedia foto hunts (Wiki takes manhattan vb). --Foroa (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably of interest to you[edit]

Commons talk:Categories#Category redirects --R'n'B (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected categories should not be categorised themselves, otherwise they attract bot categorisation[edit]

Thank you for your note. However, I'm not sure that I understand the issue. From what I can tell, though, it would seem to me that the bots aren't properly programmed. If a redirected category still contains media, logic and common sense dictate that it would retain its categories (I wouldn't add new ones) until a bot empties it out. Otherwise, that content is effectively impossible to find through the category tree. However, maybe I am misunderstanding the problem, and I apologize if I am.--skeezix1000 (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right in a perfect world, and commons is far from perfect. That's why it is better to execute a move and redirect when it is empty. Because a redirect has a cooldown period of 7 or 8 days (against vandalisme), during that time every thing remains in it and results in a unclear and confusing structure, regardless if it is pointing to other categories. We all know that a manual removal of those categories is not realistic and the bots don't clean it. Maybe a suggestion for the bot makers ? (but the bots would reset the cooldown period again) --Foroa (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lockwood[edit]

Hi! My apologies, I deleted the category from the images in error before noting the new category change. However this may be giving rise to a problem of too fine a dissemination of categories. Lockwood is actually a suburb of Huddersfield and no longer a seperate village, nor has it been for 150+ years, it is only one mile from the Huddersfield Town centre, therefore should not actually be listed under Category:Villages in West Yorkshire. There are several areas that I have uploaded photo's for that have been similaraly wrongly categorised as villages but are not. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories on Commons tend to become deeper than wikipedia articles. And there is en:Lockwood, West Yorkshire. In some towns, we end up at the parish and street level and building level. And the more one has clearly labelled categories, the easier it is to categorise and to find items. For cities and towns, I don't think that there is such a thing like "too fine a dissemination" except when frontiers have become completely unknown, which is obviously not the case as Lockwood figures on the pictures. Keep up the good work.--Foroa (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! Based on that I have just placed Category:Paddock, West Yorkshire back on File:Paddock Huddersfield.jpg, as the category was empty. ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and block needed[edit]

I saw from the deletion log that you are currently online and deleting images. Can you please deal with File:Thatwhichis.jpg, an image used to vandalize Enwiki and is a likely copyvio? I tagged it for deletion more than half an hour ago. Can you also block the uploader please? They're also blocked on Enwiki for both their username and for vandalism. Thanks. Acalamari (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done blocked for one day for safety. --Foroa (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Acalamari (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Train stations in the Czech Republic - Cfd[edit]

Hi Foroa, the discussion looks to converge to an unequivocal choice. I think, it can be concluded. The bot can use a prepared list of rename templates. --ŠJů (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work and great improvement. Do you want me to delete the old categories ? I'll try to execute the whole bunch tonight. --Foroa (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the old categories can be deleted. If you will take note of any interwiki or link to any article, please check a potential "commonscat" link in such article. Some articles about Czech train stations are at cs:, de: and nl: above all. Later I will check it once again. --ŠJů (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Category:Washington to Category:Washington (U.S. state)[edit]

The move of Category:Washington to Category:Washington (U.S. state) seems to have left a lot of unresolved links. I've fixed a few of the more obvious, but see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Washington for what was left dangling. It looks like you are the one who asked for this move and Siebrand seems to feel you are who I should be talking to. - Jmabel ! talk 04:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was a legitimate request from Multichill. Thank you for changing the templates, but as usual with categories in templates, the links in whatLinksHere will only disappear over (a lot) of time, unless all the states get a normal or dummy edit. I restored the original category, although I don't like it, in order to avoid the 30 or so hardcoded references. --Foroa (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SieBot cat moves[edit]

Botje loopt wel lekker de afgelopen tijd geloof ik, of niet? Vlot, precies, etc... Opmerkingen? Siebrand 11:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inderdaad, ik denk dat sinds het multi-thread safe gemaakt is dat alles veel sneller en meer in parallel ge-moved wordt. Er is wel een probleem als verschillende moves rond dezelfde categories (of files ?) bewegen. Het ziet ernaar uit dat als verschillende threads een wijziging vragen in dezelfde categorie (elk een specifieke cat rename), dat er soms een van de wijzigingen vergeten wordt. Net alsof er geen concurrency/locking control zou zijn. Ook loopt de display van de geledigde category wel eens vele minuten achter op de moves, hetgeen mij doet denken dat het systeem soms tot op zijn limiten gepusht wordt. Waarschijnlijk zou een kleine wait-timer geen kwaad kunnen. Ik moet dus een beetje meer checken en/of aanpassen na iedere move. Het zou wel helpen indien de bot ook audio en video zou moven, nu laat ik grotere hoeveelheden over aan de redirect bots die er wel weg mee kunnen maar die wachten wel een week.

Op gebied van traceability en meteen een sterke vereenvoudiging van mijn werk zou het wel interessant zijn als de bot in het begin van de source category een commentaar zou schrijven in de zin van "moved to category:bestemming". Als alternatief mag wat mij betreft trouwens de inhoud van die category helemaal gewist worden en vervangen door een category redirect|bestemming. Tenslotte zie ik dat nogal wat mensen bereid zijn om een move te lanceren, maar het grootste werk, het opkuisen, aan anderen overlaten, zodat ook dit probleem kan geautomatiseerd worden. --Foroa (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange : deleted cat[edit]

Hi, I see that you have deleted the category Category:"Worst Disaster in Air Force History", but still it does appear in the list of categories, when one clicks on Category at the bottom of a page. Some other categories are in the same situation : deleted and empty, but still in the list. There may be a problem with the Garbage collection. Can you do something ? Or can you ask somebody to do something ? Yours, Frédéric (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I could not find the file, article or category. Could you provide precise names and links ? --Foroa (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, look at Special:Categories, lines 12 and 19. Frédéric (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that. Well, wiki software has some sort of counters that count subcats, images, ... in a category. Those counters get easily corrupted as you can see in for example Category:Non-empty category redirects and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (check "Duplicate" and "Other speedy deletions"). Those corruptions seem to appear when bots and templates are recategorising. So far, I asked a bit around and I could not find a clear explanation why this happens and how to reset those counters. It looks as if a category content gets below 200 items, the counters are re-evaluated. In order not to demotivate you, I can tell you that I never noticed such a counter that stayed corrupted for more than 3 weeks.
Basically, a category exists in the wiki memory whenever there is a reference to it. It turns up blue when it is formally created. --Foroa (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Persian Gulf[edit]

Sorry, I added "Category:Persian gulf" to many of the relevant maps, but the "Category:Persian Gulf" already exists. If you have a robot, can you change them. Sorry, Thanks. --Wayiran (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No real problem. Moved by now. --Foroa (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category problem[edit]

There was a move of categories. Category:Flora of New Zealand North to Category:Flora of New Zealand, North Island (or something like this). I look stuff up before requesting moves and share the information. I suggest that it would behoove the people who move categories to get a little experience with looking things up before instigating a move. If it is too much to ask you to do this, let me know

http://www.tdwg.org/TDWG_geo2.pdf <-- page 136, 137 of the pdf. When I review this, I see that I altered some of the original paper I was using to fit into the categorization guidelines here. The original categories I made were not specific to the large islands because of the smaller islands surrounding the country. Species of plants and animals can sometimes be limited to inhabiting one island. Making New Zealand into two geological sections was an attempt to manage information like this.

The species that I had divided into New Zealand North and New Zealand South also occurred on the other islands. So, if you have the time, perhaps you can undo the move or also move all of those species that had been moved to the other islands that were included in the area for the two halves of the politically connected New Zealand.

I am sorry if I have been rude. I suggest that it was a response to what felt to be a rude and perhaps condescending and mostly unnecessary situation. I don't like that feeling and at any given moment to not have that feeling would have been great, welcomed and embraced by me. So perhaps more honestly, I am extremely sorry about the very rude situation which exists. If there is anything that I can do to make the rude situation go away, let me know. -- carol (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in New Zealand where till recently split in a north and south part, which was not clear at all, so we renamed all related categories to make clear that it concerned the south and north isles. Concerning your categories Category:Flora of New Zealand North and Category:Flora of New Zealand South, as there was nothing documented, we assumed that it followed the same logic as all the other New Zealand north/south categories, so we moved them to Category:Flora of North Island, New Zealand and Category:Flora of South Island, New Zealand. Your reaction proves that the category names needed to be more precise.
Obviously, it makes no sense to move them back, reinstating an ambiguous category name. If you have more precise category names, I will be happy to move whatever needs to be moved provided you can give precise instructions.
I must admit that by moving 100 to 300 categories per week, sometimes we make mistakes and sometimes, we give the impression of being rude (and sometimes, we ARE rude too). But this is rarely intentional and we understand that sometimes, we encounter reactions ranging from irritated, over rude to downright insulting. But we try not to create hard feelings about that. Actually, it is always charming to see a person that "defends" his category names and structures, but in the end, everything has to coexist and have a minimum of coherency. --Foroa (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other islands?
These were the names that were suggested in that document. They were areas not islands. The areas which include several islands were a way to make it so that each island did not have to be mentioned individually but could be when necessary. Isn't that the way that the category structure is supposed to work where subcats are smaller parts of a larger area?
My intention was not to be charming, by the way. My intention was to open communication. Please do not feel charmed as much as attempted to communicate with. There was a failure of category documentation when commons began or there was a failure to locate it by the people responsible for this. The people who initiated the category structure are not active now to ask questions of.
I feel condescended to. Was that your intention? -- carol (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried to explain why we did the things we did. I try to keep an open and unbiased communication, not to be condescending or charming, just simply helpful. I have no idea how the other Islands fit in the New Zealand category system. You can not keep on blaming the people that started categorisation. If you create categories or category structures without documenting their meaning and by using imprecise category names, you are bound to have nasty surprises every now and then. --Foroa (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precise? The categories I mentioned here were precisely not those two islands. What is the best way to now manage the move that was made to those less precise categories? Add the other islands as categories or perhaps keep the country divided in two in a category system that understands that there are more than two islands in that country? Before the move, the areas were larger containers. Is that understandable to you? Do you have the software needed to review the paper? I can rip the pages out and make them available for you if you were not able to read it and/or look at the pictures. -- carol (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thing here. I was not here blaming. I was here looking to a person who manages category moves. Perhaps I should have been blaming and that would have been an approach that would affect a knowledgible change?
If I were to need to discuss the undoing of some wrongs with these categories -- what user is there who has access to the bots and spends a lot of time being an authority on the category system here that I could explain the problem to and get a reply which is not so defensive as it is interested in making a logical category structure? -- carol (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:TATA Nano pink.jpg[edit]

