User talk:Foroa/archive 2011

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

Contents

Please stop[edit]

The correct title is Prime Minister of Australia please stop using Siebot to edit war and discuss the matter. Gnangarra 07:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

See #Prime minister ? and its parent category names: if you don't agree, discuss it at the parent level, not the Australian level. --Foroa (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
see w:Prime Minister of Australia the position title is Prime Minister Gnangarra 07:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
See #Prime minister ?: I agree in singular, it is THE Prime Minister of Australia, in plural, it is Prime ministers of Australia. Please read w:Prime Minister of Australia. --Foroa (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I looked at Category_talk:Prime_ministers not any real discussion there but it does say "Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", where the term is a proper noun referring to the specific position in the UK. hence the Category is Prime Ministers of Australia becasue it refers to the specific position. Gnangarra 08:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You are right for on one Prime Minister Tony Blair. As explained in en:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Titles_of_people it is stated:
  • "Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore start with a capital letter only when followed by a person's name", which is not the case for prime ministers of Australia.
  • "In the case of a compound word such as "prime minister" or "chief executive officer", either all parts begin with a capital letter or none (except, obviously, at the beginning of a sentence)", which is the case here.
We are coherent with en:Prime minister and partly with the body of en:Prime Minister of Australia. see Category talk:Prime ministers too. --Foroa (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The equivellent category in en.WP is w:Category:Prime_Ministers_of_Australia with the parent category being w:Category:Prime ministers because of the difference in use as described. Either way there clearly is a dispute and no consensus for the change you are making as such you should be discussing it rather then using Siebot inappropriately to edit war to your version. Gnangarra 08:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Gnangarra, Category:Prime ministers of Australia is the current category. If you want to have it move you can use {{Move}} to indicate that you want to move it to Category:Prime Ministers of Australia. Foroa is just restoring the current situation. Please open a move request and stop reverting the bot. Multichill (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I am merely harmonising names. If you don't agree, then the discussion has to address the parent category naming. And en:wikipedia is rarely a reference for capitalisation as title cases tend to be mixed up frequently, as one can see in w:Prime Minister of Australia. --Foroa (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Your the quoting en.style guides for your reasonings. A simple Question is Julia Gillard "Prime Minister of Australia" or "Prime minister of Australia" ? Gnangarra 08:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Here in Australia, the custom is to refer to Prime Minister when you're referring to the office and/or its holder : See http://www.nma.gov.au/education/school_resources/websites_and_interactives/primeministers/ . Secondly, I refer to Wikipedia's own rules on captalising compound nouns : both parts or neither. Yes, when used at the start of a sentence is mentioned as an exception. But - we are not talking about use at the start of sentences here, we are talking about use as Category names, which reflect the formal title of an incumbent : i.e. "This is a category containing media about people who have held the formal title "Prime Minister of Australia". The only correct use of the term prime minister would be in a sentence referring to the general role, not a specific person : e..g. "In the past, a prime minister would blah blah..." you would never write "In the past, a Prime minister would...". We could say "Prime ministers in the past ...." because we are referring to prime ministers in a general sense and the first word is capitalised only because it begins a sentence. To extend this very limited rule to category names, which by definition refer to a formal title and its incumbents, of which there is only a single incumbent at any time, is invalid. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
"Prime ministers in the past ....", "Prime ministers by country" and "Prime ministers of France": that is all coherent. It looks that you are creating new rules. Please start such a discussion on the suitable parent category level. --Foroa (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
They can call their PMs what they like. We have a Prime Minister, not a Prime minister. However, you are relying on an invalid extension of the "at beginning of sentence" exception to apply to category names and what, in my opinion, is an incorrect existing usage in all the existing PM category names, as a reason for perpetuating that same misuse, rather than correcting it en masse. I have made the point for correcting its use for Prime Ministers of Australia. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:People on stamps[edit]

Hi, are you in the process of recreating "Category:People on stamps" and moving the images that used to be in "Category:Persons on stamps" there? I noticed that you have deleted "Persons on stamps" but "People on stamps" has not been created yet. See the query at "Commons:Village pump#Category:Groups of people on stamps". Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I just executed your request. I now recreated Category:People on stamps. --Foroa (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The request just below that one was to move "Category:Persons on stamps" to "Category:People on stamps". The idea was to clear everything out of "People on stamps" into "Groups of people on stamps", then to put everything in "Persons on stamps" into "People on stamps". Maybe I wasn't clear enough. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Foroa, with reference to the discussion on the Village pump I do not quite understand the meaning of "Groups of people on stamps". Does that mean more than one person on the image of a stamp like this one or is it something like this (one group of people) or something like that, which shows indeed more than one group of people, so groups of people.
What I suggest is that a bot puts all images back from "Groups of people on stamps" to "People on stamps" because most images do not show groups of people. The transfer of images with groups of people can subsequently be done manually. It may be good to give a clear description of what is expected to be in "Groups of people on stamps" and what not. Regards, Wouter (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I did not follow the discussion, I merely executed the move requests. You are right, if the categories are not properly documented and defined, within a while, the discussion will start again. Roughly splitting from "Groups of people on stamps" to "People on stamps" was an excellent exercise to use Cat-a-lot, that seems to work pretty well nowadays. --Foroa (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Quale è il nome adatto per la categoria che comprende le versioni speciali di un modello come ad esempio questa ? "Category: Citroën CX special bodyed" ? --Ligabo (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

[What is the proper name for the category that includes special versions of a model such as this ? "Category:Citroën CX special bodyed" ?]

No real idea. Have a look in Category:Stretch limousines or Category:custom cars. --Foroa (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Cast iron" versus "cast-iron"[edit]

Hi. Concerning the move of the category "Cast-iron buildings" to "Cast iron buildings", I believe the normal adjectival form of "cast iron" in English is "cast-iron." Thus, en.wiki has the article "Cast-iron architecture". Was the move discussed before it was made? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can see here, this was a request from Ingolfson to harmonise within the Category:Cast iron. As happens more, the en:wikipedia is inconsistent and has slightly more terms starting with "Cast iron xxx" than with "Cast-ironxxx". On Commons, we try (and need) to be more consistent. In w:Cast iron, "cast iron xxx" seems to be the winner, in w:Cast-iron architecture, cast-iron xxx seems to be preferred but not always. So, until we have a clear and indisputable written rule, we better keep coherency with the parent category. --Foroa (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly understand the need for consistency, but I think you miss my point. The material is "cast iron", never "cast-iron" (at least in modern usage), but when used as a descriptive term, I believe that English prefers the hyphenated "cast-iron". It's not unusual for nouns to sometimes have a somewhat different adjectival form. Therefore, all the sub-categories would more properly be "Cast-iron buildings", "Cast-iron lighthouses" etc., which would provide the required consistency. To make a noun and a adjective match when different forms are preferred is a false consistency, and improper English. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Take, for instance, the New York City Landmarks Preservations Commission's usage. The historic district with a large number of cast-iron buildings is called the "Soho-Cast Iron Historic District", where "Cast Iron" is a noun, but in their descriptions of the buildings in Guide to New York City Landmarks (4th ed., 2010), they consistently use "cast-iron" as the adjectival form: "cast-iron fronts", "cast-iron buildings", "cast-iron designs" and so on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Beyond My Ken. In English, it is usual to hyphenate compound modifiers: see "Hyphen#Compound modifiers". So one would write "This fence is made of cast iron", but "This is a cast-iron fence". — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I checked several dictionaries, and they all describe "cast iron" as a noun, "cast-iron" as an adjective (With the exception of the Canadian Le grand dictionnaire terminologique that seems to mix-up things). Anyway, as shown again in w:Cast iron and w:Cast-iron architecture, wikipedia is certainly not an example of consistence and even less to be used as a reference. I will harmonise the categories in the coming days. --Foroa (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is my understanding too. I am not an expert on grammar and linguistics but it seems hyphenated terms like cast-iron are known as compound modifiers – they are "compound" because they are made up of more than one term (cast and iron), and they "modify" the noun to which they relate (not just an ordinary fence but a cast-iron fence). Effectively they act like adjectives, describing the noun. No, Wikipedia is certainly not a model of consistency; we can only try our best to achieve this! Thanks for all your hard work, and best wishes for the new year! — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) And surprise, after renaming, disagreement in Category:Cast-iron pots and pans. --Foroa (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The disagreement didn't arise with pots & pans, but from the undiscussed rename of cast iron gears to cast-iron gears.
As to which is "correct", then it's obviously awkward. The OED lists both, cites both, and doesn't discuss correctness. Tom Rolt carefully uses both versions, in either the noun or adjectival (hyphenated) forms, e.g. "the cast-iron bridge was made from cast iron". J.E. Gordon always uses "cast iron" without. Appeals to authority wouldn't seem to help us here.
It's important to understand what cast iron means. This is not merely "iron that has been cast", as we could happily use for cast brass or cast aluminium. Instead "cast iron" is a metallurgically distinct substance from other forms of iron and steel. Cast iron is sometimes not even cast, but machined — an off-the-shelf billet of a standard cast bar ingot is machined to shape (usually for making bearings) because the metallurgical properties of this "cast iron" are important, not its ability to be cast to a near-finished shape.
Rolt's use is probably the most correct. However can we impose it? Can we actually achieve this correctness throughout, appropriately distinguishing adjectival uses where necessary? Or should we take the "house style guide" approach, decide on a supportable policy that is clear and simple, then use that?
For this reason, and particularly for the metallurgical aspect, I favour the consistent use of "cast iron" throughout. It's usually the better choice, it's not glaringly incorrect in the borderline cases, and we have some hope of avoiding the real error, that of hyphenating the noun form. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Former court houses in Australia[edit]

Just to match what others (countries) call courthouses isn't a reason to move to a name which isn't used in that way, Australia uses a space in-between court and house. Commons has respected local spelling and meanings, I do not see a policy stating that all categories need to be matching and the fact that you just went and used a bot to do the changes (like Prime Minister of Australia) shouldn't be done without discussion as it has a rolling effect. Bidgee (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This was a legitime request for harmonisation of Jacklee to become in line with Category:Courthouses by country and en:Category:Courthouses in Australia. We move 12000 categories like that per year, and occasionally we have a problem with undocumented local spelling habits or local interpretations of spelling rules. --Foroa (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I was watching this page because of some other discussion, and noticed this comment. Well, for a start I wasn't aware that court house is more commonly used in Australia than courthouse. However, I think that for consistency it may be better to tolerate some deviations from local spelling convention. I think it would seem a little odd and perhaps confusing for users if subcategories within a parent category varied depending on local usage. Here is a made-up example: "Law firms in the United Kingdom", "Law offices in the United States", "Solicitors' practices in India". — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. For the sake of consistency I accept a category such as "Fire stations in the United States" despite the fact that these are actually called "firehouses" in American English. It's best, however, to have category redirects that send folks from "firehouses" to "fire stations". Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. It may also be appropriate to add a usage note at the top of the category page stating something like "Files relating to firehouses in the United States should be categorized here", if there is a significant difference in terminology. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Snowy Mountains Scheme[edit]

Why was the Snowy Mountains Scheme category deleted as incorrectly named? I see nothing wrong with the name, I haven't seen all the images which were located with in the category but those that I have seen fit into it as they were constructed as part of the Scheme. Bidgee (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please if you do not know Australian History or context (which is shown by the edits - as there is nothing to show what you were thinking when you claimed 'incorrectly named' - however there is nothing to show anywhere what exactly that means), please either ask first or check with an Australian ediotr - the following do belong in the category Snowy Mountain Scheme - removing them is like my coming into a german category and deliberately removing a category related to the Rhine.
  1. (show/hide) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:South east from mt kosciuszko summit nsw australia.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains) (top) [rollback]
  2. (show/hide) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Statue of Sir Paul Strzelecki, Jindabyne, NSW.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains) (top) [rollback]
  3. (show/hide) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Mustering on Kosciusko.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains) (top) [rollback]
  4. (show/hide) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Thredbo as seen from Kosciuszko Lookout.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains) (top) [rollback]
  5. (show/hide) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Perisher Blue - Kosciuszko.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains) (top) [rollback]
  6. (show/hide) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Her Majesty's Mail arriving at Kiandra.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains) (top) [rollback]
  7. (show/hide) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Abraham Louis Buvelot - Tubbutt Homestead in the Bombala district, in the foothiills of the Snowy Mountains - 1873.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains) (top) [rollback]
  8. (show/hide) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Kosciuszko Townsend.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains) (top) [rollback]
  9. (show/hide) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Mount Kosciuszko.JPG ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains) (top) [rollback]
  10. (show/hide) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Mount Kosciuszko.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains) (top) [rollback]
  11. (show/hide) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Alpine Way NSW.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains) (top) [rollback]
  12. (show/hide) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Days Gone By Kiandra.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains) (top) [rollback]
  13. (show/hide) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Geehi Walls 2.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains) (top) [rollback]
  14. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:View of Adaminaby NSW.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  15. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Tumut Pond aerial.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  16. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Tumut3GeneratingStation.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  17. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Statue of Sir Paul Strzelecki, Jindabyne, NSW.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme)
  18. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Tantangara Reservoir aerial 1.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  19. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Tooma Reservoir aerial.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  20. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Snowy hydro murray 1 machine hall floor.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  21. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Talbingo1.JPG ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  22. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:SnowyMountainsNSWTumut2PowerStation20050423.JPG ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  23. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:SnowyMountainsNSWTalbingoDam20050423a.JPG ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  24. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Snowy River, Mount Kosciuszko National Park.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  25. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Snowy River sandy bank Victoria.JPG ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  26. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Snowy River from McKillops Road.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  27. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Snowy Mountains Scheme sign, Talbingo.JPG ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  28. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Murrumbidgee River below the Tantangara Dam, NSW, Australia.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  29. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Lake Jindabyne 2.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  30. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Lake Jindabyne 1.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  31. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Old Adaminaby.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  32. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Murray2PowerStation.JPG ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  33. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Lake Jindabyne aerial.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  34. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Lake Eucumbene.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  35. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:KhancobanTownEntrySign.JPG ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  36. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Khancoban aerial.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  37. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Guthega Tate.JPG ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  38. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Jindabyne.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  39. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Guthega power station (IMG 7884).JPG ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  40. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Cabramurra-January2005.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  41. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Adaminaby big trout.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  42. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:Adaminaby 2.JPG ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  43. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:BloweringDamWall.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]
  44. (show/hide) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (diff | hist) File:BloweringDam 001 20060211.jpg ‎ (Removing from Category:Snowy Mountains Scheme) (top) [rollback]