Sorry, i was a little fast and i didn't see it is on talk page and thank you for revert.   ■ MMXXtalk  19:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parking lots[edit]

I was just curious: why delete Category:Parking lots in the United States? I can't find any reference to any deletion discussions; and "Car park" is a term that I've never heard used in the United States. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was a commons worldwide harmonisation action as you can see in Category:Car parks by country. Car park seems to fit better in an international and multi-language context. Most of these actions, when obvious, go without discussions. I restored (and redirected) the old category for your convenience. --Foroa (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't a discussion filed? Meanwhile...it would be one thing if the category name were different for no reason (I'm meaning something like "Car park in the United States"), but in this case it will be confusing to the American user, while its inclusion in "Car parks by country" and a soft redirect would suffice for the non-American. Obviously Commons is more international than the English Wikipedia; but is there nothing like WP:ENGVAR on here? Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With categories, redirects are much more problematic and create bad habits and bad training for non-world-English native people (the majority here). Therefore, uniformisation and consistency is very important on commons. I redirected Category:Parking lots in the United States. --Foroa (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waarom aircrafts -> aircraft on stamps ?[edit]

Dag Foroa, ik zag dat de naam van "Aircrafts on stamps" veranderd is naar "Aircraft on stamps". Het enige wat mij verbaast is dat er wel nog in de categorie "Transport and vehicles on stamps" staan Automobiles on stamps, Boats on stamps, Buses on stamps, Motorcycles on stamps, Ships on stamps, Tanks on stamps. Die dus allemaal wel in het meervoud. Is er een reden waarom het vliegtuig wel in enkelvoud moet? Bij File:Postzegel_1935_luchtvaartfonds.jpg zijn het 3 vliegtuigen. Groeten, Wouter (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De reden is eenvoudig. Het woord aircrafts bestaat niet in het Engels, enkel aircraft dat zowel eenvoud als meervoud is. --Foroa (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bedankt, daar ben ik goed ingelopen. In het rijtje had "aeroplanes" dan misschien beter gepast. Wouter (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me the link to the discussion chemistry (unsorted) Undifined chemistry?[edit]

--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you running a BOT?[edit]

re: this edit/diff by you...

  • 1) I'd deliberately left that to category red, so it showed in the contribs summaries as a to-do reminder...
• hoping someone running a bot could move the pics...
• Rocket000 used to do that sort of batch moves for me, who around here active now does that sort of 'identified needs moves'
  • 2) So why did you remove the annotated reasons (which should save time for someone ''completing the task') to whit:
   This page is currently wrongly named... the book is titled with "THE", not "A"


   Added categoryredirect in case someone is patrolling these and can bot move the images first. // FrankB 22:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 3) Removing the annotation without finishing the task (the major part of which is recatting the images to the correct name is UNHELPFUL to others time and a step back, imho.
  • 4 What pray tell, do you mean by "Cool down period?" ("bot should move them after cooldown period" to be precise) Where's a controversy??? Well, outside your unhelpful masking of a clear message?

I daresay, I've likely contributed here as nearly as long (or longer) as you and am certainly qualified to discern recatting needs.

So what are your rationales? // FrankB 14:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standard procedure for category renaming is inserting a {{Move|new name}} request. Redirecting to a non existing category will make the bot recategorise the items with a non-existing category. The bots that are moving redirects don't do that during the first seven days (or cooldown period) after the last category change to avoid vandalisme.
I created my self the new category and did some moves myself to avoid an empty destination category. I did not have the time to move it all. I don't see where the problem is as in the end, the moves would have been executed. Following the standard procedure would have avoided this discussion. --Foroa (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, understand... Rocket000 and I and a few others like David Kernow used to shortcut that a bit... I'd just identify things needing moved, and they'd run the bots... if not immediately, usually within an hour or two.
We'd usually do that via emails too, which these days I usually ignore as distractions save for a daily check. Mom writes a lot! <g>
  • However, having the bot recat to a non-existing category is no different than you or me specifying a cat page, then later creating the category from the redlink... That would be fine, as anyone could create it later. The "gripe" I was making was you took out the very message designed to let someone know the work needed done. So overall, no big deal. Just didn't make any sense in light of what I'd intended. We're just thinking differently about it all.
I'll check out the Move template... things do change a bit over here, and I really haven't been here much since about 2-1/2 years back. Cheers! // FrankB 05:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Building interiors by country[edit]

All moved, hope that's how you wished it to be. odder 21:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced, but it is OK. --Foroa (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified[edit]

Zoals je vast al door hebt ben ik de hele unidintified boom maar eens gelijk aan het trekken zodat we een boom hebben voor dingen die nog uitgezocht moeten worden. Als onderdeel daarvan heb ik {{Unidentified header}} gemaakt. Wat vind je van dit idee? Multichill (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had ik al opgemerkt en al de moves versneld doorgevoerd (met wat gezaag vandien). Ik heb de header in een wat vriendelijker toonaard gezet. Lijkt mij nogal wat omslachtig om die overal bijgezet te krijgen. Lijkt mij gemakkelijker om een standaard tekst op unidentified cats te zetten met een link naar de moeder cat en een gelijkaardige melding dat wij die cat zo snel mogelijk ledig wensen te maken (maar daarom niet gewist dient te worden). --Foroa (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ben er ook nog niet helemaal uit. Bedankt voor de aanpassing. Als we een versie hebben die we goed vinden dan laat ik m'n bot wel even rammelen om het overal erop te zetten. Multichill (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mocht je trouwens nog zin hebben, hier staat een lijstje. Multichill (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Milan?[edit]

I am curious of what made you think that all of the images in Category:Icons of John the Baptist were obligatory located in Milan? Here is at least one counterexample with an icon of this saint, drawn and located in Sozopol, Bulgaria. Could you, please, revise your actions. →Spiritia 14:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will check with user:G.dallorto, the originator of the move request of 27/02/2009. With his edit count approching 200 000 and many thousands of category rename requests, he makes rarely mistakes. I assume that he wanted to move to a category where the majority of the images belong to, and reshuffle the remaining ones by hand, but I will check. --Foroa (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also with this request - half of this icons are in Russia. --Shakko (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've cheked every icon in that category - no Milan at all. Obvious slip of the pen. I've reverted all back.--Shakko (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a mistake of mine. I was trying to revert the images of John the Baptist in Milan that had been moved to "Saint John". I overdid. You may delete that category. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everybody. :) →Spiritia 09:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Membre[edit]

Have a look there. Greetings --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another proof that shortening the names 'for comfort' creates more problems than it solves. Moved to category:Membre-sur-Semois. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret renaming operation[edit]

You are gonna stop this and put every category you want ro rename to discussion. Otherwise I will report you on the vandalism page. Regards --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Unknown vs Unidentified[edit]

Category discussion notification Unknown vs Unidentified 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Category:Percussioni circensi[edit]

Hallo. I've replaced the tag of deletion on this category simply because this italian football club does not exists. I suppose you have found this "red" category liked in all of portraits uploaded by Allanon2001 (see his discussion, it seems to be an abitué of copyviol and spam) and so you have created it. But i can assure to you that this f.c. is a ghost. I'm italian, i have never heard about a football team named Percussioni circensi. It hasn't a page on it.wikipedia and no one in other else editions of wp. Searching in google i've found that it is a simple amateur squad based in Turin, so not belonging to FIGC, and so not-encyclopedic. It's a simple amateur FC searching for fame on wikimedia projects. Look at this fan site, look at the portrait... All pictures uploaded in this category are also a copyviol, and completely meaningless for the encyclopedia. I don't now how to complete the deletion request, if you could do it (as admin) or simply delete this spam... or this fake. I would only notice this massive-spam. Good work --87.11.18.6 19:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language-neutral diagrams[edit]

Hey, thanks for taking care of my merge request (I would have done it myself but it was before I got my powers back :). I have a problem, though. As user LA2 has brought to my attention not everything in that category belongs there (some are in fact not language neutral). Also, with the size of the current category some sub-division is probably desired. I'm want to fix this but I'm unsure of what to do. If you have any ideas, I'd love to here them. Thanks! Rocket000(talk) 19:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please reply there. Rocket000(talk) 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Comarques[edit]

Hello Foroa, as I've just replied to Jmabel I'm going to copy your messages on the debate. Probably you're right and I can't see the things with the correct perspective, so let's get a consensus before doing some more massive moves that might be wrong. And of course, you're also welcome to participate in the debate, if you need me to translate your comments there, just let me know. Cheers. Anna (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, consensus seems not to be impossible. I replied on Commons:Debate_sobre_la_categorización_de_municipios_en_España#Comarques. Don't worry about translations for me: you need consensus with the Spanish people in the first place, not with me. And in general, I end up knowing what is going on anyway. Redirects execute after 7 days, so if you are unsure, replace them with a {{Move}}. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

category:windmills in West Flanders[edit]

Hoi Foroa, waarom heb je deze categorie verwijderd? Ik wilde deze cats juist in lijn met de nlwp brengen. Er zijn een hoop foto's bijgekomen en komen er geloof ik nog een hoop aan. Multichill (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wij hebben in België omzeggens geen enkele tussen-categorie structuur op provincie level en ik zie dat er in Nederland ook geregeld van terug gekomen wordt. Als je bot molens download, dan zou het wel handing zijn dat die in de gemeente of dorp geklasseerd wordt, en niet op provincie level zoals zo pas nog enkele tientallen molens in de provincie Antwerpen gezet werden. --Foroa (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Nederland doen we het wel voor gebouwen, molens, kerken, gemeentes, plaatsen en een hele hoop andere dingen. Hoe stel je voor het dan voor België te doen? Plaats categorieën lijkt me niet zo handig omdat die veel te leeg worden. Ik zou het ook wel handig vinden als het meteen in de juiste plaatscat terechtkomt, maar ik denk dat er wat Commonscat linkjes ontbreken op nlwp waardoor m'n bot niet genoeg info heeft. Multichill (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
En wat met de windmolens op zee (Thornton bank bvb)? Dat is niet echt provinciegebonden? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycaon (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Die vallen waarschijnlijk niet eens binnen België of Nederland ;-) Multichill (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O jawel! De windmolens op de Thorntonbank liggen volledig op het Belgische deel (dat is trouwens ongeveer 80% van deze bank) van de Noordzee. Deze wateren zijn echter federale materie en niet aan een provincie gebonden. Lycaon (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zie User_talk:Foroa/archive_2008#Category_Cities_in_Italy waar het duidelijk is dat België op twee niveaus gecategoriseerd is: locaties en land. Als je kijkt in de relatief eenvoudige structuur in category:sculptures in the Netherlands en de meer ingewikkelde structuur in category:sculptures in Belgium zie je al snel dat de her en der opduikende provincie tussen-structuren meer problemen geven dan er oplossen (plus onderhoudswerk). Bovendien wordt categorisatie alsmaar ingewikkelder. Ik denk dat meer dan 95 % van de Vlaamse gemeenten in commons zitten, dus geen excuus om die niet te gebruiken in de eerste plaats. Ik heb al op verschillende topics in Nederland gezien dat de provincie tussen-structuren weggezwierd worden. Bovendien is België veel minder provincie-minded, dus minder gekend en meer vergissingen. Bovendien vermijden wij zo problemen zoals pseudo-provincies Brussels gewest, Duitstalig gewest en gebieden in de territoriale wateren waar het niet altijd duidelijk is indien ze Belgisch, Vlaams of van de provincie zijn. --Foroa (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're testing my patience, again.[edit]

Instead of denying the request, why don't you take a look at w:Gothic Revival architecture, w:Category:Gothic Revival architecture, w:Category:Gothic Revival architecture in the United States, Google, etc. Notice the spelling? It doesn't matter if the people who made the Commons "Gothic revival" categories screwed up. The requested moves you denied are the correct spellings and should be changed. If that involves changing all of the "Gothic revival" categories to "Gothic Revival", so be it. If you don't want to do it, then find someone who will. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments.
  • move requests directly via the delinker are for uncontestable moves, mainly for obvious mistakes and uniformisation of agreed upon naming and spelling.
  • your request was an implicit request for changing the names of tens or even hundreds of categories, so it would be equally rejected as a {{Move}}. Such major changes can only through CFD.
  • Wikipedia and certainly Google are not a reference for capitalisation, especially as modern publications use title cases all over the place. Even in Wikipedia, you will find numerous places where revival is written with lower case (and Architecture with upper case).
  • Looking here shows that the conclusion is not obvious and that "Gothic Revival" is almost not known as a term.
  • Personally, I feel that it should be Revival with capital, but I see no clear evidence for the one or the other, so I will not waste my time on it. I mainly try to keep the system uniform. I would not exclude that the term Neogothic is a better term as it is more "international". --Foroa (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe have a look into en:Category:Revival architectural styles to notice why it is hard to believe that the English Wikipedia could be a reference. --Foroa (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want Commons to be screwed up, that's your issue. Now I know why I avoided this place for 6 months. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Horned melon and Cucumis metuliferus[edit]

What should be done? --Eusebius (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not having paid attention to the talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No ,problem, I undid the move. To quote en wiki: "A traditional food plant in Africa, this little-known fruit has potential to improve nutrition, boost food security, foster rural development and support sustainable landcare" Along with the items on its talk page, plenty of reasons to keep this as "development category". But it is a bit of a border case. --Foroa (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Percussioni circensi[edit]

Category:Percussioni circensi 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 category, 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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

--Patrícia msg 13:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universities in the Czech Republic[edit]

Hello. Why you deleted Category:Universities in the Czech Republic and created Category:Universities and colleges in the Czech Republic, if there are no colleges in the Czech Republic? --Ragimiri (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been harmonised according to the de facto commons world/country level categorisation standard. --Foroa (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I found this standard? Thank you. --Ragimiri (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, we are talking about harmonisation of a (organically) growing "en:De facto standard", as can been seen in this case in Category:Universities and colleges by country. And standards are often like a glove: too big for some persons, too small for others. We just do our best. --Foroa (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category Dun Cow[edit]

You have changed the categorys yet again in category Dun Cow. If you check you will find that the categorys for the Dun Cow should be a sub category in England as not all these Dun Cows are in Norfolk and are spread across the country. Please put the categorys back to how they were first organised Stavros1 (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the category structure, name and interwiki's to avoid that type of misunderstandings. --Foroa (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Foroa

Thank you for your time spent improving the organisation of these categorys, it is now clearear and more user friendlyStavros1 (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get category:Dun Cow better connected, but those items are extremely old and hard to find. Don't hesitate to discuss, that avoids misunderstandings. --Foroa (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwifruits[edit]

com:cat says "A category page should contain the following information[...]:"; "Interwiki links to categories or pages with the same topic in the Wikipedias [...].". Gallery Kiwifruit exists where, I think, the links are better situated.
--D-Kuru (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you state: "A category page should contain the following information[...]:"; Interwiki links to categories or pages with the same topic in the Wikipedias". It is all depending if you give priority to the tools (category links) or multi-language user support (article links) for users from allover the world. Personally, I give preference to user assistance, ,meaning links to articles (I find that categories belong to the internal commons or various wikipedia organisations that change all the time in an uncorrelated way and should not be interlinked). This discussion pops-up every 6 months without clear conclusion (same applies for IW's in pictures, especially when they have no gallery or proper category yet). Anyway, if someone does the effort to document a category (and IW's are often the most efficient way to document), then I see no reason to delete that. --Foroa (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move of categories[edit]

Hi Foroa - I can understand that in cases like renaming "Gothic revival" to "Gothic Revival" you preferred to be on the safe side by not executing a potentially contested move via Commons Delinker - but surely {{move cat|Spanish Colonial Revival Style architecture|Spanish Colonial Revival architecture}} is a bit different? This is two separate cats that mean the same.

I do admit that apparently, based on the Wikipedia redirects, the merge should be in the opposite direction, i.e. the "Style" should be retained. Oh well - my bad. Ingolfson (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion User_talk:Foroa#You.27re_testing_my_patience.2C_again.. The capitalisation rules are unclear again and it makes no sense to introduce "yet another capitalisation style" again, especially when most of the hundreds revival cats (and many other architecture cats) are mostly coherent with lower case. --Foroa (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I wasn't talking about that (except in the original rename proposal, sorry for not being omniscient) - I was talking about the inclusion or non-inclusion of the WORD "Style" - with Wikipedia redirecting from the form that does not have "Style" to the one that does. At the moment, Commons has images in both forms (Category:Spanish Colonial Revival architecture and Category:Spanish Colonial Revival Style architecture), therefore I was, above, discussing that we should merge them. I have since relisted that change request with the discussed modifications. Ingolfson (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No existential problem. Some comments:
  • to me "xxx style architecture" is containing two redundant/overlapping words. If you want to be consistent, then you have to use Romanesque revival style architecture, Gothic style architecture... So I think that you could use "Spanish Colonial revival architecture" or "Spanish Colonial revival style", but no mix.
  • so far, it looks that for architectures in Commons, de facto, only the first word of a style is capitalised (Romanesque revival, Modern movement, ...), so I am reluctant to reopen the debate without any decent reference on that, and stick to this de facto standard (I searched in paper encyclopedias, and in many cases, even gothic, Baroque, ... and so are not capitalised).
  • Not too sure about your "Brise soleil" move request to "Brise soleils". As far as I know, This french word brise-soleil does not exist in plural, if you would write the separate words brise soleil in plural, I guess you would write "brises soleil". So maybe better leave that as is ?--Foroa (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* to me "xxx style architecture" is containing two redundant/overlapping words. - well yes, but you usually support following Wikipedia precedents, so I thought that would find more favour. Just merge in the other direction then.
* so far, it looks that for architectures in Commons, de facto, only the first word of a style is capitalised no problem.
* Not too sure about your "Brise soleil" move request to "Brise soleils". Not good enough in French to give a final word, here, though Google seems to favour Brises-solei. Though you could argue that when used in anglicised usage, the English plural conventions apply - as they do with numerous other words that a language appropriates. No need to change if you are uncomfortable doing so. Ingolfson (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{move cat|Velum quadragesimale (Fastentuch)|Velum quadragesimale (lenten cloth)}} Hi Foroa - what is the problem with this one? "Fastentuch" is German for "Lenten cloth" or "Lenten veil". Ingolfson (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I searched long time for that one. Problem is that I could not find really clear references on the en:Wikipedia to Velum quadragesimale, nor lenten cloth, nor Fastentuch. Lenten cloth (or something similar) is not really used in the en Wiki, a latin word has been used with a german Fastentuch as explaining translation. I don't think that we should introduce "new" words ourselves and a better/more used term might pop up one day, so I guess that the best compromise for now would be to stick to the latin name till we find something that is really "common". --Foroa (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Driving railway coaches[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Driving railway coaches 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

(You are created Category:Railcars (self-propelled)) --ŠJů (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman bridges[edit]

Well, as the tag says, just try to not take it personally...for once. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tiberius bridge in Rimini[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Tiberius bridge in Rimini 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman bridge, Mérida[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Roman bridge, Mérida 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman bridge, Córdoba[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Roman bridge, Córdoba 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman bridge, Trier[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Roman bridge, Trier 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ponte Quattro Capi (Rome)[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Ponte Quattro Capi (Rome) 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Years in automobile racing[edit]

Hi Foroa - is there a way to rename all these subcategories without having to go and nominate all of them on the requests page? Thanks for your work, Ingolfson (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quickest is to produce a list with catscan, paste and edit it in word or excel, format it properly (potentially with macro's), paste it again in commons as formatted {{Move cat|source|desitnation}}. The problem is more internally where "auto racing" has to be replaced by "automobile racing". I'll have a look into that next week, SieBot should be capable of doing that. --Foroa (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A change full of potential... for angry retorts[edit]

Should we change "Category:Steam locomotives" to "Category:Steam-powered locomotives"? We have consistently modified other categories in this way, and it doesn't make more sense here (the locomotives are not made of steam!). Yet I know this would cause some outrage, and I am not sure you would support it anyway.