Please try to start the new year with a more closer understanding of Australia - or do not touch for your own peace of mind - thank you and have a good new year (modified slightly - hence change in date stamp SatuSuro (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

For Your Information -
  1. w:Snowy Mountains - is a region
  2. w:Snowy_Mountains#Snowy_Mountains_Scheme and w:Snowy_Mountains_Scheme - was the largest public works project in Australia in the 1950's - noting very carefuly 'The Scheme's construction is seen by many "as a defining point in Australia's history, and an important symbol of Australia's identity as an independent, multicultural and resourceful country"
  3. The principle lakes created by the scheme include: Lake Eucumbene, Blowering Dam, Talbingo Dam, Lake Jindabyne and Tantangara Dam.

Please if you are going to edit in commons - at least read the Wp en articles first - otherwise your editing is close to nuisance editing SatuSuro (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Foroa, this appears to be another part of a scheme of issue involving Australia topic categories I suggest in the future that you seek input before making changes. The reason is that changes yuo have been making have caused some disruption, given that the reasoning for these recent changes had no imperative need plese seek input from editors familiar with the topic. Gnangarra 04:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

For your reversions - thank you - I do hope you have a good new year - I am assuming your reversions are accepting that local knowledge can help - best wishes - SatuSuro (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am clearing out 5 to 6000 categories per year in Special:UncategorizedCategories. I tried to process the list before the year end, and obviously, exceptionally I have been hurrying too much. I must admit that I never heard of Snowy Mountains nor Snowy Mountains Scheme, why I deleted both undocumented and uncategorised categories by mistake. My apologies for this mistake. --Foroa (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Danke - bedankt[edit]

--Kürschner (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Category for image[edit]

Hello, thanks for adding cats to 3 images I uploaded. However, in the case of File:Hooker and Company Frederic Edwin Church.jpeg, the category added was 'Plymouth, Connecticut,' which doesn't make sense to me. If you read about Rev. Thomas Hooker, he left Massachusetts and went to the Connecticut Colony. The Church painting references him leaving the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts on his way to Connecticut, where he and others founded Hartford. So the correct category should be either Plymouth Colony, or perhaps Hartford, Connecticut then. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I was creating in a hurry a number of categories in the United States as I noticed that there, all attention goes to the big cities, while smaller entities are grossly neglected. The File:Hooker and Company Frederic Edwin Church.jpeg painting says that it was his journey "through the Wilderness from Plymouth to Hartford,", so I assumed that both towns Plymouth and Hartford in Connecticut are concerned. Obviously, the person Thomas Hooker has to be connected to other categories. Don't hesitate to correct me, I just try to get category development started as without proper categories, many images don't get properly categorised. --Foroa (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, no worries. Thanks for all the category work you've done. Much appreciated. On the Church painting, I subtracted the category for Plymouth, Connecticut, and instead substituted Plymouth Colony, which is the Plymouth referenced in the painting's description. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation and Commonsdelinker[edit]

Hi,

Please can you not immediately disambiguate topics and move them (as you recently have done with Category:Luton, Category:Lincoln etc) - especially adding the category to the delinker work list.

There is no harm in waiting and tagging with {{move}} (as Multichill did with Melbourne). Instantly moving it prevents any meaningful discussion, and it should be clear that this is a potentially controversial area - so delinker should not used before a chance for discussion.

For instance, I personally think we should disambiguate Category:Plymouth - but given that its just had a very controversial move request denied on en it would be silly to deny the chance for debate here. Likewise, I should have had opportunity to say what I dropped on Category talk:Luton, Bedfordshire before the move.

Incidentally, your input at the thread on VP would be helpful - there is a line, lets work out what it should be as opposed to saying it doesn't exist.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As I explained already, on Commons there is no notion of priority (except for capitals with a large history and for practical reasons and for some national symbols). We have to serve 270 wikipedia's, and they have all a different primary interest. Anyway, Commons needs a category system and complicating it by adding culture specific rules to it makes it hopelessly complicated. Most people understand that category naming should not be organised as a lottery where a non disambiguated name makes the best chance to fit. It concerns categories, where most categorisation people drop items in (if it is blue, it is al-right) and don't look back if it is right, not articles on a wikipedia where people just click on another article if it is the wrong one. So most people will not waste their time on endless discussions on primary interests.
It does not make sense to discuss that for each case as the pattern is always the same: people are mainly interested to protect the exclusivity of their own backyard. I noticed several times that people just remove a category because it does not belong to their city: they even don't bother to search or create the right category. With such use patterns, the images are better off in a disambiguation category.
I don't like disambiguation categories as they need quite some maintenance (I prefer the form "City name (disambiguation)" as few people maintain such cats), but it is less evel than deleting the main name or to redirect it as it attracts all the time people that want to shuffle "their" category in it, which is not the case when it is disambiguated. --Foroa (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Please participate in the discussion at the VP then, your opinion here may well be different from the current consensus: I think there is such a rule on Commons already, and given your views it needs to be codified. And the point of this message is, don't arbitrarily move things without discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally your comparison is slightly wrong: You are comparing the uploader experience here with the reader experience on WP. You should be comparing the viewer experience here, where if you get to category for wrong place you follow links etc - and going through a dab is a nuisance. WP has a similar problem with undisambiguated topics (if its a blue link its fine), causing editors to add links to the incorrect title. The category structure should be designed to help viewers first, uploaders second and maintainers last (the maintainers have to keep things in order to help the first two grouping even if its inconvenient for them). eg Viewers looking for "Luton" in any language are almost certainly looking for the large town in Beds. There is no lottery in having the concept of a primary topic.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I am really not interested in yet another never ending debate, but still a couple of points:
  • The only real naming rule in COM:CAT is The category name would be enough to guess the subject. There is fortunately no rule for priorities for categories that can drop needed disambiguation terms. This is the rule handled here with "tolerated" exceptions of some countries, capital cities with a large history and some national symbols. And yes, introducing the concept of a "primary topic" is introducing a lottery for people from the other side of the world.
  • In the coming two/three years or so, Commons will head for 50 million media files, 3 to 4 million categories. We have a categorisation backlog of hundreds of thousands of images, so we have to use the most simple and non ambiguous naming schemes to facilitate categorisation by humans and bots, while minimising risks on mis-categorisations. Every exception is bound to create mistakes, problems and additional work.
  • Commons is a server for 700+ wikimedia projects in 270 languages: its basic duty is to have a proper organisation for its clients. We have no real "readers", in the long run only clients that "send" their readers to the proper categories through Interwikis.
  • I guesstimate that for now, 20 % of the images are "consumed" by the en:wikipedia, within 2/3 years, this will drop to below 10 % because other wikipedia's are growing much faster than the en:wikipedia.
So far, I am determined to help Commons to evolve as quickly as possible to a system with 200 million of images and 20 million of categories as I believe that this is the critical mass needed to survive for the coming decades. So please, lets spend our time on productive work and improving the "system". --Foroa (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for delay in replying was unavailable. The first and in my view, the only critical thing is that categorisation naming like all other areas (well except things like copyright) respects consensus. Commons is no difference to any other Wikimedia project in that sense, consensus of the community trumps any editors opinion no matter how well meaning, and can lead to absurdities but is fundamental to the project. In reply to the specific points:
  • If Commons can work out a Commons definition of "primary topic" (multi-lingual, free from bias) that is much simpler and healthier than supporting a list of exceptions. For instance consider Category:St. John's: w:St John's, Antigua and Barbuda is a national capital, w:St John's, Newfoundland and Labrador isn't. en doesn't consider either primary, but by your rationale the Caribbean one would be here (the exact opposite of your general principle here).
  • Commons is a database sure, and improving organisation is a big thing. If you look at my category work you'll see I'm working hard on the Geograph stuff - this single project is having a huge impact on a small aspect of Commons, but should provide a model categorisation for geographical images when done. Bot-operators like exceptions because they are easy to code for, but categorisation is not supposed to be "what's easiest for bot-ops" but "what's right".
  • In the long run - en will diminish in importance, of course. Our categorisation should not be biased towards english or any other language for that reason - the limitation that a category must have one name is a flaw.
  • "Primary topic" as applied by en.wikipedia is not the correct approach, but the multi-lingual equivalent is valid and a decent guiding principle. Comparing towns is "easy": Consider w:Luton, Devon or w:Luton, Bedfordshire. Which is more important to an English-speaker in England? Which is more important to a Thai-speaker in Thailand? The Thai likely will not know of either, but there isn't a local word which they would prefer either - and objectively the Bedfordshire one is easily more significant to both people.
I consider productive discussion about what is right to be as useful as actually doing the stuff. Sticking to dogma, and not considering other options is not necessarily best.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't need to say that some discussion first is better than just work as fast as possible.

Thank you[edit]

I have a problem with many indonesian and australian parent categories that get overloaded with images when the images should be in child or sub-cats - thank you for putting the links there - that is very helpful - cheers and thanks ! SatuSuro (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, feel free to ask. It might interest you to read #Category:Monuments historiques in Basse-Normandie concerning meta categories: most people want all their intermediate categories to be "meta categories" but that is not so simple. --Foroa (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
OK in commons is there usage of the same as in wp en - diffuse? SatuSuro (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
In don't think so: see {{CatDiffuse}} and linked discussions for diffuse (there are two variants, but I doubt that special templates on cats changes the way people categorise). For metacats see Commons:Naming_categories#Categories_by_CRITERION and doc in Category:Meta categories. They should forbid bots to categorise in them but only in a lower or higher level. --Foroa (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Salinas[edit]

Hello Foroa, best wishes for 2011. Category:Salinas needs disambiguation. Can you take care of that? Greetings --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Best wishes too. --Foroa (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

- instead of – in category names[edit]

Are you sure, that your category move goes with the category naming policy of Commons?

I am asking you because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/–#Ranges_of_values says that for range of values the en dash character – should be used. The subcategories of Category:War in Afghanistan (2001-present) are different in this case, sometimes - is used, sometimes –.