Your thoughts? Maybe in this case, a "Seecat" at the current name would be acceptable? Ingolfson (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the question is not directed at me, but I'd like to make a comment anyway, if I may. It's true that Steam locomotives is inaccurate, but Steam-powered locomotives is just as wrong: steam is not a fuel, it doesn't provide energy to the machine. Coal-powered would probably be more accurate, but then it's not related to the common name of these locomotives anymore. So I don't know which name should be used, but between these two, I don't think there is one better than the other. –Tryphon☂ 11:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no single category system that is complete. For the power, we could categorise by fuel source, external/internal (self)combustion/hydraulic/air/steam/electric engines too, but that brings us far from the real needs. Steam power is correct as it transports the energy generated from combustion of not only coal, but equally from wood, gas, litter ... I think that we better leave steam xxx as is, we have to be careful not to over-harmonise and to stay in a reasonable line with popular naming. --Foroa (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch translations needed[edit]

Hi! Bibi Saint-Pol and me are working on autotranslating the meta-template we use for many museums, like {{Information British Museum}}. Could you please help us find Dutch translations for every tag name:

  • artist/maker
  • description
  • dimensions
  • credit line
  • accession number
  • location
  • source
  • references
  • other versions

'Credit line' is mainly about the mode of acquisition: what collection does it come from? Did it join the collections by gift, purchase, on loan, etc. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Our penultimate tag actually reads 'source/photographer'--source when you picked the picture from the Net (PD-Art), photographer when you can name someone. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eastlake High School[edit]

You have Category:Eastlake High School very oddly categorized. Why would a high school be under Category:Sammamish River? What is the connection? Perhaps under Category:Sammamish, Washington if that's the community it's in (and under whatever community it's in if that's not where this is)? Also, why is it under Category:Universities and colleges in Washington? Isn't it just a high school? What university or college is it associated with, if any? - Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, several times per week, I am trying to find a home for emerging undefined categories and uncategorized categories as to help newbies in the right direction. Because this happens with hundreds of al sorts of categories per week, I try to be precise when I feel categories belong to an emerging country or area. When the categories seem to belong to a reasonably developed country or domain, I just try to "steer" them in the right direction. In the case you mention, I added the Sammamish category (which has been converted by hotlink to Sammamish River, which I did not notice and proves why one should be careful with redirects) and I added Category:Universities and colleges in Washington because the schools in Washington did not exist at that time. I noticed that there are not many volunteers which work in the uncategorised or wanted categories area. So indeed, some of my "top-level" categorisation work is very crude or occasionally downright wrong, but at least, there is a fair chance that it is being picked up by people that specialise in the area. In this case, I am really surprised it took so many months. --Foroa (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hit it because I'm in the process of taking photos in the eastern part of King County, Washington. So I gather this was based on nothing, and I should re-categorize. - Jmabel ! talk 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nu we toch bezig zijn[edit]

Hallo,

mag ik toch nog eens komen storen voor iets niet-commons gerelateerd. Nu het toch over scholen gaat.

Op nl:Wikipedia:Te_verwijderen_pagina's/Toegevoegd_20090406 vindt men het nodig 2 West-Vlaamse scholen, waaronder nl:Ter Poorten te nomineren, tot 2x toe op rij zelfs. Nochtans, vergeleken met de "artikelen" (ahum) uit nl:Categorie:Basisschool in Nederland hebben deze Vlaamse artikeltjes heel wat meer om het lijf... Blijkbaar ligt voor sommigen de lat voor Vlaamse artikelen toch heel wat hoger :-( Misschien moet ik je totaal niet lastigvallen met dit soort gedoe buiten wikipedia; maar goed, gezien je afkomst en kan ik het m.b.t. dit soort onderwerpen maar eens vragen hé ;-) Mocht je er aldaar een idee over hebben, je vindt de weg wel zeker ? ;-) Groeten --LimoWreck (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Met plezier, ik ben dikwijls verwonderd door de variable verwijdercriteria. Dit gezegd zijnde, de artikelen lijken mij nogal rommelig, maar het is inderdaad niet eenvoudig om een dergelijk artikel opgestart te krijgen met weinig informatie. Niettemin lijkt mij het interessant om er van meetaf aan er een structuur met kopjes in te krijgen, een aantal referenties/links naar "chiquere" namen, zoals patrimonium, oprichtingsacte, schoolstrijd, architecturale stijl, namen van bekende personen, burgemeesters, architecten, ... en uiteraard geven foto's het geheel een meer encyclopedisch aspect, zelfs als het ruines zijn die beter afgebroken worden. --Foroa (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ik heb op de verwijderpagina ook mijn bijdrage geplaatst. Als je naar de Engelse wikipedia kijkt barst het van artikelen over (basis)scholen. Kennelijk kijken velen niet verder dan de Nederlandstalige neus lang is. Wouter (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coquín[edit]

Could you delete the Category:Río Coquín ? I wanted to create Category:Río Cosquín, but I forgot the "s".  :(

Thanks.

--Roberto Fiadone (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would if I could find it. No trace of it in the deletion log our in the list of your contributions. --Foroa (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Maybe I need a psychologist. :(
--Roberto Fiadone (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info[edit]

Thanks for the explanation re the category renames. Ingolfson (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I watch your talk page. It is not always easy to summarise the rejected moves in an edit summary. But a fireless-powered vehicle was too bizar/contradictional to me. --Foroa (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you are way too concerned with making sense rather than beating the category structure into shape, Foroa ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization[edit]

Hallo Foroa, thanks for the message. Yes, the categorisations are wrong. I think it's happened at my first trial to upload files by using the "Commonist", and I forgot to verify it. Now I have deleted these categorisations in the program. It were nice if You could remove these wrong categorisations with a bot. I think there is no need for a new categorisation. Thanks and best regards --Großkomtur (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done The best I could do is to replace it with [[Category:]]. --Foroa (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey[edit]

Hi Foroa

Is en:Jersey a "country" in the Commons sense? I have been moving Jersey stuff out of the "by country" categories and into United Kingdom, under the same logic like Hong Kong being moved into China. But apparently, Jersey's legal status is a weird in-between one as a en:Crown Dependencies, and a user has been moving them back. Any precedents or rules how we handle this? Ingolfson (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan has the same problem and I guess all regions that fight for independency (Balcan, Tibet, Kurds, ETA, ...), so we better define a strict rule to avoid endless discussions and edit wars. (see en:Category:Countries by status) Maybe a dump of the country category structure from en:Wikipedia ? Anyway, on the practical side: if there would be substantial additions of countries, we will run into troubles as we might have to add a continent level intermediate structure, a thing that I want to avoid absolutely. --Foroa (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmh, meaning there is no rule. How about using the UN definitions en:United Nations member states for criteria of what is a country in this case? Then we can let somebody else do the arguing for us, and don't needto fight over it in Wikimedia. We would still need a logic where the others would go to, though. Ingolfson (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting Jersey under the United Kingdom is incorrect. It's not part of the United Kingdom, it's directly under the crown (similair to Isle of Man). This is a somewhat difficult situation. To make it easier for users to find things we should just place these special countries in the by country trees. Multichill (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not totally opposed to that. But Foroa raised the valid question of what we do with disputed cases? Jersey's status is not disputed, just tricky. Ingolfson (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no "hard" preference, but there is a need for a rule and a way to include non formal countries (Kosovo for example or other en:Category:Unrecognized or largely-unrecognized states). Adding Jersey as country will imply adding 30 to 50 dependent countries. --Foroa (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hello!

Where are the "various linked discussions"? Greets, High Contrast (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two linked discussions and/or here. Recurring problem indeed with scattered discussions and when category documentation is not updated properly. --Foroa (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the information. --High Contrast (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidents of the United States[edit]

Hi Foroa - thanks for the move - however, the above category has not been tagged with the correct categories and interwikis - as the other category spelling has already been deleted, I can't add them (I have just removed the now-wrong redirect and added two "emergency categories" and an explanation) - can you go into the deleted cat and grab the correct ones? Thanks Ingolfson (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done My bad, normally, I check this before moving. Corrected by now. --Foroa (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hondenrassen vraagje[edit]

Hallo - ik hoop dat u een prettig Pasen heeft gehad! Ik kwam het volgende tegen: Category:German shepherd dog verwijst door naar de Duitse naam van deze hond, blijkbaar omdat de categorieën zijn opgezet naar naamgeving volgens de FCI (zie List of dog breeds). Ik dacht dat de naamgeving altijd in het Engels was OF per de Latijnse naamgeving? Heb ik iets gemist? Ik kon er geen discussie over vinden, maar omdat ik me er niet zo mee bezig houdt kan het zijn dat ik niet goed heb gezocht, vandaar mijn vraag. Weet u hier iets over? Anders zal ik het eens elders aankaarten wellicht. Alvast bedankt -- Deadstar (msg) 07:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dank je wel. De paasklok is langsgekomen met een vredig weekend; hopelijk bij jou ook. Die hondevraag is inderdaad een goede maar hondsmoeilijke vraag. Ik heb er indertijd even naar gezocht en geen enkele andere "hondenstandaard" gevonden; Zelfs die FCI naming vind ik soms maar dubieus, (met taalfouten en op het eerste gezicht niet echt standaard) maar als we naar Engels overschakelen denk ik dat je weer in "een zelf uitgevonden wiki standaard" valt met alle problemen van dien. Zover houd ik dus de stelling aan dat iedere standaard beter is dan geen standaard, en dat de taalkeuze maar secundair is. Niettemin lijkt het mij wel nuttig de FCI standaard en -naming uit te diepen (soms heb ik de indruk dat iedereen de taal kiest die hem het best uitkomt zoals in Belgium Griffons) en als er dan eventueel een betere/universeler standard naar voren komt: des te beter. In een tweede stap zou er inderdaad naar een engelse naam-uniformisatie kunnen overgestapt worden, maar alleen indien er een aparte Engelse naam is voor alle soorten en dat de relatie ook een-op-een is, en dus geen groepen die anders georganiseerd zijn van de ene taal naar de andere. --Foroa (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hier was Pasen ook goed, het regende alleen non-stop (en dat is wel bijzonder voor Ierland). "Belgium Griffons" doet wel een beetje zeer aan m'n ogen... dat ga ik wel aanpassen naar "Belgian" als zijnde spelfout. Hartelijk dank voor het uitgebreide antwoord, het lijkt erop dat ik m'n neus er beter uit kan laten want ik weet er simpelweg te weinig vanaf. Vriendelijke groet, -- Deadstar (msg) 09:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(PS:Ik weet dat "Belgian Griffon" waarschijnlijk ook niet FCI approved is, maar de spelfout is in ieder geval gefixt. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Cat toevoeging[edit]

Ben je je ervan bewust dat je een bot opdracht hebt gegeven om 9000 afbeeldingen in Category:Scans te dumpen en zo'n 4000 bestanden in Category:Windmills in Germany? Voor al die molens waren veel betere cats beschikbaar op User:Multichill/Fotothek building categories. Multichill (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Achteraf ben ik wel even geschrokken: SieBot is nog steeds bezig. Ik heb inderdaad gezien dat je vele tientallen speciale categories aangemaakt hebt, alsook speciale functies in SieBot. Ik ging er dus ook van uit dat je een oogje in het zeil hield op het hele process en het feit dat de move aanvraag niet gecontesteerd was leek het mij Ok. Vermits ik echter niet op de hoogte ben van het download process, de mogelijke categoriën en de nieuwe bot functionaliteit, ben ik niet echt in staat een oordeel te vellen, dus van nu af aan voer ik dergelijke opdrachten niet meer uit. --Foroa (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, kan gebeuren joh. Ik genereer een hoop tijdelijke categorieën met behulp van {{Fotothek-Description}}. Dit zijn natuurlijk tijdelijke categorieën. Als iemand een tijdelijke categorie vindt waarin alle foto's naar een permanente categorie kunnen dan is het makkelijk om dit door een bot te laten doen. De uitleg staat hier. Het is nooit mij intentie geweest dat het voor zulke algemene categorieën werd gebruikt (nou ja, niet meteen, wellicht wel op het eind). Ik denk dat ik de bot maar aanpas om dit op te lossen. Je helpt toch wel even mee met opruimen? Multichill (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wil je helpen met User:Multichill/Fotothek mill categories? Ik begin met de eerste sectie. Multichill (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Natuurlijk, maar niet meteen. Die laatste parameter in de template (default windmills in Germany), waarvoor dient hij ? --Foroa (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ik dacht dat ik die nodig zou hebben, maar misschien toch niet. Het idee is dat je alle onzin verplaatsingen eruit gooit en voor de goede de cat aanmaakt (bijvoorbeeld Category:Wassermühle Krobnitz). Als dat gedaan is dan laat kunnen die sjablonen zo bij de commonsdelinker geplakt worden. Multichill (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Efkes geprobeerd, en dat werkt prima, maar het blijft veel werk. Kunnen wij de mannen van de Fotothek niet ter hulp roepen om op die lijst te werken ? --Foroa (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, ik ga morgen eens proberen of ik een stel Duitsers kan optrommelen. De bot doet nu ook bewerkingssamenvattingen dus die is er wel klaar voor. Multichill (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cucina -> Cuisine[edit]

Hallo Foroa. The Category:Cuisine of Italy has all the sub-categories wrong, written as [Cucina...]. It is necessary to move all with a bot to [Cuisine of...]. Can you do this? Thank You very much! The correct name are: Ligure -> Liguria; abruzzese -> Abruzzo; calabrese -> Calabria; lombardia -> Lombardy; piemontese -> Piedmont; pugliese -> Apulia; salentina -> Salento; sarda -> Sardinia; umbra -> Umbria; veneziana -> Venezia; vicentina -> Vicenza. Bye --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and there was no reaction in the Italian café. I don't have time right now, but you could accelerate things if you put a list of botmove requests in User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands in the format {{move cat|Source|Destination}}. I could execute that later in the day. Otherwise, I'll do that somewere next week. --Foroa (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trentino-South Tyrol[edit]

Hallo Foroa. There is a similar problem in the category of Provinces of Italy. Somebody ask for deletion the cat. Province of South Tyrol, but this is the correct name. If you look at the Category:Provinces of Italy, you will see that it is necessary to move Category:South Tyrol in the Category:Province of South Tyrol, and the Category:Trentino in the Category:Province of Trento. Can you do this also? It will be a great work! Thank You! Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't read your answer before I have written this second message. Thank You again! --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have seen some discussions on the naming for Italian/german categories in that area, I would prefer that you issue a {{Move|Destination|Reason}}, so it is a bit more democratic. --Foroa (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Barracks of Austria[edit]

Why did you delete the category Barracks of austria? It makes a sense becaus ther were uplistet the former military facilities of Austria, today to find in countries like Poland, Bosnia, Italy and so on - onece belonged to the Austia-Hungarian Empire. It makes certainly a diffrent to the barracks in Austria of today. --Steinbeisser (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This category is redundant with category:Barracks in Austria, is uncategorised and so is of any use. --Foroa (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire idea of categorizing as "barracks of country" is very difficult, and I don't thing this is useful for commons (commons must provide all historic details). Although many barracks may not be in Austria, I don't think it's useful to categorize them as barracks of Austria because they have been in use by the Austrian army. So what? Most military buildings are used by whomever is occupying the territory. So a barracks, fortress, ... is used by Austria, decades later by the French, later by Holland, later by Belgium, later occupied by the Germans,etc... That is trivial, and we won't add ten categories for each nation that has occupied the military infrastructure during its history. --LimoWreck (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SieBot heeft er nu wel een zooi van gemaakt. Nu zit de categorie met Barracks in Austria vol met kazernes die helemaal niet in Oostenrijk liggen, maar doorheen Europa, en toevallig eens in gebruik geweest zijn door de Oostenrijkers. De categorie Barracks of Austria moest gewoon verwijderd worden, niet overgeheveld. Nu zit het vol fouten. Ik stel voor dat Steinbeisser eigenlijk gewoon van de categorieën blijft, hij maakt er een puinhoop van, snapt het niet (voegt te veel redundante oudercategorieën toe, introduceert ongewone categorieën, linkt zijn cats niet in de boom, etc) , en veel gebruikers hebben hem al gerevert (zie zijn overleg), en zijn edits overlopend gisteren heb ik mensen gezien die mbt Frankrijk, Finland, etc al hopen hebben gerevert ook... --LimoWreck (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voila, de verplaatsingen van SieBot nagelopen en gecorrigeerd waar nodig. Hopelijk stopt Steinbisser nu met de dingen om zeep te helpen... --LimoWreck (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, maar ik had niet gezien dat hij er zoveel barracken van andere landen had bijgepoeft. In het verleden heb ik al een paar keer snel moeten tussenkomen om zijn schade te beperken, en ik dacht dat hij het nu wel geleerd had. Niet dus... --Foroa (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your talking about me, so you could do that, I'm able to understand what you're saying. Seems to be an act of respectability. By the way - I think you will not understand - but now you created a category Barracks in Romania with one lonesome File - that is at last not simply a barrack in Romania because only used until 1918 by the Austria-Hungarian Army. But if the background knowledge ain't available, doens't matter....you keep right..... (Um mich mal auf euer Niveau zu begeben - man sollte die Finger von Sachen lassen, von denen man nichts versteht!Kapiert!) --Steinbeisser (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, you'd better keep your hands off the things you can't understand. People on your talk page did give you pointers and links how to study the categorization system, it seems in vain ? --LimoWreck (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
En voilà, weer een ronde correcties er op zitten; ontbrekende of niet-precieze categorieën, redundante oudercategorieën etc,... dit lijkt dweilen met de kraan open. --LimoWreck (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I denk mir amol, daß se dir mit ahn Oachkatzlschwoaf durch dei Owastübl gfohrn san uh dobei die letztn voh deini graua Zölln davuagwedld hom. Bessawissa, greislicha. Moch Lecha in ahn Kahs des isch waarscheinli s' oanzige wos'd richdi konnschd! Uh iwerhaupts - du mi aah. --Steinbeisser (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:UnusedCategories[edit]

Help me delete some of these. Rocket000 (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opletten dat de voorlopige lege Belgische deelgemeenten niet klakkeloos gewist worden natuurlijk; of we kunnen weer van vooraf aan beginnen met de categorie-bots die afbeeldingen niet kunnen thuisbrengen. Die categorieën zijn normaalgezien correct. En er zijn blijkbaar nog heel wat groepen categorieën die om de systematiek blijkbaar (al) leeg bestaan (van amerikaanse interstates tot duitse foto-archieven, tot weet ik veel wat)... --LimoWreck (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's certain empty categories that we keep. As long as someone wants them around, then I leave them alone. Rocket000 (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned already hundreds of categories created by user:DonabelSDSU.bot and his operator, and I warned him, so the first thing to do is remove his bot status and delete his empty categories to start with. Then we can see for a more systematic approach.--Foroa (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I started to delete some of those. They were way too specific of categories and unlikely to be used by anyone else. Even if he completes the 50,000 uploads, I don't think this approach is the best way to do it. The ones he uploads, he's not even putting in some of the categories. For example, File:PDB 1qgw EBI.jpg says it belongs in Category:Phycoerythrin 545 alpha-subunits, but that's still empty. I'm not sure the extreme subdivsion is helpful for navigation anyway (unless you're a specialist), broader categories and more specific galleries would be better. However, if he's using it for mass uploads (and he would flood the logs), I'm not sure we should debot him. Plus, it won't stop him; it will only throw up ignorable warnings in pywikipedia that he's not a bot. Rocket000 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult case. This means that anyone can create a bot/script that adds thousands categories and links in categories at random in a couple of hours. Good luck to undo that. Does Commons have somewhere a safety backup ? --Foroa (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All we have is the block function. Too late for that now... and it looks like he completely stopped. The bot's been inactive since April 2. Rocket000 (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would be interesting to have the opinion of an expert, especially concerning naming and maintenance of those 11000 or so categories. --Foroa (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Safety backup? You mean like a database dump? You can't revert the whole wiki :) Rocket000 (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant a backup of the category structure. I will not enter into details, but it seems very vulnerable. --Foroa (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted category[edit]

You deleted Category:First Aid for being Incorrectly named. But the category isn't empty. What's the correctly named category? Category:First aid? That's a cat redirect. Please fix that. --Slomox (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a redirect to Category:Prehospital care, but yeah, it's not empty. Rocket000 (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had little time and several problems with SieBot (that don't execute some transfers), so I could not complete the transfer list. Problem was that "First aid" got a redirect to "First Aid", so another bot moved it back. Moreover, with all those bot changes, my watchlist holds only a couple of hours, so I am losing the oversight. --Foroa (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope[edit]

العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | Frysk | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | 简体中文 | +/−

Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content, Islamic symbols, was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote. If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. Otherwise, consider an alternative outlet. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.