--Zaccarias (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.
  • It is not a rule, even on wikipedia, "The en dash is commonly used to indicate a closed range" is a guideline in the English language. On Commons, we have no such rules (yet).
  • In the first place, I prefer to have the categories consistent in their family. Since the large majority of the cats in Afghan War cats use a hyphen, that's the way of the smallest effort.
  • On many keyboards (probably even on the standard Querty one) the en dash and em dashes are not available; in many countries there are more diacritic and special characters than in English so the dashes seem to be the first characters to disappear.
  • In the wiki editor (courier font), it is next to impossible to see the difference betwween the hyphen, en and em dash.
  • Most people are very sloppy with punctuation, which results in thousands of mistakes and renames of categories.
  • The hyphen is by far the most used character of its family in category names. Personally, I have been thinking recently on proposing to use only hyphens in category names. That would save me many days of work per year and a lot of frustration. --Foroa (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I have made another move request to make sure that category names in Afghan War cats will be consistant. --Zaccarias (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Frank Gelett Burgess[edit]

I see you've added a category for the subject to File:Frank Burgess House Quincy MA.jpg. Do you have some documentation of the connection? -- if so, I'll add a sentence or two to the WP:EN article on the house. and also to the subject article. The only biographical information that a quick search turns up is that he left Massachusetts after graduating from MIT in 1887, worked for the Southern Pacific in 1891, then for UC Berkeley, and then as a writer -- location unknown -- for a long while before his death in Carmel, California in 1951. His wife was from Scranton, PA and New York City. There is no indication one way or the other that he was involved in any way with a house built in Quincy in 1913, so any light you can shed would be good.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the rare joys of Commons: discovering connections between things. I did not find documentation, I guess that there is roughly 70 % chances that the connection is right. But the fact of making a connection will make people on both sides (you for example) check and in the end, there is a chance that the builder of the house becomes known and the house of Burgess. If we connect slowly all bits and peaces of the puzzles, we will create more complete images. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it's a joy, and perhaps not so rare. As you suggested I might, I checked and found that it was built for Frank Burgess, the owner of Boston Gear Works. I've removed the category, but I'll add a little to the WP:EN article on the house, so your shot in the dark wasn't in vain.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Truck categories[edit]

Hi Foroa

Harmonisation with what? Well, if you check Category:Trucks by country, you will see that over two-thirds of the categories use "in". So I consider it appropriate that we hamonise the category structure here. I presume that your resistance is due to the fact that a small part of the "of" categories have actually been used as "manufactured in" categories? Well, that can be moved out before the rename, into appropriate categories of that type. Ingolfson (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ingolfson and best wishes. While we are awaiting the repair of SieBot, we might as well look a bit closer. In Category:Vehicles by country, the majority of the subcats are "xxx of ..." so harmonising towards "trucks of xxx" might be better. When looking closer however, it is a bit of a mixup anyway and difficult to draw a line, so you can decide whatever suits you best. --Foroa (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we should look a bit ahead. "Vehicles of" will always be ambiguous - does it include/represent a "manufactured in" category, or does just mean any random vehicles who are just found driving there in X country? Since in some cases we will never know where the vehicle was produced in (and sometimes brands get produced in multiple countries), and most people sorting files will not be experts on this, a "Vehicles in" category is less likely to contain wrongly sorted files. It is also the correct category for example for "Waste collection trucks in X country", which are unlikely to have all been all built in X country.
A companion category "manufactured in" (preferably "see also"-linked from the "Vehicles in" cat) can then cover those where the production location is clearly in X country. Therefore, I suggest that our general shift should be towards "Vehicles in" - data that is easy to grasp from a photo. If you see a car type X and the photo shows location Z, you're set. For files where one specifically knows that it is "manufactured in", we should then have specific categories for it. That is why I suggest moving all the "base" truck categories to "in", and would like to do the same to the "Vehicles of X country" cats too, eventually. Ingolfson (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "vehicles in ..." might be the most universal long term solution. --Foroa (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Painters from Belgium[edit]

Hi Foroa, some time ago you added a notice to this category saying "This category has to contain all Belgian painters, regardless of their specialisation and era". I also noticed that you moved a lot (if not all) painters to this category, who were active in the same area, but who lived before the creation of Belgium in 1830. Could you tell me how this corresponds to your notice. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vincent.
  • The reference frame work of most people here is the current country and its current configuration and territory. So you cannot say that since Belgium exists only 180 year that all persons before that period are not from Belgium. That would mean that some persons from say Antwerp would belong, depending on their era, to painters from Rome, Spain, Austria, France, the Low lands, Germany, ... That is clearly illogical and not manageable. It is a bit silly to read in the text "xxx was a Flemish" painter" and to see him removed from "Painters from Belgium". So I am a bit surprised by your statement in Category:Painters from the Netherlands: "For painters who were active in the same area before the creation of the Netherlands in 1815, see Category:Painters from the Northern Netherlands (before 1815) and Category:Painters from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830)." That means that in all people and history categories of the Netherlands, nothing should be present before 1815. That corresponds certainly not with a reality besides your painter categories.
  • Overcategorisation: You frequently remove painters from Belgium because you put them in some deep specialised categories such as Category:Baroque painters from the Southern Netherlands. First, this category that belongs to several countries, is so specialised that few people will allow to attribute (and find) it properly. But more importantly, one can only argue about potential overcategorisation if there is a general categorisation scheme applied that covers all painters, either by style or by period. You cannot say that, only the deeply categorised painters belonging to for example Category:Baroque painters from the Southern Netherlands are to be removed from the painters from Belgium category, the others from say 1800 onwards can stay at the global level. Sorry, but this is not a "system".
  • I guess that most "people/painters/xxx by country" categories should contain all elements, even if there are deeper categories: You cannot expect the world population to know of all countries if an actor comes from this or this villages or canton.
  • And yes, sometimes I get a bit nervous of your category changes where you apply your own rules, remove interwiki's and intro's without apparent reason. --Foroa (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your answer. Let me respond to the first point first. In it you say that "the reference frame work is the current country and its current configuration and territory". This sounds like this has been discussed before. Any idea where I could find this discussion? I don't think it's desirable or even possible to call people who lived before 1830 Belgian. This would be an anachronism just like "pashas from Turkey" or "Medieval anarchists". If you take Anthony van Dyck for example, you will see that nowhere he is being described as a Belgian painter. So when somebody would be looking for him, I wouldn't expect this person to be looking for him in Category:Painters from Belgium. Van Dyck happens to be from Antwerp and it is true that Antwerp in it's history was ruled by different countries (Burgundy, Spain, Austria, France, the Netherlands), but categories according to those lines are indeed silly. However Antwerp did belong for most of it's history to a region called the Southern Netherlands. That's why I started Category:Painters from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830) as you have noticed.
Secondly the transition of the Netherlands from the old Dutch Republic to the present-day kingdom of the Netherlands, is less apparent than the creation of Belgium, but most people will agree that the Netherlands as it is today was established in 1815. Of course this doesn't cause any anachronism, when describing people living before 1815, but the further you go back in history, the more apparent it becomes. Also, categories concerning former countries are not new on commons. See for example Category:People of the German Democratic Republic, Category:People of Yugoslavia and Category:People of the Soviet Union. So I don't think I am as out of step with reality as you think. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this reference framework has been discussed, but it is completely natural: that's how most country categories start. In the Dutch people categories, there are plenty of people that are there before the Netherlands existed (Roman, Batavia, French, German, Carolingian, Lotharian, ...). Conversely, you should not find a lot of people there that belonged to one of their many colonies. To start with, people have to be categorised in one single reference frame-work and can be added (not moved) later to more detailed historical categories.
You cannot expect however that an average user can know all the historical details and it would be silly that Van Dyck, as a Flemish painter from Antwerp, could no be found in painters from Belgium. Your interpretation of anachromism is correct in a historical context, but not correct in a territorial context. And basically, Commons divides most categories in territorial subcategories as configured by tha current political situation. --Foroa (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
That's interesting. When I take Van Dyck again, I think it's unnatural to call him Belgian and I think it's silly, if not undesirable, to list him as a Belgian painter, simply because it's not something you would expect. Besides Category:Painters from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830) is a subcategory of Category:Painters from Belgium, so people looking for Van Dyck will always have to go past that category. Also I don't understand why you mention Spain, Austria, France, and other countries who occupied (parts of) the Netherlands. The name "Southern Netherlands" only applies to what is now Belgium, otherwise I would have called it "Painters from the Austrian Netherlands" or "Painters from the Duchy of Brabant" and that would really be taking it too far. You say that people have to be categorised in one single reference frame-work and can be added (not moved) later to more detailed historical categories. Does that mean Category:Painters from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830) needs to be removed from Category:Painters from Belgium? Btw, an anachronism only applies to time, for places it seems you use the word anatopism. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Vincent, I think that you are reasoning too much out of your expertise of a painter AND history specialist. When taking the Anthony van Dyck example again, (stating "Anthony van Dyck (many variant spellings;[2] 22 March 1599 – 9 December 1641) was a Flemish Baroque artist ", I guess that most people will remember the first elements about him roughly in this order:

  • painter
  • Vandyck/Van dijk/Vandijck or something the like
  • Flanders
  • Anthony/antoon/toon
  • Antwerp

I am pretty much sure that extremely few people will be able to make the link to the Soutthern Netherlands, but the large majority will link Antwerp and/or Flanders to Belgium, so can look in Category:Painters from Belgium to find the correct spelling. (at least, if they know the English way of sorting by Dyck, not by Van). --Foroa (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's not necessarily the case. In German for example Anthony van Dyck may also be described as "niederländisch". I know that on de:Anthonis van Dyck he is described as "flämisch", but there are many painters on the German wikipedia that are called "niederlandish" that in English would be called "Flemish" (for example de:Aert van den Bossche, de:Dierick Bouts der Jüngere, de:Dierick Bouts). Perhaps this would also explain why in the past some people have put Flemish painters in Category:Painters from the Netherlands (for example here and here). What I'm trying to say is that there are people that might look for Anthony van Dyck under Painters from the Netherlands. That's one of the reasons why I started Category:Painters from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830). Like this people are able to find Anthony van Dyck both through Painters from Belgium and Painters from the Netherlands. This wasn't possible before. But what about my suggestion to remove Painters from the Southern Netherlands from Painters from Belgium? This would resolve the issue of overcategorization in one action. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The removal if painters from Belgium is not needed and solves no real overcategorisation problem. That is the global interface level of the Belgian painters category, the rest is specialisation and side categories. --Foroa (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Gente[edit]

Can you have a look at Category:Spain the series of images named "gente". --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not succeed in making a selection for cat-a-lot. Can you also remove the images of Category:Kings of the Visigoths from the upper Category:History of Spain?
Still more thanks. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Book titles[edit]

Thanks for making this edit on those book category moves. I must have been half asleep not to see the talk pages. Thanks for fixing my mistake, and I will make sure that does not happen again. --Captain-tucker (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, this happens often with me too. Problem is that the discussion has been started on User_talk:Dysmorodrepanis#Book_rename_requests, but never has been concluded. With such scattered organisation, mistakes are unavoidable anyway but rarely dramatic. --Foroa (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

extraneous file call?[edit]

What is this edit for: [1], I have undone it because it didn't seem to have a purpose but if it was intended to do something, please let me know.--User:Doug(talk contribs) 11:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a mistake. I have not cat running on my keyboard, so it must be some sort of other stupidity. --Foroa (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for all the category work you've done on images I uploaded. Much appreciated. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That's Commons: we are supposed to do team work. --Foroa (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Toronto buildings[edit]

Hello. Sorry to raise a problem, as I am sure you have other issues to deal with. I see you deleted Category:Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower (Toronto) in favour of Category:Toronto-Dominion Centre. The problem is that the TD Tower (the former cat) is a single building, while the TD Centre (the latter cat) is a complex of several buildings (which happens to include the TD Tower). And now, the new category that Siebot created, Category:Toronto-Dominion Centre (the new cat for the building), is somewhat difficult to distinguish from Category:Toronto Dominion Centre (the existing cat for the complex). I'm not sure who it was that proposed the category move at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands on the basis of "Aligning with Wikipedia article" (I haven't had a chance to comb through the history yet), but I'm not sure that they appreciated that the Wikipedia article is about the whole complex, not the one individual building (which doesn't have it's own article at en-wiki). They may easily have conflated the name of the complex with the name of the tower. Is this easily reversed? Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Here the request that was a bit too hasty. Thank you for the correction. --Foroa (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This may interest you[edit]

Foroa, I encountered the same problem as is in a number of undated move requests. So, this [2] may interest you. Greetings --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Catscan relevant Italian categories a couple of levels deep. Copy paste in Excel, group rename in province/in the province. Format in {{Move cat}} format, copy/paste in word to remove tabs. Copy/paste in delinker. --Foroa (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, 316 cats using the search list, see User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands; now waiting for transfer to delinker main page. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A second series at delinker talk page. Thanks. Havang(nl) (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
More on delinkertalk page: Maps of ... ==> Maps of provinces of.... --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Samenvoegen username[edit]

Beste Foroa,

Ik weet niet of ik hiervoor bij jou aan het juiste adres ben, mogelijk kan jij mij helpen of doorverwijzen. Destijds heb ik op commons een account user:bylbyl aangemaakt omdat "user:byl" om één of andere reden niet wou lukken (weet niet meer wat de reden destijds was). Recent heb ik mijn gebruikersaccounts op de diverse wikiprojects samengevoegd en plots was ik ook user:byl op commons. Kan de user:bylbyl account op één of andere manier samengevoegd worden met, of verplaatst worden naar user:byl, waarbij geschiedenis, overleg en dergelijke behouden blijven? In de toekomst zal ik enkel nog de user:byl-account gebruiken, gezien dat mijn meta-account is. user:bylbyl mag dan volledig gewist worden. Is dit mogelijk? Alvast bedankt. Mvg, -- Byl (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hiermee heb ik niet de minste ervaring. Even proberen op Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests ? --Foroa (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

new delinker list[edit]

Hello, Foroa, you will find another list at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands; i copied the templates from the talk pages, and now at each line appaers (talk) after the old category name. Does that mean that the talk page will move too? --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when there is something on the talk page, you can see it immediately and talk pages are always moved with the main (category) page. Makes sense, especially if the source category is deleted. --Foroa (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Categorizing art galleries[edit]