--Wutsje (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Them? The page history says you created the page. Please pardon me, but a 35+ K text page on Commons is almost per definition out of scope. Wutsje (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was a contribution of a newbie in category:Islamic Symbols. I isolated the text part in the gallery and deleted the category. For newbies, I try to give them a couple of days, so my plan was to delete the file whenever they did not converted it in a real gallery. --Foroa (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Sorry, I had missed that. From the looks of it, it seemed like just another text dump to me. I wouldn't have tagged it had I known this. Wutsje (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, you were completely right. Its probably me; I am sometimes too tolerant with newbies, but in a "harsh" environnement lile Commons, it is not easy to find the right compromises. --Foroa (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, deleted it as it was definitely out of scope: It appears to be some religious text which can easily be found in the internet using Google et al. Regards, →Nagy 19:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just wanted to give the author some time to potentially adapt. All beginning is difficult. --Foroa (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?[edit]

You actually corrected the spelling of test/vandalism. lol. Rocket000 (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I was just hunting for causes of non-existent categories, without paying attention to the whole history. Luckily that we have all different focuses and priorities ... --Foroa (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flora of the coast of Coromandel[edit]

Shouldn't there be a Coast of Coromandel and that be located within India category scheme and have a few more things like perhaps maps and stuff like that? To make a category which is double nested without installing it every where it should go is, in my opinion, a pain in the ass.

As you left this, it is double nested for no apparent reason. Without researching the area a lot (I knew it to be a book) I think that the area was defined because it was different in climate and oh, those non-political things which are seemingly not the goal of the categorization scheme here.

There seems to be a lack of research and needless nesting of categories without the research needed to make it a node instead of a hole. -- carol (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I noticed that there was confusion between Category:Flora of the coast of Coromandel and the book category:Plants of the coast of Coromandel, I isolated the book in a separate category category:Plants of the coast of Coromandel (book) to avoid the confusion. This does not mean that the category is fully categorised; I am mostly operating where one has naming errors and conflicts but I do not have always the necessary time to deepen categorisation or to fill up the thousands of holes in the categories.
I think you are wrong with your statement: "those non-political things which are seemingly not the goal of the categorization scheme". However, most downloaders relate in the first place to the political geographical categorisation, so those must be simple and right in the first place. Further refinement in ecozones is specialised work and very few people have the time or knowledge to work that out further. --Foroa (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

texts vs books[edit]

On the assumption that you know the difference between these I can clearly state that I don't know the difference between these and have run into a lack of "texts" categories in other year categories.

Can you explain the difference to me and perhaps spend some time making this to be consistent through the other years (not just the ones I touched)? -- carol (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the mix of books and texts, and seemingly, there is no proper definition or category scheme description. Again a problem caused by lack of definition and documentation. Cleaning this up will require a proper definition, an agreement on it and then several days of work to implement it. I have no time for it right now, but anyone could do that. --Foroa (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verplaatsen[edit]

Hoi Foroa, probeert er nou iemand hier {{Move}} te omzeilen? Multichill (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ik heb het al verschillende keren gezegd: de meerderheid (onbetwistbare) moves, vooral de systematische groep moves, worden op die manier uitgevoerd. Is ook veel efficiënter. --Foroa (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, understand our culture.[edit]

I recently see you added Category:Zodiac and Category:Astrology of China to Category:Chinese Zodiac. This is more or less improper. Although named Chinese Zodiac, it is not a variation of zodiac. The Chinese zodiac refers to a pure calendrical cycle; there are no equivalent constellations like those of the occidental zodiac. Hence Astrology of China category is also not proper, as it have no relation with stars and the astrology. Thank you. 百家姓之四 (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed some of you recategorisations to the proper categories as used in Commons. I fail to see why the Chinese Zodiac should not be categorised in Zodiac: not only they do share the name but both denote a cycle of twelve stations. I equally fail to understand why Chinese Zodiac ("In Chinese astrology the animal signs assigned by year represent what others perceive you as being or how you present yourself ...") should not be related to Chinese astrology (which is indeed different than in other parts of the world). Without very clear documentation, I can assure that someone will restore quite rightly sooner or later the categories you just removed. --Foroa (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Immune systems[edit]

I consider this to be vandalism. Why don't you finish things you started like the unidentified stuff before you start to make more mess? The same goes for vaccination/vaccinations. There is a difference between the two cats. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have explained this to the user on my page, and reverted his good-faith reverts on the category pages. You may want to respond too, if you like to add something, especially why we do not want a plural AND a singular cat, and why we CANNOT always get all changes in one go (in any case, I know you do try to ensure that, Foroa - had my change requests removed by you a couple times because I didn't change all names at the same time! ;-). Ingolfson (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has now reverted the reverts at Category:Immune system and Category:Immune systems - with the succinct word "Bullshit" being his only comment regarding my explanation of "immune system" vs "immune systems" and my attempts to communicate with him on his talk page. Plus he says he has reported me for vandalism, because apparently that's what it is to him. Can you take over for a while - I am starting to feel a little ungenerous towards him. Ingolfson (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus he is starting to revert even unconnected delinker requests of mine without providing reasons. Mmmmh. Ingolfson (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Been reverted for the third time. I will stop reverting now, and collect my change requests offline instead for now - can you please talk to him, he is seriously being interruptive. Ingolfson (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With User:Cwbm (commons), I had one of the rare cases where we could not enter in a constructive dialog and where he considered our daily work as plain vandalisme. The reason being, I feel, because the user sees Commons as a small division in the en:wikipedia without understanding the wider role of commons towards an international community, hundreds of wikipedias and other clients in a multi-lingual context. As I noticed that each of my reactions caused even more angry and violent reactions, I feel that I have no choice but to rely on interventions from other commons members to explain the role and rules of commons. --Foroa (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, and failed, it seems. I am happy to have cases like Category:Animal restraints vs Category:Physical restraint for animals be decided via a normal move request (would be great if you could quickly add your opinion, though, otherwise it might just be us two there) but what do we do with the change to Category:Immune systems, which he is trying to undo with a "seecat" placement?
I am also concerned that he has removed several times my additions to the DeLinker request page, even on a cat change request where he has no connection to, simply because he saw it was mine. Since it is a rolling request page, I feel it is against etiquette to just remove or modify a request, one should offer one's reasons directly underneath the request, and let the admin who executes decide. Ingolfson (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protests against nuclear energy[edit]

Hello,

Why did you delete this category? I don't think you have any valid reason for that, therefore I will recreate it. Please do not delete such kind of category without any proper procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Foroa, explained this to the useron his page. Ingolfson (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See #Deleting_old_versions_of_renamed_categories and referred discussions. I try to avoid to keep bad category names as this trains the users in bad naming and causes creations of similar badly named categories. As I am moving 120 to 300 categories per week, I try to keep only redirects when they are really helpful for foreign speakers or they contain totally different names. I limit them to the cats that are not plain naming errors. In the case of Category:Protests against nuclear energy, a redirect can be justified indeed. Sorry if this caused some inconvenience. --Foroa (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Category talk:Protests against nuclear power. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please talk ![edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Roman bridges[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
.Hello, please see here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please see here. Gun Powder Ma (talk)

Warboel[edit]

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

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)[reply]
Ça va, bedankt. Lycaon (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should have a look into this "creative" category naming. --Foroa (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested mergers backlog[edit]

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)[reply]

Category:Symbols by usage[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Volleyball Manager[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Please, carefull[edit]

Why you breaking current categorisation [6]? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • I say, that those template filling is absurd: [7]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Could you please explain further...[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Salves[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Belgische mijnenvegers[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Your chauvinistic remarks[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Even reageren?[edit]

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)[reply]

Fortifications of World War II in Jersey[edit]

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)[reply]

This is part of the continuous on going category naming harmonisation process as you can see in for example in [8]. Thank you for letting us know. It should be corrected by now. --Foroa (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for speedy correction! Man vyi (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo thanks[edit]

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

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

grenzen[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Released by the producer[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 --Producer (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have to admit you make sense. Cheers. --Producer (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only 4 times per quarter. I still have two left, the rest, I will have to borrow elsewhere. . ;

MINUSTAH vs UNSMIH[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Poetry[edit]

Hi Foroa. You are of course right ([9]). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Category:Matagalpa kan weg[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Bedankt. De "badname" gaat dus net als bij gewone plaatjes. Weer wat geleerd. Wouter (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for historical people[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Category Art made by non-artists.[edit]

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)[reply]

categories[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In principle, I never delete a category that is not empty. --Foroa (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License and Licence[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your thoughts[edit]

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 to Category:Line drawings of automobiles (76 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Aircraft line drawings to Category:Line drawings of aircraft (325 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Steam locomotives line drawings to Category:Line drawings of steam locomotives (517 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Avro aircraft line drawings to Category:Line drawings of Avro aircraft (18 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Messerschmitt Bf 109 line drawings to Category:Line drawings of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 (27 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Automobile illustrations to Category:Illustrations of automobiles (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Spacecraft illustrations to Category:Illustrations of spacecraft (409 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Turning process illustrations to Category:Illustrations of turning (58 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Aircraft drawings to Category:Drawings of aircraft (48 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Gun drawings to Category:Drawings of guns (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Machine element drawings to Category:Drawings of machine elements (139 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Microscope drawings to Category:Drawings of microscopes (11 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Rail transport drawings to Category:Drawings of rail transport (43 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Roller coaster drawings to Category:Drawings of roller coasters (49 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Steam engine drawings to Category:Drawings of steam engines (72 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Steam locomotives drawings to Category:Drawings of steam locomotives (163 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Steam locomotives line drawings to Category:Line drawings of steam locomotives (517 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Thread drawings to Category:Drawings of threads (83 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Screw drawings to Category:Drawings of screws (67 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Screw type drawings to Category:Drawings of screws by type (7 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Bolt screw drawings to Category:Drawings of bolt screws (165 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