Hi Foroa! Please don't categorize art galleries in Category:Galleries or one of its sub-categories, because the Galleries is only for architectural elements not for art galleries. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I was probably too hasty, but auction, exhibition, ... galleries are not really art galleries neither. --Foroa (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Subcategories of Category:Or (heraldry)[edit]

Category discussion notification Many subcategories of Category:Or (heraldry) have been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which they should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created some of those categories, please note that the fact that they have 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.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/01/Category:925 Jahre Hückeswagen[edit]

Hello, can you have a look here, please: Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/01/Category:925 Jahre Hückeswagen. I'd like to learn if there must be english category names or not. Cheers, Spol20:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Basins[edit]

Hi, i noted you reverted my last edits about the category "basins". I apologize because i was surely wrong in making such work without discussion. I will try to explain my goal, hoping that you will indicate me the better way to do it without creating some chaos. I was trying to disambig all the categories related to "basin", because this word is by itself ambigue in several languages. There was the same ambiguity in some of its subcategories like "basin by continent or basins maps", that could be refer to a lot of object like industrial basins, rivers, or oil reserves. I supposed that the easiest way to make some order was to leave "basins" as disambiguation page, then create some more specific categories (like "sedimentary basins") and at the end starting to move all the subcategories (and uncategorized files )in theese ones. When it was possible, i've tried to do this using the olds categories, (like "watersheds of Asia") insteed of creating a brand new category (like "drainage basins of Asia"), but everytime i done it with the purpose of leaving all the categories including the word "basins" as empty disambiguation pages. Thanks you for explainations and helps.--Ciaurlec (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a major problem, and I did have no time to explain. Such a world wide reorganisation however needs be discussed as it impacts so many categories. A solution is to make a CFD or a document in Category:Commons category schemes. I'dd suggest to discuss it with at least user:Mircea.
Anyway, the major reason why it reverted your transformation to a disambiguation page is that disambiguation pages "forward dispatch" to category trees that are not really related (except for the name) and should be empty as can be seen in Category:Non-empty category redirects.
While basins might be ambiguous in your eyes, it is obviously not in the eyes of most people and anyway, all sorts of basins belong in one single category tree, so no reason for disambiguation, only potentially deeper categorisation. Anyway, I guess that 99 % of the basins on Commons are drainage basins, so don't make it too complex for an average user.
When reading you texts, it gives the impression that it is unrelated with the contained categories, while in fact all river basins and basins by country remain valid (I presume). Indeed, for deep specialisation categories, one better has parallel categories without changing the "main" categorisation logic. --Foroa (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

See also and disambig[edit]

IMO {{Seealso}} is being misused on Commons. It should link to related topics, which may or may not be sub-categories. It should not link to unrelated topics, such as an unrelated city that just happens to have the same name.

The reason for this is the English meaning of "See also", which in this context is something like "If you are interested in Boston, you might find be interested in the Boston Tea Party too".

{{Boston}} is a useful template for the links it provides, but its not helpful for disambiguation: It appears to provide links to other categories relating to Boston, Massachusetts and isn't something someone looking for Boston, Indiana would look at

If you are after an ambiguous term there is no relationship between the two uses and someone looking media of Boston, Massachusetts doesn't care about images of Boston, Lincolnshire, and vice versa. The same goes for people trying to upload images of either, they just want to get to the right category and find what it is called quickly. "Other uses" would be a more accurate way of saying it, or better, just copy the template from en.wp, which could give "For other uses, see X (disambiguation)" or "This category is about X, for other uses see X (disambiguation)".

I think the disambiguation link may be better placed at the top too: If the category is not the one you want, you want to get to the right one, not read about the wrong one; but that's a style issue.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I partly agree for categories that are unambiguous. For categories like Category:Boston, for most people, Boston can be any of the several Bostons, so each cat with Boston in the name is related.
{{SeealsoDisambig}} is in principle only a temporary template till the category has been moved and a proper disambiguation page has been created. That takes some work and time. --Foroa (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
We keep the move requests on top of the page as the moving bot removes that request when it is at the top of the page. Saves quite some work. --Foroa (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The thing is Boston, Lincolnshire is not related to Boston, the fact the names are is coincidental, not a relationship between the two. "Boston" is an ambiguous term, but if for us, Boston means the MA city (as it does at present - that may change), then Boston, Lincolnshire is not a related term and should not be presented as such. Likewise, London should have a link to Category:London, Ontario, just in case someone wants the Canadian city - but it is not related to the English category. "This is about X, for the other term Y see here" is how we should present it. Remember, not every ambiguous term should be disambiguated(!)
On the other hand, Boston Red Sox is related to Boston and it may be beneficial. {{SeealsoDisambig}} is a quick (and lazy) way of disambiguating of course - as redlinks can't be shown.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I see your point, but the thing Boston, Lincolnshire is related to Boston for people that don't apply the same "primary topic" logic as in your part of the world.
{{SeealsoDisambig}} is indeed a quick (and lazy) way of disambiguating, but with 40000 new categories per month, I am already happy if things in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories don't hang there for more than 3 months. --Foroa (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Well that's the distinction I'm trying to make here: Boston, Massachusetts and Boston, Lincolnshire are unrelated topics - that's true irrespective of the location of the categories. If we have a "primary topic" (which in this case it could only ever be Boston, MA), people looking at the plain term "Boston" may be looking for Boston, Lincolnshire. But Boston, Lincolnshire still isn't a related term, its another use of the word. ::::Another example, which gives an example of how I think it should be handled: Apple is not related in any way to Apples. However, people after Apple might look for it at Apples, so a link to it is provided.
What I'm saying is there is a difference between a "related use" and an "other use" (of the same name), and these should be treated differently. Therefore {{See also}} (which is about related uses) shouldn't be used for disambiguation (which is about other uses), and we probably need {{other uses}} here.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete please - accidental copyvio[edit]

Hi, sorry to trouble you but I see you are active right now. Could you please delete File:Ben Wilson chewing gum art - Uganda.jpg for me? I didn't think it through and it's a blatant copyvio accidentally committed on a nice bloke! So I've speedied it. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Foroa (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant, thank you very much. I can't believe I was quite that stupid ... thanks for rescuing me! Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your work[edit]

Hi Foroa - just saying thanks for your maintenance and work on Delinker tasks. It's too easy to forget that we are all volunteers here and not (all) bots ;-) We only seem to remember when we disagree on stuff - so thanks for your part in keeping Commons humming! Ingolfson (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, volunteering is sometimes a modern slavery and sometimes some sort of piss pole, but things improve each year. You should now that too. (and thanks too) --Foroa (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing localised catergory name from localised project page[edit]

Hi Foroa, I see you removed Bengali title of category here and here, but as I see here, it's okay with keeping category names in localised version of language, even in non-Latin script. That's why I reverted your edits. If you disagree, please feel free open a thread on the discussion page. Regards, wikitanvir (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I also restored your deleted category. wikitanvir (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Categories need be in English. For practical reasons, we tolerate exceptions for a couple of category names related to the local wikipedias. Often, people try to expand it to a more complete (and undocumented) category system in the local language, which becomes impossible to maintain. If we notice abuse, exaggeration or unmaintainable expansion, we will bot move them to a meaningfull English name without asking questions. --Foroa (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright, but there's no abuse there yet. wikitanvir (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:National Museum of Transylvanian History[edit]

Thanks a lot for the move and adding all the details! Best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Perpetual calendar[edit]

many thanks for your quick help, greetings from saxony (sorry, my english it a little bit crazy) --LenderKarl (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your good job. please remove the file it is not OK: File:Ewiger_Kalender_julian._und_gregorian.SVG Greetings --LenderKarl (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's commons/wikipedia: we all add our little grain, sometimes the wrong one. Indeed, File:Ewiger_Kalender_julian._und_gregorian.SVG is not perpetual, it is eternal starting from year 1. Please note that Commons is a real category system, not a multi-tag system, so we have to try to find the more precise and relevant categories, not all the categories that could possibly apply (see COM:OVERCAT). Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with you, all table calendars which have the name "Perpetual" or "forever", that name shall only right for the future. I have only taken this name because it is common. But that was not the content of my request. Therefore, I formulate this here once again:

Remove your File Ewiger_Kalender_julian._und_gregorian.svg "from the page"Media in category "Perpetual Calendar" On the transformation of the PNG file are done fault and the SVG is not to read. We can talk about other things like if you want. Greetings --LenderKarl (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dupe?[edit]

Hi. Isn't this the same as "Exact or scaled-down duplicate"? Rehman 12:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but as I commented, it should work in any name space. --Foroa (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
True. You know, we could actually have both those pages in one, extending the SWITCH function to the file list. That way we dont have to modify both or split the deletion list. Do you think redirecting one to the other would do? Or any venue that we have to modify to change the software from fetching from two separate pages? Rehman 12:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I am mainly active in categories and a bit in galleries, so you should better give priority or ask "frequent file" deleters. Or you can try a redirect and observe the reactions. --Foroa (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Uploaden van files door nieuwe gebruiker[edit]

Hoi Foroa,

Ik heb net iemand geadviseerd zelf een account aan te maken, en zijn werk dan zelf te uploaden. Nu heeft hij dit gedaan, en zegt vervolgens dat hij een mededeling krijgt, dat hij nog niet lang genoeg is aangemeld om een file te uploaden. Kun jij me vertellen hoe dit zit? Hoe lang duurt dat normaal? Mvg, -- Mdd (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, ik wist dat er iets was maar vond het niet meteen. In Commons:Autoconfirmed users zie je indirect de beperkingen van nieuwe users, vb geen tweemaal dezelfde file uploaden. --Foroa (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Bedankt, het heeft ook even geduurd voordat ik het begreep, maar het kwartje is nu gevallen en ik heb het doorgegeven. -- Mdd (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wheel war![edit]

No, not really, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Foroa (talk · contribs). Multichill (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should drink more of this stuff. --Foroa (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Rinaldo[edit]

Dag Foroa. Ik stuitte op Category:Rinaldo en vond/vind het een zeer verwarrende naam voor de inhoud. Ik heb een omschrijving, enz. er bij gedaan. Meestal bij kleinere categorieën maak ik een categorie met een betere naam, hevel alles over en laat de oude naam verwijderen. Kan ik dat in dit geval ook doen? Ik stel voor een categorie "Renaud de Montauban" te maken. Daar kunnen dan ook plaatjes als File:Renaud de montauban banquet.jpg in. Verder maak ik dan een categorie "Rinaldo (disambiguation)" als disambiguation pagina en laat de categorie "Rinaldo" verwijderen omdat "Rinaldo (disambiguation)" een betere naam is. Is dit een juiste procedure? Wouter (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Misschien niet de echte procedure voor twijfelgevallen. In dit geval echter heb je volledig gelijk. Ik zou gewoon Rinaldo als disambiguation laten (tegen mijn zin) omdat de ervaring leert dat iedereen probeert (terug) te moven naar de basisnaam of om het "gat" te recupereren voor een andere Rinaldo. Goed werk. --Foroa (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Bedankt. Inmiddels gedaan. Cat-a-lot was daar erg makkelijk bij. Wouter (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove File please[edit]

Please remove the file "Ewiger_Kalender_julian._und_gregorian.svg" also with "Long-lasting calendars" and also "Gregorian calendars". Thanks in advance. (I thought that if the file is in "perpetual ... "removed, no longer include this file in other pages or Categories) --LenderKarl (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC) --LenderKarl (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why ? If I removed those cats, then the poor file becomes an orphan. Anyway, it could be in long lasting calendars, Georgian and Julian calenders at the same time. Or do you mean that the file is faulty and should be removed from the system ? --Foroa (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, a good friend is better svg-version upload (content without error) greetings --LenderKarl (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Unconsensual moves[edit]

Hi Foroa. Please avoid unconsensual and controversial moves like recently Category:Footbridges over railwaysCategory:Footbridges over railway lines and its subcategory. As I can see, the parent category Category:Bridges over railways was renamed in despite of clear disapprovals in the discussion. Also your rename of Category:Tram infrastructure and its subcategories wasn't properly discussed. Category names should be as brief as possible, it's unadvisable to create such uselessly ponderous names. Don't you want to rename "Tram stops" to "Tram transport infrastructure stops" etc.? I think, "tram infrastructure" was enough explicit. --ŠJů (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not notice any discussion, even less an opposition. I am personally in favour of harmonising with the surrounding category names and making category names unambiguous as often, an extra word avoids a lot of troubles later. Anyway, I executed the requests from Ingolfson, so you can take it up with him if you can't sleep from the extra word. --Foroa (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User category supressions[edit]

Hi Foroa. I've come to know that you supressed two of my user categories (being this and this) without further advise, and thus causing the pictures there to miss from my user category tree (in which I normally like to have my own taken pics as a way to find them quickly, and separatelly from those of same subjects being taken by others). Is there any reason for these supressions? In your edit resumes you stated that it was because they were 'not properly named'. I thought there was no rule against user categories or against categories including the users name as a way to mark the source of files included in them. If there has been any change in the categories policy, I'd be thankfull if you let me know so I could re-design my category tree. Thank you in advance. --Lascorz (I'll read it) Escut del Sobrarbe.png 16:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have indeed a problem with your 307 user categories, which are partly a duplicate of Spanish categories. If all users in Spain start to have partial parallel category trees for all categories in Spain, then the system will become unmanageable. Although many names correspond with the Spanish names, some are confusing in the sense that they are using other intermediate category organisations than the organisation in Spain, such as municipalities in Catalonia if I remember correctly. I reacted precisely on your categories because your category organisation was misleading me for further categorisation. Because your images arrive mainly one by one and your organisation is rather static, I would suggest to limit that number of user categories to something more reasonable and if you want further subdivisions, to use galleries for that. I am pretty much sure, especially since your category names don't show clearly that they are user categories (there is some discussion going about user category naming on Commons talk:User categories), in a not so distant future, an administrator will merge and delete most of them. --Foroa (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
After reading you here, I have to admit it's taken me about half an hour to understand what you mean, and it was not for my english heh. Ok, with "proper galleries" you mean something like this and this, right? I now see that it would be much more efficient and would suppose fewer problems. I somehow understood that you were referring to galleries being fit in the category page... as they would in an article's page :P. A vagueness of mine, sorry. I'm an administrator in aragonese wikipedia and despite I empathize the problems you may have (and so I compel to help out the problem I may have caused) I'm not much used to the Commons system, as you can see... and I keep thinking as a wikipedia editor. I'll be changing the tree on again in a few days and I'll fit the pictures in galleries (which can be properly called that, the Commons way :D). Thank you (specially for your patience)! --Lascorz (Talk) 14:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, thank you for your comprehension and cooperation. With proper galleries, I mean in the main (default) name space such as Italia, not in category space categorized in you own categories. But I should have mentioned a better solution, the so-called subpages as in your example User:Willtron/galeria (I have several such pages too: just click on subpages in the left toolbox bar). User:Foroa/gallery2007 has been created by the commonist tool. Those too could be categorized in you special categories. I try to avoid too restricting rules. --Foroa (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Danish pastries[edit]

I noticed you recently renamed Category:Danish pastry to Category:Pastries of Denmark. Although I believe the latter merits a category, the former was intended to group media about the pastry known as a Danish, not about pastries from Denmark. Can you review this change please? (BTW: you may also want to archive some of this page - it takes a long time to load on a slow connection.) Mindmatrix 15:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed the move on requests of user:Jacklee. I hesitated a bit, but since the undocumented Category:Danish pastry was defined as Category:Bakery products of Denmark and Category:Pastries by country, and most images where from Denmark, I decided to move it anyway. en:Danish (pastry) is a type of pastry that is available in many countries, so that is a perfect illustration why we need a more analytical category naming. I created Category:Danish (pastry).
It is true that my talk page is getting too long and needs archiving. On the other hand, it is in a similar order of size as many discussion pages such as the village pump or Category:Danish (pastry), there are many recurring and linked discussions, so there is no real hurry. --Foroa (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Inversion of redirect[edit]

Hello, Foroa, can you invert the redirection of Category:Pelota courts in the Northern Basque Country, Court has to be without majuscule. --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What's this ?[edit]

Hi Foroa. Since few minutes, while I was working, it appears this picture, I don't know how it is possible (I was working on railways). What is this horrible and disgusting picture? And how it is possible that it appears suddently? Like a troyan...! I think that this picture is immediately to delete! Thank you for your answer. Cheers, --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

By country by city / By city by country - category naming[edit]

Hi Foroa - could you add your opinion here? Thanks. Ingolfson (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

FPC rules[edit]

Hi,

sorry to bother you again, but Tomascastelazo reverted back to the new rules that didn't reach consensus. Would you mind reverting the FPC page back to its previous state, and block the page while the case is being settled ? We can't afford to change rules every 12h. Thanks for reading ! - Benh (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  • If you are to get involved, I hope you do it impartially and well informed. Your participation is welcome in a clear transparent manner with a deep understanding of the issue. Regards. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
No need to spread the discussion. --Foroa (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Motorcycle[edit]

I accidentally went to the category's singular and found an image there. I see that you deleted the category, but it's a plausible incorrect search (like I did). Would you object to restoring the category? Royalbroil 05:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Only use category redirects where necessary. There are per category at least 5 plausible redirects possible. 1.4 million categories on Commons times 5 plausible directs times 270 languages = > 2 billion redirects: Where does this lead us and who will maintain that ? --Foroa (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

CFD: Burmese script[edit]

Request for comments: Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/02/Category:Burmese script. NVO (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighted image on the Commons[edit]

Hi. I don't think this image is free. I don't know enough about copyright templates or notices on the Commons to place on that page, so I thought I'd tell you. Am I in the right? Nightscream (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Template categorization[edit]

Hi Foroa. I noticed you reverted some of my edits when I reverted Multichill's edits. Not disagreeing, but just want to know generally, why should this be done when the templates are already in Category:Commons WikiProjects? Multichill's explanation was not that specific/clear to why that category doesn't make the template "categorized". Would like to help out in further categorizing those templates and removing those tags... Rehman 07:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not correct, it was and still is uncategorized (apart from uncategorised). I guess you mix up noinclude and includeonly. I think that there should be a proper way to attach doc subtemplates to their (exclusive) main template without having to go through a category, no clear idea for now, especially since I guess that doc templates might be resued by other templates or start their own lives such as {{Template:Emoticon/18}} (slash introduces problems I guess). --Foroa (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Why?--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

STOP! STOP! STOP! ARE YOU JOKING??????--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
See #-_instead_of_.E2.80.93_in_category_names. Besides this, the majority of the tram and train line names is using a hyphen, so it makes no sense to mix and make a collection of hyphens, en dashes and em dashes. --Foroa (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikieditor info & it's pupets[edit]

Hi! Could you see what is doing User:Wikieditor info -> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikieditor_info ? In my opinion it is vandalism... Hi/she is a puppet of User:Wikinetbot, I think, who upload many files about uflp university and has vandalised the page of deletation request-> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Uflp_0022.jpg&action=history and the files to proposed for deletation -> e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:UFLP_000010.png&action=history Regards Electron Smiley kabelsalat.gif <Talk?> 11:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you.[edit]

Thanks for your contribution on Maidashi. Have a nice day. Hot cake syrup (talk)

Archivering[edit]

Dag Foroa, je usertalkpage werd al een tijdje niet meer gearchiveerd. Zou dit dit kunnen doen? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Dank je. Zie #Danish pastries. --Foroa (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Inderdaad, there is no hurry. btw, hoe zou je het apenstaartje in het vls vertalen? apestertje of apesterretje ? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Welk West-Vlaams: Oapesteirtje (Zuid-West), Apestèrtje (kust), apesteirtje of apesteertje (Brugge). Staart, steirt, stèrt is een lange klank, wordt dus zeker geen sterretje. Ik weet niet in hoever apenkrul en arobas gebruikt worden. --Foroa (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Bedankt! Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of my talk page[edit]

I notice that you deleted my Commons talk page because I redirected it to my Wikipedia talk page. I work on Wikipedia much more often than Commons, but I didn't want to miss any important messages about images I had uploaded, so I thought having this redirect made sense. Is this strictly forbidden? Acdixon (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It was appearing in the Special:UncategorizedPages list, probably because you used #REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:User talk:Acdixon]] in stead of :en:. There are 270 wikipedias. I should have looked closer, fixed by now. --Foroa (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my mistake on the interwiki link. Since I work almost exclusively at Wikipedia, I've not had much practice with that. Acdixon (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello, I see your page but I don't know your language. Where do you live ? (Thank you for yours contributions on my page and pictures !) France64160 (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

En Flandres (vls:User:Foroa), 35 km de Lille vers Gand. Au plaisir. --Foroa (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My "commons.js"[edit]

As should be extremely obvious after even the most casual perusal, it's not a "gallery" and there was never the slightest intention that it be a "gallery", but rather it's a script addition. If it's not working as a script addition, then delete it, but do not add stupid irrelevant categories to it... AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done There should be no user scripts in gallery main space. --Foroa (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Category Manta, Ecuador[edit]

Hello and thank you for helping with moving everything from cat:Manta into Category:Manta, Ecuador. I love Ecuador, which I visited 4 times from 2000 to 2010, and I have uploded many images from here. The next visit is planned for the end of this year. I'll continue to help with categorizing the images uploaded into the main categories of that country. Kind regards, --Cayambe (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Great to find people that love visiting other countries, taking pictures, drop them in Commons and help to organize them. All help is welcome, especially in the poorer parts of our world. Thank you and keep up the good work. --Foroa (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Camp_Rising_Sun_(Red_Hook,_NY)[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Camp_Rising_Sun_(Red_Hook,_NY) 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 <articlefeedback-table-heading-page>, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
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 | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Summer Vacation (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

Hi there, just out of curiosity: why are you spelling "18th century" with a hyphen and "full-length" without? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens are only to be used in adjectival forms, so full-height is definitely wrong. 18th-century paintings is probably right, but I doubt that this is a good move. We should take it up with user:Jacklee. Jacklee, can you please chime in ? --Foroa (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. I also had a quick look on en:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Longer_periods and you're also right on the first issue, you do use a hyphen when saying "18th-century paintings". So I have been doing it wrong the whole time! Well, never too old to learn, I guess. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Politics by Canadian province or territory[edit]

Hello. I see that you have moved Category:Politics by Canadian province or territory to Category:Politics of Canada by province or territory, after I moved it from Category:Provincial politics of Canada. I can understand your reasoning behind this change, it seems that the naming convention is to end with "Canada by province or territory". However, I believed that this was incorrect for the items in this category, they do not relate to the "Politics of Canada" as this new title suggests, they relate to the politics of a specific province. I wanted it moved from Provincial politics of Canada so that it would be inclusive of the territories as well. I think that Category:Politics by Canadian province or territory or Category:Politics by province or territory of Canada would be a more fitting title. 117Avenue (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We absolutely want to avoid names containing Canadian, American, British, South Korean, ... My first impression is that we better keep the Category:Provincial politics of Canada (or local politics of Canada) and in that category create Category:Provincial politics of Canada by province or territory or Category:Local politics of Canada by province or territory. After all, there will be several items that are related to the local politics of all provinces, such as laws, district and global organisations, rules, statistics ... --Foroa (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with Category:Politics of Canada by province or territory - I don't think it infers that it relates solely to national politics, any more than Category:Provincial politics of Canada is limited to discussions of provincial politics at the national level. However, maybe the simple solution if to keep it as the parent, as Foroa suggested. Therefore, keep Category:Politics of Canada by province or territory as the overall parent, but as Foroa suggested have subs along the lines of Category:Federal politics of Canada by province or territory, Category:Provincial politics of Canada by province or territory and Category:Municipal politics of Canada by province or territory. The categories for Canadian politicians are already largely set up in those three subcats. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
That could work too. But "Provincial politics of Canada by province or territory" is not a correct term, because territories are not provinces. Granted, Yukon has political parties like the provinces, but NWT and Nunavut have consensus governments. 117Avenue (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Good point (although I am not sure that consensus vs. party politics has anything to do with the issue - your first point about the territories is the issue). Perhaps that one category ought to be "Provincial and territorial politics of Canada" - it might even be better not to have it as a meta cat, given that there are Premiers' conferences and the like which pertain to provincial politics but don't easily categorize under one or more specific provinces.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, let's go with that. 117Avenue (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Category redirect bot[edit]

Everything seems to be working again. The log generated yesterday (the first 2011-03-18 log) is very incomplete because the script crashed on the first pass, probably because of the huge backlog, and did not write a log. However, the second pass completed fine and today's update went without any problems. --R'n'B (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not completely OK, some old redirects have been flagged as new one, but otherwise seems OK. Double redirects are still not always detected and sometimes corrected many months later. It would be great if the bot could flag or clean redirected cats that are categorised themselves elsewhere. --Foroa (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Monuments and memorials of the holocaust[edit]

Good morning! Isn't Holocaust supposed to have a capital H when used to refer to the genocide of Jews by the Nazis, to distinguish it from the generic use of the word? I see that en.wp uses "Holocaust". If we use the non-capped "holocaust", do we not risk some contributors interpreting the category name as being more general, and thus inclusive of others events (e.g. the Armenian Genocide, which is also often referred to as a holocaust). It seems like it could be a bit of a quagmire. I don't know the answer, but I thought I'd raise the question. Best regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Moved to Category:Monuments and memorials of The Holocaust --Foroa (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

SS Great Britain[edit]