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

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)[reply]

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

Is this [10] 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)[reply]

Consistency vs Utility[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Category:Narrow gauge railway lines[edit]

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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Industrial rail transport[edit]

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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cat deleted[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Deleted categories[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

cat moves by SieBot[edit]

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

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

Cannons of Japan, Cannons in Japan[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

AN/U[edit]

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

Sunsets on / Sunsets of[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Cleaning up lost categories[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for deleting incorrectly named categories for me[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Template:Created with IXUS 500[edit]

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.--TUBS 07:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. --TUBS 07:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semms to work know. If it was you thank you very much. Greeting frm Germany.--TUBS 07:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I played around with this template and asked myself: what made it work? How became Foroa so smart? The answer lies in this edit: [11]. 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! --TUBS 08:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.--TUBS 12:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Universal replace[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Can you give a hint?[edit]

Hi Foroa! Do you have an idea if other files like these ([12] [13] [14]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Military insigna or Badges of rank?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

sorting cats[edit]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Deletion of my renaming request[edit]

Hello,

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

El ComandanteHasta ∞ 11:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 to Category:Mexica rulers (14 entries moved, 28 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

, 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)[reply]

Deletion of renaming proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
{{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)[reply]

deleted category Schipkau[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you. I guess that the categories I did create suit your needs. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Category:Schipkau will be sufficient to start with. --Foroa (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Models from Asia[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Broken link on Special:RecentChanges[edit]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

Macedonia categories[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Hi, maybe a question of "point of view" ;-) As mentionned - please refer to Category talk:Lindenhof, Zürich - two  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)[reply]
Roland zh, please take a look at de:Lindenhof to see that "Lindenhof" should be disambiguated. Multichill (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Statues scupltées[edit]

Salut,

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

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)[reply]

Categories renaming requests[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Svg flags cats[edit]

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)[reply]

SVG categories[edit]

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)[reply]

Oh, I see you are already doing some work here. Rocket000 (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why not discus it on Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/06/SVG category names ? Teofilo (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rembrandt[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
OK, many thanks for your explanations. --Telim tor (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings_of_New_Testament_by_Gustave_Doré[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

New Testament paintings[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Cities in Italy[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sjabloontjes en cats[edit]

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)[reply]

Bixi ain't Pixiu[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RfA Thanks[edit]

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)[reply]

Unexplained reversals[edit]

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

Your move request had no support, only opposition. So no reason to execute it unilaterally. --Foroa (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Please refrain from hidden moves[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Eine Idee[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Category:Oaks in heraldry[edit]

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.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Commons:Undeletion requests or COM:UNDEL. --Foroa (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Disambiguated category titles[edit]

In regards to [15], 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)[reply]

I guess it's not really disambiguated in normal sense. Rocket000 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
{{Move}} has a reason/motivation field. --Foroa (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Category:Nature of Grenada[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

"The" University of Tokyo[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:2004 in the United States[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Category:Bell towers in Calvados[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See intro at Category:Church towers in France. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done All fixed now. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay: this item was the next point on my list. --Foroa (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly named[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

Place in century OR century in place ?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Category:Soest[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Categories "Buildings and structures in xxx"[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Belgian Mills[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Diasgree and I will reintegrate them. Categories per mill are the only good long term solution. --Foroa (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Raised at COM:VP. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

Category deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks! DroEsperanto (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request/question[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thijs, Gar en Harmonie[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

STS-Categories[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rowing blades of rowing clubs from the Netherlands[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. Groeten -- Deadstar (msg) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Nummers[edit]

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)[reply]

Church category naming convention[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

French — in category names[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cat mergers[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Modeling vs modelling[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Javascript for User:CommonsDelinker/commands[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Undiscussed category move[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

editwar op Jenever[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Category:Totalic (band)[edit]

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 category, 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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

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

2009 in Leeds etc[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FYI...[edit]

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

Categorization issue[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Checking of links[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Categorization[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nog even over Rembrandt[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Gothic Revival architecture[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Mari Wikimedia Commons[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks for undeleting! :-) Azimbaj (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Why?[edit]

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

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)[reply]
See also User talk:Siebrand#why ?. It's apparently a user category. Wknight94 talk 15:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Next time, trust your friend Google Translate. ;^) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topfer[edit]

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)[reply]

That was an almost capital error. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome  :-). Regards 78.55.24.144 14:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Little help[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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[reply]
Foroa, I found it! . Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Two laghi[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lakes of Italy[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NSA[edit]

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

Discussion of language[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tag removal[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks, I will create the category and try again. Keith D (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

porsch597?[edit]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Sylvia[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Little information[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deletion request because duplicate[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok, I understand what you means. It's right so. Thank you, Foroa. Saluti --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Rafael is no longer an abbreviation. NatanFlayer (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

info about life forms[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Taunton, Somerset[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
OK. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and Snek01[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

← 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I considered blocking Snek01 for editing my message to delete a block warning with the edit summary "cleaned up".[18] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [19]. 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)[reply]

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

Category names[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Languages of categories[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It's only because other language users are inactive in creating their categories. As soon as millions of Chinese people will create their categories, we'll see a fully maintainable (by them) Commons site. In the meantime the Commons site is mostly maintained by English-speakers; and someones think this is a reason to deny other languages. Whole world has to learn English now, so whe English-speakers do not have to learn other languages? Is one naturally better than others? Weren't the Latin and Deutch langages similarly international years ago?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you know better. Today, English is the language that allows the communication between most nations with a minimum of effort. I guess that 80 years ago, this could indeed have been French or German; maybe Latin would have worked 500 years ago. It could be (in theory) something else within 100 years, but I think that the latin alphabet and script will remain dominant for several generations. Half of the active administrators are not native-English. Saying that each corner of the world has to learn the languages of the other corners of the world is not realistic. We try to build Commons for the whole world, not as a collection of corners. --Foroa (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whole world with 1 language? And then 1 government?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pagina Bagdad[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Mixing source and topic categories is bad. Multichill (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gustav Jahn (Maler) gelöscht[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]

Repair redirect[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AN:Blocks & protections[edit]

Please see COM:AN/B for a discussion related to the Statue of Liberty matter.[20] Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[21] 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.[22] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."[23] What do you think? Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
As you can see on Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Category:Atlanta, Georgia, the American logic for building categories is diffferent from the one of our part of the world. How can we explain what a category system is in a multi-cultural context ? --Foroa (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DISPLAYTITLE and ου[edit]

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

sweet food of italy[edit]

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)[reply]


Category:Rails in art[edit]

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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

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

Municipalities with german-italian double name[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
For example in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Mar#.22South_Tyrol.22_.3F --Foroa (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you for your answer. Saluti, --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
There is no absolute rule. I would say {{[[Template:|]]|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)[reply]


Category:Railway lines[edit]

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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

How to formalize request for many categories?[edit]

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)[reply]

I think, that removing bad name template would be OK, while to keep other things. OK? --Snek01 (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the COM:CFD or the procedure for mass delete. --Foroa (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Category:Hofkirche_(Dresden)[edit]

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)[reply]

A favour please?[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Single Image Categories[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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), 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

File:Leasowe Lighthouse.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Köln-Innenstadt[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Steam locomotives of Russia[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Renaming of Singapore-related categories[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Category:Files by Odejea[edit]

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)[reply]

teach me, plz! :-)[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Category deletion problem[edit]

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

Your assistance please[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Deletion of newly created categories[edit]

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)[reply]

They must be disambiguated. Recreating empty categories that have been deleted before is rather counterproductive. --Foroa (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So disambiguate them or add a {{Move}}, don't just delete them! Multichill (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Category:Goalkeeper[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Category:International Space Station missions[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Ok, it's a redirect now. --myself488 (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK steam engine categories[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My image files marked for deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Breg River[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I'll move it to Category:Breg (Danube). Thanks. -- Ies (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical British Railways steam locomotives[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mt. Pisgah State Park[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Russian Bloggers to Bloggers from Russia[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation! --ssr (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete deletion request[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Double categorization[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Then what is COM:OVERCAT for? Prillen (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

SVG[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Dank u wel. Groetjes.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation categories[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Districts of London[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Requested moves[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Moving categories against rules[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Actually we use the name Commons in English, see for example Munich Frauenkirche and Bundestag. Multichill (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Double standards ?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
OK, I will try to explain my personal position here. I don't want to open a discussion on it here, so teaching/preaching interventions will be removed. I will need several days to complete this section. There are already several elements of my position explained on Commons talk:Naming categories. There you can read why Zürichsee is not renamed (yet) to Lake Zürich.
The current single rule: all categories shall be in English, is a very defensive rule, but at least it is clear and as we will see, relaxation of those rule is far from simple (and dragging for 5 years). We all know that the rule need more precision and souplesse.
Before entering in some naming rules, a first technicality that needs be defined clearly, is the alphabet and font set that can be used: what languages can be covered and what languages have to be transliterated (and following which rules). For example, one can consider Vietnamese as a "Latin" alphabet extension.
Now lets's come to exonyms/endonyms for places. I am personally against exonyms; most of them will disappear within 5 or 10 years as already happened with for example Bombay. The further their alphabet (and diacritics) are away from the average English, the longer it is going to take. The German Duesseldorf made place since a couple of years for Düsseldorf, Köln will need another 5 to 10 years; Rome, Ibiza, Bruges, Ypres, The Hague, probably a bit longer. Personally, I accept only "real" exonyms, meaning unique English versions of a location name that are weill entrenched in "real" encyclopedia's and scholar books. I absolutely try to avoid invented exonyms, and I think that for example "New Town, Prague" is such an invented one (I did not check) but the diacritics in "Nové Město" and the fact that there are many Nové Město's will seriously delay its acceptance. --Foroa (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be continued