Hi, I was wondering why you chose to move SS Great Britain to Great Britain (ship, 1845). Per common name principles, it should have been left as SS Great Britain. Was this some sort of convention naming thing? -mattbuck (Talk) 07:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I only executed the request, but I noticed that for ships, there is a need for a naming standard. The move seems to be a move towards an emerging standard on several wikipedias. Stunteltje and Docu are involved and could provide some more information. --Foroa (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • We also have a large number of {{Commons category}} links from :en (and probably others). These are being broken by the rename, there's no fixup as part of the rename and the original cats are being deleted, not redirected. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It is about time that I make a FAQ for (deleted) category redirects. See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-01#Various_categories. We move 1000 to 2000 categories per month, so external links should pass via galleries, not categories to get a stable system.
    • Anyway, I have physically not the time to create all category redirects and when clicking on a moved category, one has to either click through on the redirected category or the one that is displayed in the deletion edit summary. I might hope that the latter will motivate users to update their commonscat link.
    • From the moved categories for which I don't create a category redirect, less than 1 % is recreated as a category redirect, so they don't seem to be needed that badly. --Foroa (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there an approved standard? I support standardisation, but cannot see the benefit of this change. The present changes go against the naming conveguation ntion on :en.wiki, where ship articles are named "prefix Name (year/pennant number)". Name (ship) is only used there when a notable non-ship shares the name. That pattern fitted with the commons categories and links will have to be changed if your moves continue. Finavon (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, their is since several months a (de facto) standard emerging that avoids continuous renaming and inventing ad hoc disambiguation terms. As one can see in Category:Ships by name, there is no naming standard, disambiguation happens through prefixes, type of ships (in several languages), dates, numbering, country, ... This emerging standard, which seems supported/pushed by several wikipedias as it its pretty much language and type of ship independent, avoids continuous renaming and inventing "original" names. I have no pointers to a central discussion, it just emerges and if I don't move them, they will flood the renaming requests for which we have a serious backlog anyway. --Foroa (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Targeting interwikis to either categories or galleries makes no difference - it's the pagename that matters, not the namespace. This affects galleries just as much as categories. Besides which, galleries are of doubtful merit anyway, very few categories have them, and the function here is to link to the category (and its dynamically populated content of new uploads), not a static gallery. Wiki articles will contain their own galleries as far as is useful anyway. The function of the link to Commons is to link to everything that Commons holds at that time.
I see it as a pretty poor situation for Commons to reorganise like this and deliberately break inbound interwikis. Nor is it acceptable to expect readers (remember them? They're known for not being familiar with the intricacies of MediaWiki) to navigate an arcane click path to find themselves where the category ought to be. This change is massive, has knock-on effects outside Commons that should be considered before starting it, and most importantly was not a time-critical change that needed to be started that day. More thought should have gone into it before commencing the renames. If nothing better could have been done, at least category redirects shoudl have been left behind. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Don't agree on the name space for interwikis: gallery space redirects do work without intermediate clicking, can be renamed and redirected without problems, are a solution for multi-language names and tend to change much less frequently. Non existing galleries can contain a simple (working) redirect to the relevant category. I proposed to improve Siebot as to update references from gallery name space to moved categories, but I had no support on that whatsoever, although this is the only long term solution that I can think off.
          • We rename 10 to 15000 categories per year, mostly for very good reasons, so basically many redirects will become stale or invalid anyway after some time. If this batch of ship renames happens now or within two months makes no real difference. For the users, it makes not a lot of difference if they have to click on a redirected category or on the link in the deletion edit summary, but at least, it is clear that their external reference need be updated. --Foroa (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
            • SieBot usually (IMHE) leaves categories behind and makes a visible redirect. This isn't ideal, but it's an obvious link and I think many users would be able to realise what they needed to do. However for these ship moves, it seems that SieBot is just deleting instead [3]. This leaves the relevant link inside a box labelled "Warning" - How many naive users are prepared to click there, the history link is smaller than the warning message, and would even get the right one of the two links? I'd expect many to click the old now-redlink, because they know that's the name they're after.
I'm disappointed in this change, and the hurried manner in which it's being done. This breaks linkage, and it's always easier to preserve links than it is to try and recreate them afterwards. These renames should stop right now, until the link preservation issue is resolved. Especially because there is no pressing need to rename ship categories in a hurry - it's just a consistency tidy-up. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
SieBot NEVER leaves a link behind. When I am moving categories, I try to manually create the redirects which I judge essential. From the thousands categories I move and delete, only less of 1 % of the categories are recreated as a redirect, so it should be not that important. See Commons:Category redirects suck and Commons talk:Only use category redirects where necessary. --Foroa (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Category redirects might suck, but this looks like an arrogance on the part of Commons where it sees internal housekeeping tasks (and covering up when they're done crudely) as being more valuable than producing a resource that's valuable to readers. The purpose of admin work is not merely to sustain admin work! Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Categories are part of a living internal organisation which changes all the time; within 5 years, we will evolve from 1.3 to 10 million categories. If we move categories, it is often to make place for proper disambiguation categories. If you want to serve better your users, build an interface layer, such as galleries, to the external world. And badly named (redirected) categories are just a stimulus to create even more badly named categories along the same line. The best way to avoid administrative work is to use proper names and avoid moves and redirects (I spend 1 to 2 hours per week on redirect maintenance). --Foroa (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yuck. Ignoring the prefix is one thing, and I can see justification for preferring paranthesis disambiguation (My concern is a slippery slope which ends up at Category:Enterprise (ship, 1961)). However, there has only ever been one ship called "Great Britain", so Category:Great Britain (ship) - surely! Only add disambiguation when required?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Great Britain (ship, 1845) shows why we need renaming. Never thought the interest of having a systematic approach so that names are not context/availability/culture dependent ? And en:Great Britain II ? --Foroa (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Great Britain II is (was) called "Great Britain II", its factually incorrect to say that its called "Great Britain" , so it's not relevant to the location of the cat for Brunel's ship. "Only disambiguate if required" is a fundamental rule: The 1845 bit is not necessary, therefore drop it! Don't know what you mean by the second sentence? And this sytematic approach should not affect the current systematic practice for warships.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how a ship is called in certain countries, on commons the real name of the ship is used in categories. A ship can be called by any name in any Wikipedia, in fact often a numbering is used, as given on this ship. However, such a numbering is very uncertain. I am sure there was a ship named Amsterdam long before the ships named Amsterdan now known came in the picture. Finding an image of such a ship the numbering has to be renewed. But people remember the old numbering. Using the name of the ship, indicating that the image regards a ship, together with the date of completion (better to find in not specialised literature than the date of launching) makes it possible to find an image of her on Commons, without to much study of the history. Besides, even easier to find are ships by their IMO number. Unfortunately the Lloyds Register numbers of the ships are not free to find on the internet. So LR number categories cannot be added. IMO and LR numbers indificate the hull and the best way of working, im my opinion, is a category by name and a category by IMO or LR number. The coupling of names is in the IMO or LR categories. A simple system. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Well that's why including "SS" or not is worth discussing. I suspect some ships had different prefixes at various points of their lives anyway (sometimes RMS, sometimes SS), which is another reason to prefer avoid them. I do not object to "Category:Great Britain (ship)". The IMO number may be unique, but only goes back so far - there are ships without IMO numbers, ditto the LR.
However, bear in mind that the name of the yacht formerly called w:Great Britain II was "Great Britain II" not "Great Britain", just like the current Cunard liner is the Queen Mary 2 not the Queen Mary. The numerical suffix is not merely to distinguish it from its namesake, but is a fundamental part of the ship's name. That is a different situation to the various ships called Rotterdam - the name of each of those was "Rotterdam". This requires some sort of disambiguation: launch/completion date is a perfectly reasonable way to do so, and is better than a numerical suffix for the reasons you mention.
As for the year, what benefit is there to including it if its the only ship of that name? If you are looking for the Brunel's Great Britain, you know its a ship. You aren't going to end up at the category for the wrong ship, as there is no other ship of that name to get mixed up with. Therefore the year is pointless extra information.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately Commons has images to show. Please have a look at File:Ss Great Britain.jpg, File:SSGB Mizzen 2.jpg and even File:Ss Great Britain - geograph.org.uk - 149589.jpg. Great Britain is the name in this category, not Great Britain II. I assume a ship has to be identified by the name that is painted on the ship. Is this Category:Great Britain (ship) the same ship? Besides, what is the disadvantage of adding years of completion to category names of ships ? --Stunteltje (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Umm, Category:Great Britain (ship, 1845) and Category:Great Britain (ship) are the same ship (and should be merged). Is that source of confusion here? :) I agree the name on the stern is the name of the ship. The Great Britain II (launched 1973) had "Great Britain II" painted on its transom - if this model is accurate. The question is what is the benefit of adding the year, when its not needed to identify the subject? The drawback is a more awkward form - disambiguating only when necessary, is a simple global rule, that makes things easier not harder (less typing for a start).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
If you search in passenger lists, you will notice that, not surprisingly, there have been use of a "Great Britain" ship well before 1845. So I would not bet that ships from Category:Great Britain (ship, 1845) and Category:Great Britain (ship) are the same, it does not look always so. Your invented rule "disambiguating only when necessary" is not wise in the sense that it is based on prior knowledge what exists, which is obviously not the case here, and in many other cases. I guess that there are around half a million ships around, so making assumptions that a name is unique is unrealistic, just look in the small 1% subset we already have in Category:Ships by name. --Foroa (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
If you actually look at the current content of those two categories - they are the same ship. And only when necessary is standard global practice, not relating to ships specifically, its not a rule I've invented. For instance we don't have, Category:Albert Einstein (physicist, 1879) or Category:Maastricht, Limburg (city). Why not?
Any possible ambiguity of subject you are not aware of is easily handled by the Primary Topic concept you reject (but is equally sensible), it should be immediately apparent that the 1845 Great Britain is much, much more important than any other ship of that name. In this case that relative importance is independent of cultural differences. For example, there weren't two ships - a British ship Great Britain and a Italian ship Great Britain, where its arguable that the Italian ship is more important to Italians.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Renaming ships[edit]

I assume I made a mistake in renaming a lot of ship-categories. Have a look at User_talk:Beria#Category:The_Matthew_to_Category:Matthew_.28ship.2C_1996.29_-_why.3F. Serious enough to revert things by bot and recategorise? --Stunteltje (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

See #SS Great Britain above; clickable redirects are in the deletion summary; this is the best I can and will do. User Beria moves, without using COM:DL, manually by using Cat-a-lot and leaves no destination cat in the edit summary. --Foroa (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Categories moved by SieBot indicate where the category is moved from and its authors. SieBot renames the associated talk page too I think. --Foroa (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Halsbrücke - Wappen[edit]

Heute gelöschtes Wappen bitte wieder herstellen. DAS IST DAS WAPPEN VON HALSBRÜCKE! Die Löschung war falsch.--Weners (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I deleted only File:Halsbruecke wappen.jpg which was a broken redirect to File:Logo Halsbruecke.jpg which has been deleted by User:Fastily. (Licence problem). --Foroa (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Das wasr das gültige Wappen der Gemeinde Halsbrüche und ist gemeinfrei. Bitte füge das Wappen wieder ein. Störungen will keiner. Danke!--Weners (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Please discuss this with User:Fastily, the deleting administrator, or on COM:UDEL. --Foroa (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Erledigt (wieder drin). Ich garantiere zu 100 %: Das ist das Wappen von Halsbrücke.Grüße--Weners (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Industrial_locomotives_of_Britain[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Industrial_locomotives_of_Britain 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!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

1973 Argentinian coup?[edit]

Hello Foroa!, all the images contained in Category:1973 coup d'état in Argentina belong to the 1930 coup d'etat. There has been no coup in Argentina in 1973, but in 1976. Could you please rename the category? Thanks, Banfield - Amenazas aquí 17:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Its getting late. ✓ Done --Foroa (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

~[edit]

Hello, The category [[:Category:KAMIJO]] moved to [[:Category:Kamijo (band)]], is an error, "KAMIJO" is a vocalist, not a band, and it should be written in uppercase. in the category [[Category:LAREINE]] moved to [[Category:Lareine (band)]], is "LAREINE" (or LAREINE (band). And finally when you change the categories of the images in those that am working, notify me in my discussion, or of the image. because they are images that I have upload recently and recently I have begun to edit the pages where they go orderly. I thank your understanding. Pierrot ~ (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Some comments.
On Commons, as in normal English texts, upper case is only used for acronyms, as you can see in many interwiki links.
We encounter often the problem with items from Asian countries where the they used to use mainly upper case Roman characters besides their own alphabet. The so called "all upper case" names are mostly converted in countries using the Roman alphabet.
Changes has been made as one of the many daily housekeeping tasks.
Category:Kamijo (vocalist) is corrected now.
Thank you for your contributions. --Foroa (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Chinese characters by number of strokes[edit]

Hi, hope you are well. I noticed that you dealt with my requests for subcategories of "Category:Ancient Chinese characters by number of strokes". Just wondering if the move is complete, because I notice that the original categories (now empty) have not yet been converted to redirects or deleted, and that the numerous files that were in "Category:0 strokes character" which should have been moved into "Category:Multiple-stroke ancient Chinese characters" seem to have "disappeared". (Or were they put into some other categories?) Do you know what the status of the matter is? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the request has been issued by user:Russavia. I just removed it as it was completed and now I cleared the sources. As can be seen here], categories where basically empty. --Foroa (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Strange, I could have sworn there were files in "Category:0 strokes character" that are gone. Maybe someone moved them to another category. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:MS Fritz Heckert[edit]

Hallo, could you please tell me why that category was moved. We won't move Category:USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) either. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

See some of the discussions above. There is a converging simple ship naming standard coming up amongst several wikipedias where there is an agreement that the ship category name should contain:
  • the name as painted on the ship, so that all people can categorise it properly
  • the fact that it is a ship, without knowing anything about ship types (most ship names could concern a book, a film, person, song, band, ...)
  • if possible, the year of launch as ship names tend to be reused often as can be seen in Category:ships by name (Contains yet only a couple of % of the roughly 500000 ship names).
  • no additional prefixes/postfixes such as MS, SS, USS, ... which are pretty much language dependent
The move of Category:MS Fritz Heckert to Category:Fritz Heckert (ship, 1960) is obvious as it corresponds with what is painted on the ship and is much more in line with its German name de:Fritz Heckert (Schiff) that demonstrates the problems with the prefixes. --Foroa (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

VLS[edit]

Dag Foroa, kan het dat in het VLS dood zijn = "met je pekkels naar boven liggen" betekent ? Je kan het er misschien nog bijvoegen. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Inderdaad, maar ik weet niet in hoever het courant is en in welke streek. Pekkels kan ook pôotn/pootn zijn in sommige streken. Ik probeer het toch te beperken tot uitdrukkingen die courant zijn in meer dan een dorpje. --Foroa (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Dank voor de uitleg. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ship categories[edit]

I have updated some of the broken interwiki links you created by recent category renaming/deletion. However, I am not sure that the launch date is a good discriminator when referring to a subsequent name.

  • MV Hebridean Princess served as RMS Columba from 1964, but did not acquire the name Hebridean Princess until 1989. It is confusing to associate the later name with 1964.
  • MV Pentalina-B is similar (launched 1970, but acquired the name in 1997).
  • Category:IMO 7811240 was Lochmor until 2001. It would be confusing to label her as Loch Awe (1979).
Perhaps we have to make clear that the year in brackets is the year of completion (see next answer) and not the year of naming. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As always it is the detail that makes or breaks a system. How do you propose categorising these ships?

The problem is that different Wikipedias use different systems. The English Wikipedia most of the times uses the year of launching, the French the year of completion. Follow the links between the diffrent languages and you will find the ships named together with diffrent years. Because of the fact that the Commons is used all over Wikipedia, it is clear that these differences will occur. I myself prefer the use of the date of completion, because much used shipping sites and popular literature do. Have a look at www.vesseltracker.com and www.equasis.org/. There will always be a difference, turning left or turning right. So my preference will be the date of completion. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also been fixing broken interwiki links (about half a dozen so far, all on categories I'd originally created. Shouldn't this followup be part of what you do? If you are removing the old categories rather than making them redirects, shouldn't you be following up for incoming interwiki links first? - Jmabel ! talk 14:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

UK steam locomotive categories[edit]

I see there's a big bot-driven rename of these categories under way. However their consistency afterwards doesn't seem to be much better than that beforehand. Is there an agreed naming convention for these? Where is it being discussed?

LNER classes are moving to "LNER Class xxx", whereas SR are using "SR xxx class" instead

SieBot (Robot: Moving category LNER Class A4 steam locomotives to LNER Class A4)
SieBot (Robot: Moving category LNER Class W1 steam locomotive to LNER Class W1)
SieBot (Robot: Moving category LNER Class U1 steam locomotive to LNER Class U1)
SieBot (Robot: Moving category LNER Class D49 steam locomotives to LNER Class D49)
SieBot (Robot: Moving category SR Merchant Navy class locomotives to SR Merchant Navy class)
SieBot (Robot: Moving category SR Leader class locomotives to SR Leader class)
SieBot (Robot: Moving category SR West Country and Battle of Britain class locomotives to [[Category:SR West Country and Battle of Britain class|SR West Country and Battle of Britain class])

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. Several of them (I did not check all) had uncontested move requests since beginning of january. User talk:Iain Bell passed the requests on the delinker. --Foroa (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Category renaming, disambiguation and references from Wikipedia[edit]

Hello. I see you have moved Category:Dalheim to already existing (but created later and unreferenced) Category:Dalheim (Luxembourg). I'm not at all happy about that.

  • The references from Wikipedia have become wrong and have not been fixed, which is a shame. Is there really no bot that can replace Commons category references in Wikipedia articles, as is done for files? I guess not, so I'll have to waste my time changing those manually again.
  • In this case, shouldn't disambiguation text have been created instead of simply deleting, since the very reason of the renaming (that you failed to explicitly provide) is disambiguation? "Dalheim" is still a valid category name.
  • If I simply create Category:Betzdorf (Germany) that redirects to Category:Betzdorf, will you automatically only move the latter to the former, too?

I don't know about renaming policy here, but I think at least informing the main editor (I don't use my watch list as a 7-day limit is useless) would have been much better than silence. Thanks for your attention. — Bjung (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There are 700+ official client projects of Commons, an unknown number of unofficial ones. We have no way of knowing and updating external links into commons.
I am moving 1000 to 2000 categories per month, no way I can do more work.
There is not a perfect way on handling obsolete categories:
  • Deleted category (default right now): you can click on the edit summary to find the new category and this might be a motivation of changing the external category.
A redirect, but that is not correct as it privileges one Dalheim over another. Redirected categories are bot moved within 4 hours and create bad user training.
A disambiguation category:Dalheim, as I created just know. Items in such a category will hang there till someone clears that out, which takes on average 3 months. Moreover, if another Dalheim is created, it takes something between 3 and 36 months before someone updates it. I create sometimes a disambiguation category basically because then, nobody tries to move their category to that name.
As discussed in #SS_Great_Britain above, we should never point to Commons categories, but to Commons galleries (that might be (working) hatrd redirects to categories).
If you want to avoid wasting your and my time, disambiguate whenever there is a chance of naming conflict. Dalheim is disambiguated on 3 wikipedias for a very good reason. In the mean time, I suggest to visit category:Dalheim from time to time to see if there are no items hanging around there. --Foroa (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Once again, galleries don't change anything. It's names that are the issue, not namespaces. Also the function of galleries (a pre-defined set of content, chosen by a Commons editor) just isn't the same as that of categories (the current set of content that Commons has for a topic).
It's strange to see the 700+ projects of Flemish Wikiversity et al. being used to excuse breaking links for the single encyclopedia project with all the traffic. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Foroa, I agree with your approach, both here and above at the Great Britain (ship) discussion. However, I was struck by your comment "we should never point to Commons categories, but to Commons galleries". I have no idea what the practices are on other Wikipedias, but I do know there is a great reluctance among many editors at en.wp to link to a Commons gallery. The belief (largely true) is that Commons galleries are much better maintained (as a general rule) that Commons galleries, and that links to Commons categories are much more useful, so many experienced en.wp editors will always link to the Commons category over the gallery. I'm not sure that telling them to point to Commons galleries will accomplish anything, or reduce the number of "broken links" complaints you receive. I'm disappointed that you had no support for your proposal to update Siebot to fix references on gallery pages to the moved categories. If that were the case, and we encouraged Commons galleries to feature a template at the top pointing to the applicable category (a template that Siebot could update as required), there would be probably fewer issues involving incoming links. But I can't think of any other solution. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Skeezix1000, it is a pleasure to see that some people share a more holistic and a long term view. People tend to forget that Commons is a living body, not some sort of appendix of "their" wikipedia. While the en:wikipedia is still providing 20 % of the worldwide articles, it was 25 % about one year ago, and I think it will drop to 10 % in the coming one or two years.
Concerning this gallery issue, it would require a change of mindset, so I don't make myself illusions. After all, links/correspondences between wikipedia articles and Commons galleries are more natural, categories are just internal organisations that grow at completely different speeds (10 times quicker on Commons than on en:wiki) This mindset will only change if we have sufficient problems and people will think a bit more seriously. --Foroa (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • As already said, if you force people linking to Commons through galleries, you'll have the same naming problem, except if you assign a unique, immutable and possibly meaningless identifier to each different subject.
  • Forcing people to only link to galleries is to unnecessarily limit them: a gallery is biased and is only a specific view of a subject; it needs enough material to be built from, and additional time to be built, without talking about translation problems, which is why a lot of subjects don't have any. A category is unbiased and shows all material about a subject, even if there's not much: a basic and necessary functionality all users can expect from Commons.
  • The fact that you move a lot of categories (thanks for your work btw) and that a lot of projects use Commons stuff we-don't-know-how call for more care and less moves, to hell with the back-log, not the opposite. Reliability of a common resource must come first IMO. Building of encyclopedias and their multimedia bases must not be finished tomorrow.
  • The previous situation with Dalheim was fine with me. If such a privilege you found "not correct" and decided to fix it, then it should be your problem when you break links, not users'. Isn't there more important work in the pipeline than fixing what is not broken?
  • I'm fine with disambiguation categories. What I was not happy about is that there clearly should have been one created if the move occurred. I also don't think files hanging around in disambiguation categories is a problem: it's just another form of imprecise categorization that will be fixed over time, like the rest.
  • If editors are not explicitly informed of deleted stuff, one should not expect things to be fixed reasonably quickly, much less by "regular" users. I see how it goes with commonscat & Co. on Wikipedia. It could take years before a link to Commons is added or fixed by serious Commons-aware users who bother to check the links (like serious users do when adding internal links).
  • There definitely should be a bot that checks and fixes/reports Commons category/page links in Wikipedia. It's a less straightforward task than what already exists for renamed/removed files, but is feasible without much difficulty. That's a very useful tool to have.
Wikipedia/Commons are huge projects. There's always work to do, whatever workforce is available. Focusing on the most important stuff is critical IMO. Cheers. — Bjung (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Galleries can be just redirects to categories too. Gallery redirects, contrary to category redirects, work and there can be as many as you could imagine. Of course, if you want Dalheim for your exclusive use, you will have problems. I don't search for categories to be disambiguated, I do only so if I stumble on a categorisation problem somewhere. The sooner such problems are resolved, the less problems and work you get.
  • Of course we could have as many gallery redirects as we can imagine, but that's not a silver bullet. That would create a lot of name pollution that may not ever be cleaned/fixed and that will collide with non-redirected gallery names which appear in category contents. There's also the problem that too many redirects disrupt visited links management in browsers, unless we introduce "harder" redirects. So I think at least a separate namespace (and the possibility of "polluting" more namespaces when needed) is required for those redirects to work reliably. Then that would be a very potent solution: one real structure, an infinite number of interfaces, no collisions between the two universes.
  • As for Dalheim, your exclusive use accusation is just bullshit to justify adding unnecessary work for everyone: again, there was no categorization problem in this case.
  • It's true that doing things correctly from the start usually implies less work later, but that work is not always best done now: later work won't necessarily be manual, and the initially thought "correct" work may become less correct later since Commons is a living thing (remember?), and so sometimes can be very unpredictable. Same principle as in efficient computer programming: don't work on things you don't need now. — Bjung (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
My focus and priority is on categories. I noticed on several occasions that the better the category structure is, the better it grows organically and the better incoming images are categorised.
True, but you have to take into account the additional manual work to do now. — Bjung (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
If you feel for hunting links, be my guest. I think that on the German wikipedia, they have bots that try to update commons links. Such things can be automated, so why should I spend my time on that. --Foroa (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Translation: "Bots will be created in the (unknown) future to fix broken links, and there are some people who will clean my mess, so I don't have to care about breaking links and having clumsy navigation now". I strongly disagree with that of course since I'm after reliability first. Commons has already a huge internationalization problem that doesn't encourage its use, so there's no need to add other artificial problems to it. If I just create Category:Betzdorf (Germany) that redirects to Category:Betzdorf and do nothing more, will the latter category magically become a "problem" for you, and consequently for others? — Bjung (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

At en-wiki I strongly prefer linking categories to linking galleries. Even when they exist - and they usually don't - galleries are ill-maintained. They can go years without updates even as tons of good material is flooding in, and for a user who doesn't know how this all works can create the misimpression that four or five photos by one person are all there is on a subject that actually has massive media. - Jmabel ! talk 15:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I get your point, but there are only a small part of the categories that have a real gallery and even in the best possible and maintained gallery, you have to click through to see related child and parent categories anyway. Passing through galleries might motivate people to better document and maintain them.
On the other hand, the vast majority of gallery pages could be simple hard redirects to the related categories so people would even not notice that they passed through a gallery. --Foroa (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Odd categories[edit]

User Skinsmoke in last days created some very strange subcategories of Earth Science, like "Category:Earth sciences in military alliances". Probably he does that in creating some subcategories of United Kingdom usong a bot or something similar. The goal could be nice but in earth sciences the structures are rarely limited to a single country or political organization ;-) Indeed some categorization "by country" is yet active and in develping; that could halp the people who are searching for files usable in general gographic articles. I suggest to move the respective subcategories (where present) in a major one "by country" and purpose the deletion of the odd categories. Is this procedure correct? I have yet discussed with Skinsmoke for another change

I reverted your edit because Earth sciences are not exclusively applied sciences, in the same way as biology isn't an exclusively applied science. Ciaurlec (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for that. I had been trying to avoid over-categorisation, but on second thoughts, I agree with you. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

But some days later he did it again (even if in this case the category is as well findable).