Thank You ![edit]

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)[reply]

How?[edit]

Hi, Foroa, how are you doing this: (Description with data from [24]) ? 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)[reply]

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

Rivers by name[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
But categorizing "by name" isn't really categorizing. You're trying to form a list, not a category. The maintenance with your approach is that I would have to create a new category just to get it into this list - even if I only have one picture. Why not something like a gallery with a table:
Aa Nord, Pas-de-Calais
Acolin Nièvre
Etc.......
Then the one-file categories could go away. Wknight94 talk 13:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madura[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Arboretums/arboreta by country[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Bedankt, ik zag je verandering. Wouter (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maps by country subdivision[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Did you think about this? -- User:Docu at 07:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the discussions above and on related pages. I need several hours to reply further on the discussions above. So I think all the time on it; from the 13000 categories I did delete, extremely few have been contested. Thank you for your concern; it is really heartwarming. --Foroa (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing that you attempt to discuss this with other users. I'd suggest that you do this at cfd though, if you think it should have a wider impact. I know your talk page seems to have quite some backlog, but instead of reverting people elsewhere and deleting stuff you could take care of that. It already takes me time to clean up your various requests left in Category:Request moves. Whatever the question on France, it's another country and there is no relation to your use of administrator tools. I would be glad if you would answer my concern in this regards. -- User:Docu at 07:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the category![edit]

Thanks very much for adding the Herb-based foods category for my picture of Sage Sorbet. I was bumping my head against the wall over and over trying to think of what to do with it, never knowing a more clever brain would pick just the right thing. Always nice to have good cataloguers in the house. Akina (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, there is always some category missing in the 780 000 categories we do have. --Foroa (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Some of categories "by alphabet"[edit]

Category discussion notification Some of categories "by alphabet" 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bot problem[edit]

Good morning. I'm answering on this talk page because there is no longer the original discussion on mine. I noticed you blocked my bot because it made unauthorized changes on some categories. That's right, but it was my mistake. I had logged in with the bot account in order to easily see the categories it created, but then I forgot to log out and re-logging in with my standard account... so I manually performed the changes you thought were made by the bot. Later I noticed the error. It was my mistake, the bot itself works well and makes only the things he's allowed to do. :-) As you can see here, I performed similar edits using my standard account, and most of the categories I changed have been created by myself or by my bot.

I changed the categories because it's a way to make a search easier when someone look for a municipality in Italy, because you don't have to know what province a comune belongs to. And yes, I incidentally dropped a disambiguation with Sant'Agapito, another mistake!

Now I'm asking you if you could reactivate my bot, please. I need it to significantly speed up my work. I won't make the same error again, I assure you. Thanks for your attention, best regards, Vonvikken (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reacted overly quick because I noticed that your bot made moves of categories and the first problem I noticed that morning was a bot move from Category:Sant'Agapito, Isernia to Category:Sant'Agapito that needs clearly a disambiguation. Since I had no time to investigate further at that moment, I took some (overly) protecting measures. I do agree that disambiguation should require a minimal geographic knowledge, but it all depends if the locations with similar names are in the same country, province, region or county. Moreover, in the end, Commons will cover much more hamlets and parishes than the wikipedia's, so disambiguation needs will get even more severe in the coming years. I forgot to unblock your bot, but this should be corrected by now. Sorry for the inconvenience that this caused. --Foroa (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I usually check wheter a category already exists and/or needs a disambiguation, but in that case I simply forgot it... Thank you for your time, have a nice day! Bye! -- Vonvikken (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of lock right[edit]

Please note Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Foroa (diskuse · příspěvky). --ŠJů (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalisme?[edit]

Dag Foroa, Zie [25] en [26]. Het lijkt er op dat de geblokkeerde Patricia Rios nu anoniem hetzelfde aan het doen is. Wouter (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inderdaad, of sockpuppets van veg, vegg, veggg, ... Zoals het beperkt blijft tot dit een geval lijkt het mij gemakkelijker om niets te doen. Vermoeiend jobke hier on Commons. Toch bedankt, en user cookie (vroeger Anna) zou ook op de loer moeten staan. --Foroa (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
En zij hebben een nieuwe compagnon/sockpupet gevonden: Special:Contributions/Tarragonés. Cookie komt blijkbaar tussen. Vermoeiend allemaal.

Category:Barmby[edit]

Hi, wonder if you can sort this one out as I cannot work out what to do. There are at least two categories that this one could redirect to Category:Barmby Moor or Category:Barmby on the Marsh, there could be others. May be best just to delete it. Keith D (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If even two guys from Yorkshire cannot setup Category:Barmby properly, how would you expect that a person from the other side of the world could do (although they are passing by as tourist to capture many pictures). The joys of shortened names to save a couple of keystrokes ... --Foroa (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Problematic use of admin tools[edit]

Foroa, please you respond to my concerns raised at #Deletion_of_Category:Rivers_of_Italy_by_name. -- User:Docu at 14:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Unexplained reversals[edit]

Foroa,

Your two edits above didn't include an edit summary. Each reversed two edits of mine. Please provide an explanation for your edits. -- User:Docu at 19:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection on Common:Naming categories[edit]

Hello, Foroa. You have new messages at Commons talk:Naming categories#Foroa's obstruction.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Category:Somerford[edit]

Hi. I see you have moved the bot created category Category:Somerford to Category:Somerford Booths. However, this leaves the problem of Category:Somerford, Dorset. The Somerford in Dorset is arguably more important (and far more populated), than Somerford Booths, so leaving Category:Somerford redirecting to the latter seems wrong.

Do you have any suggestions? Thanks Arriva436talk/contribs 19:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was wrong indeed. On Commons, there is no rule for priorities of category names and makes no sense in a decent international category system. You could make a disambiguation category but such categories tend to be badly maintained and collect wrong media that hang there for months. So I deleted it (and adapted the Commonscat on en:Somerford). --Foroa (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good - I thought deletion would be the best option. Thanks for sorting the problem! Arriva436talk/contribs 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veranderen category-naam en wat verder te doen[edit]

Foroa, jij als category specialist weet hiervoor misschien een makkelijke manier.
Ik zag dat er een Category:San Agustín is, waar ik zojuist tekst bij gezet heb en een Category:San Agustin die eigelijk ook als San Agustín geschreven moet worden. Omdat de laatste de minste interwiki's heeft (zelfs niet in het Spaans) wil ik een nieuwe maken naar voorbeeld van de naam op de Duitse wiki de:San Agustín (Gran Canaria). Moet ik de 65 plaatjes in de Commons category handmatig allemaal van category veranderen (op zich geen probleem) of is daar een handiger manier voor (goed te weten voor een volgende keer). Het veranderen van de commonscat verwijzing op de wikipagina's is verder geen probleem. Wouter (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gewoon op COM:DL een {{move cat|San Agustín, Huila|San Agustín, Huila}} en {{move cat|San Agustin|San Agustin, Las Palmas}} plaatsen en enkele uren/dagen wachten. Beste feestdagen. --Foroa (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bedankt! Dat kan ik vaker gebruiken. Ook fijne feestdagen. Wouter (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Improving pictures[edit]

Sorry for my edit. I was asked to do it. Will keep it in mind. Suede67 (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Car parks / Parking lots[edit]

Hello. I note you moved "Category:Parking lots in the United States" to "Car parks in the United States". "Parking lot" is the American English term; the term "Car parks" is not used and unfamiliar sounding in American English. I am therefore proposing a move back. Discussion at. Category talk:Car parks in the United States. Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been moved in March 2009 after an anonymous move request, probably for reasons of uniformity with the parent category. That's a naming for which I cannot give a proper judgment, so if the current redirect is not sufficient to you, I would suggest to place a {{Move}} template on it. Anyway, it is always useful to document such local naming situations on the top of the category description. --Foroa (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much. I will do so. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alcove houses[edit]

You requested a move from Category:Laubenhäuser to Category:Alcove houses that was then done by Siebot. I cannot find any evidence that "alcove house" is the correct translation of "Laubenhaus". The "Laubenhaus"/"Löwinghuus" is a specific type of house common in the Mark of Brandenburg. Is "alcove house" really the technical term for this? --Slomox (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see here, I executed only the move of a trusted user. Nowadays, I would not execute such a move anymore as it is not substantiated by interwiki links, or at least, I would research it myself. When looking into the German Wikipedia, for example in de:Bozner Lauben, there seems to be several usages of Laubenhäuser and I don't know if their definitions are region specific. But anyway, I have indeed a strong doubt that Lauve means the same as alcove and that we have here a strange mix of terms with different meanings and interpretations. --Foroa (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alcove for sure is some possible translation for Laube, but looking at the Google images results for alcove this word better represents the same concept as Alkoven in German.
There are basically two possible definitions of Laubenhaus in German:
  • an unspecific one, any house with any kind of Laube
  • or a specific one, a special type of houses common in Brandenburg, with some arcade-like alleyway that in former times allowed to shelter a hay wagon and to pass through with a hay wagon.
But I'll ask Ingolfson about it (it's really hard to track those CommonsDelinker commands... You are already the second person I wrongly asked about this (User talk:Siebrand#Category:Alcove houses)). --Slomox (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before discussing "your" real meaning of Laubenhaus, we better check the effective meanings in German of the three types, especially in the light of de:Bogengang (Architektur) which should be closer to arcade, and de:Laubengang. Personally, I would not translate that in "alcove"; to me, alcove is more for a room in a room (or a bed alcove in a room). Then, we can check if a proper translation is really needed and possible. (I doubt it for the Brandenburg houses).
It is not straightforward to track down all possible sources (it could have been the result of a move request) of renames, but at least it is centralised. As more and more bots are doing category moves for all sorts of reasons and clients, it becomes difficult to follow who's doing what, especially if the moves are going back and forward. --Foroa (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Slomox query on my talk page - this may stem from my time when I was a bit more agressive in asking for translations of what may not HAVE proper translations. Will try to respond in a few days with my own ideas, please proceed as you see fit if you have a resolution. Ingolfson (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Foroa/archive_2009&oldid=703003459"