Thanks.Ciaurlec (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Some misunderstanding I guess. I noticed that Skinsmoke finally only adapted Category:Earth sciences to have all categories in an alphabetical order. He seems very meticulous and well organised.
I have been watching some of Skinsmokes category developments and he was indeed struggling to find a proper compromise between a "pure" scientific category tree and a compromise that facilitates finding and navigation using "wider" "grand public" interpretations of category names.
One can notice that some people fill up a category till it overflows so they extend the categorisation depth. Other people need a clear category structure before entering files in it.
Although I agree that items about earth sciences should not necessarily be categorised by location, I think that the recent English geograph.org.uk download of more than a million of files will provide ample examples of (remotely) earth science related artefacts will be possible (at least, I guess that is the idea behind it). Lets watch how it evolves. --Foroa (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Category renaming[edit]

When renaming categories with using SieBot, you replaces the "(" to "," but does not remove the closing bracket ")" (diff, see block about Saint Petersburg). It's wrong because leads to erroneous category name. Please be more careful! --Kaganer (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: I have already corrected manually five categories. --Kaganer (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

PPS: By the way, all these categories have external links that point to them, but you will never fix them ... It is likely that you will be closer to this? --Kaganer (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ;) --Kaganer (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for warning, I have been hurrying too much in an attempt to decrease the backlog. I have a problem with Google Chrome too as it is less precise in pointing (and hence copying) fields. If I make mistakes, don't hesitate to report them, and I will repair as soon as possible.
Concerning the audiofiles, User Jacklee does an excellent job to uniformise a bit of the tens of ways of naming audio/sound files. Unavoidably, there an errors from time to time which we will gladly correct. Thanks for reporting.
Concerning external links, see the ethernal debates starting at #SS Great Britain. --Foroa (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving Category:Mishnah (audio) to Category:Audio files about the Mishnah[edit]

Hi, this move seems mistaken. These files are not lectures about the Mishnah, but rather recordings of the Mishnah by narrators reading the text.

The original title of the category was more appropriate. Dovi (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This question is for the administrator who initiate the renaming (see the warning at the top of the page), in this case - Foroa (see delinker commands). --Kaganer (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
See #Category renaming above. As we had to do previously with paintings, drawings, sculptures, ... once a category grows too large, we have to enforce a systematic naming scheme that is extendible. In your case, we made a mistake, that is now corrected in Category:Audio files of the Mishnah. This category is extendible in the sense of Category:Audio files about the Mishnah, order xxx, Category:Audio files about the Mishnah, tractate xxx, Category:Audio files about the Mishnah by rabbi zzz without having to restructure the naming. --Foroa (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


Naming ship categories[edit]

You stated: "if possible, the year of launch as ship names tend to be reused often as can be seen in Category:ships by name" but in fact it is in most cases the year of completion and only launch if this date cannot be found. On most wikipedia's I found this the practice, as far as I can see only the English use the year of launch. And as we have already a lot of ships renamed in Category:Ships by name, still 500.000 to go? Pfffff. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to collect the info at one place in a hurry, should be corrected by now. --Foroa (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Hi. Could you share the reason for this revert, that you commented neither in the edit summary, not on my talk page? Thanks. guillom 07:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I thought it was obvious. Hiding a file by redirecting it container to another file is not correct. That file ends up in the not used files list. It would be funny when people would start to mask, "hijack" or deviate references to a certain picture towards another. This is of course an excellent method to spam the systems. --Foroa (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, your reasoning wasn't self-evident to me, otherwise I wouldn't have done that. I believe you should have commented your revert anyway. In any case, I didn't hide, mask, hijack or spam anything. Both files were done by me, and one was a new version of the other. I couldn't upload it as a new version, because the file extension was different. In order to avoid future disagreements, I've deleted the older file. guillom 08:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
You are right, I should have been more specific. Typical problem if one spends hours of cleaning work per day. --Foroa (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad name in a church category for patron saint?[edit]

Hi, please excuse my poor English. I wanted to ask a favor because I'm working with patience on the categories for the organized churches and our patron saints, for now at least for the Italian ones, for the dioceses. With the advice of User:DenghiùComm adopted the name of the saint after reading the article in en.wiki from it.wiki and in the case of San Rocco is at Saint Roch, not Saint Rochus. So why was this change made? Thank you for your patience and waiting for your response. :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work. There has been some moving back and forward between Saint Roch and Saint Rochus. I personally would prefer the latin (and more international) version Saint Rochus, but since he is French, Saint Roch seems best. Carry on the good work, I moved already several ones through COM:DL yesterday. --Foroa (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. IMHO the problem is that in this project, there are no guidelines to refer to as WP and should be based on experience. If you are not too much trouble I would feel comfortable if I give you every now and then a look at my work to do to avoid disaster. :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
We have to find the best international compromises indeed. Feel free to discuss. As you can see, my user talk page is free of charge. --Foroa (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Designers of video games[edit]

Hi. The rename of this category you do few month ago is quite anoying. Every body talk about "video game designer" (or shorter, game designer). And all our category Category:People associated with the video game industry is constructed like that : "video game blahblah". Any problem if we rename it back ? Anyway, thanks to create a redirect. Thanks. ~ bayo or talk 08:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look in Category:Product designers you might see, that all designers evolved from "xxx designers" into "designers of xxx. The first form is the natural form to start with, the second one is the form in which most large categories end in (as did paintings of, sculptures of, drawings of, charts of ...) why this form is the Commons standard: Topic followed by qualifiers. The latter being a much more extensible syntax. You will see that within one or two years, as your category system will expand, you will see categories like "actors/musicians/artists of video games in /such a style/such an era/such a technology". I can understand that this is annoying when departing into a more flexible and extensible naming style, but I can guarantee you that one day, you will agree that this is the best long term solution.--Foroa (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Km long file names[edit]

Hi Foroa. What do you think about this ? Saluti cari, --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The very large majority of the file renames are a complete waste of time and resources, while a lot of renames are not delinked properly anyway. But I gave up discussing that and wasting my time on that. You are right that the proper description and categorisation matters, after all we don't care if they are in Russian or Chinese neither. --Foroa (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Municipalities of the Netherlands[edit]

Hoi Foroa, wat ben je allemaal aan het doen? Lijkt me niet echt de correcte naamgeving. Zou je niet eerst even overleggen? Multichill (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming consistency in various locality organisations Category:Cities and villages, especially cities in, municipalities in and "cities and municipalities in".
To display all subcategories, click on the "►".

--:For example in ;Category:Cities and municipalities in the Philippines, one cannot say, cities are "xxx in yyy" and municipalities are "xxx of yyy. See removed discussion here.Foroa (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Fürstenau[edit]

Hi. You just reverted my change of "category:Fürstenau (Lower Saxony)" to "category:Fürstenau" without any comment. Can you understand my explanation on Category talk:Fürstenau (copied here) in German or should I translate it into English for you??? Btw, feel free to write in Dutch, if you like, but as your German, my Dutch is too rusted to write it.

ThomasPusch (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No need for translation. On Commons there is no notion of priority as we have luckily on most wikipedias as you can see now in category:Fürstenau. If me move categories to avoid ambiguity, we do that with a very good reason, so no need to revert our work. --Foroa (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, but then, according to other commons categories about german towns, the category should at least be labelled "Category:Fürstenau (Niedersachsen)", not "Category:Fürstenau (Lower Saxony)" (as, e.g., Category:Berge (Niedersachsen)) - as the region's official language is German, not English (if not, we could even consider misspelling it "Furstenau"). But: In fact I do often meet commons categories of which one is specified and the other is not - some of a big bunch of examples would be Category:Damme in Belgium and Category:Damme (Dümmer) in Germany, Category:Essen, Category:Essen (Oldenburg) and Category:Essen (Belgium), or Category:Freiburg and Category:Freiburg/Elbe. In my humble opinion, that's no problem and there's no need to revert all those examples. --ThomasPusch (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Commons needs an international category system that avoids wrong categorisation errors. While for you Essen might be the most important Essen, that might be different in another country perspective. As one can see in de:Essen (Begriffsklärung), Essen can mean many things, while it is a verb in German. But it could have another special meaning in other languages too. Maybe, we will discover that it is the name of the capital of an ancient Zulu or Russian culture with plenty of findings, just to name a possibility. Most non-disambiguated category names are created on a first come first served base, often because they have the most wikipedia or medium coverage. This is a historical mistake that will be slowly ironed out as we notice problems because of mixing ups of categories. On the other hand, the more we wait, the more work it needs to rename category structures, but in the (very) long end, they will be changed. My guess is that 10 to 25 % of categorisation work in Germany is done by non-Germans, so an international naming system is unavoidable.
Another kind of weird situation is that all category names should use the prevalent English name for category names. As one can see in Category:Municipalities in Lower Saxony, Lower Saxony is the used term here, so subcats should follow the standard of the parents. Problem is that exonyms are slowly disappearing, so in the (very) long run Cologne will become Köln again, Rome become Roma, Florence become Firenze, ... but that will need 10 to 20 years.
If you are unhappy with a certain name, you can place a {{Move}} template on the category or issue a COM:CFD, but those things can take a long time. Anyway, consistency with parent category naming tend to prevail. --Foroa (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Scottish words[edit]

Hi there, just wanted to say that I'm happy with the moves of "Category:Pronunciation of Scottish place names" to "Category:Pronunciation of names of places in Scotland" and "Category:Pronunciation of place names in Fife" to "Category:Pronunciation of names of places in Fife" but think the original category was preferable for the word makar in "Category:Pronunciation of Scottish words" as opposed to "Category:Scottish English pronunciation". That said, it was probably hard to ascertain the intention of the said category with, so far, a solitary file in it.

I have been recording a generality of potentially tricky pronunciations pertinent to Scotland and initially have largely been concentrating on place names and to a lesser degree surnames, in their own categories. Since I started doing this, I've been noting any words that I've heard mispronounced and having heard "makar" mispronounced as "maker" and also with the emphasis incorrectly on the second syllable, I decided to add it. The reason I chose for it the category title "Pronunciation of Scottish words", conscious that there would probably be future additions, was to encompass words that are peculiarly Scottish in origin or use and unfamiliar to non-Scots (and possibly even to Scots as well). The term is Scots in origin, not Scottish English although it may be used in the latter, effectively as a loan word. It is no more Scottish English than the Scottish placenames, used as they are in English but deriving from Gaelic, Pictic, Norse etc.. That is one problem with the new category but also it is redundant since it implies that the term would be pronounced differently in other, non-Scottish, forms of English, whereas it simply doesn't exist in them. I've removed "makar" from "Scottish English pronunciation" for now. With the above explanation would you consent to move it back to "Category:Pronunciation of Scottish words" or can you think of a more apt category title? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am merely executing move requests issued by User:Jacklee who did a much needed and marvellous restructuring job in the top level pronunciation and sound structures. I guess that we will need indeed deeper English Scottish/Gaelic/Pictic/... categories, but you better take that up with [User:Jacklee]] or just create additional categories as example and discuss them. All categories start small, so no problems for creating a category (that take a few hundreds of bytes or so) to encapsulate images or sound using several MBytes. --Foroa (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Per the re-structuring, "Scots Pronunciation" might be more consistent then. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Flat lists[edit]

Hi Foroa. I saw that it was necessary to create the Category:Categories by condition (flat list). Month ago I asked Rocket000 if he can do it; but Rocket000 doesn't work on Commons since last november. So today I do it (quite 100 categories). I hope that it's ok... I'm not sure... But now there is something...! ; - ) Now I see that there is another important flat list to do, Category:Categories by material (flat list) (quite 320 categories!). Is there a better (and quicklier!) way to create it, that not to open each category? Can you help me? Perhaps you have a bot or something similar to do this in a easier manner? Different way I do it; but it's a big lost of time...! Thank you very much for your answer. Nice evening, --DenghiùComm (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Never add flat list categories your self. The metacat template should do it. Should be building up and be completed before tonight. --Foroa (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Good to know for the next time. Thank you so much for your help! Have a nice time in this Easter ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Popular Science Monthly image categories[edit]

Thanks for moving to the main namespace the categories assigned to the uploaded images. Ineuw talk page on en.ws 01:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect[edit]

Why do you do this redirect [4]? --Xavigivax (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess, now Category:Flix is complete and self-explanatory. --Foroa 22:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you very much. Riconks (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam Combat Artists Program images[edit]

I have been helping the artists that participated in the U.S. Army Vietnam Combat Artists Program upload the images they created to Wikimedia Commons for use in Wikipedia articles about the program, the artists, and the subjects of their art created to document U.S. military activities during the Vietnam War. However, I noticed that after I spent a great deal of time adding appropriate categories to the images, all but one of my categories was removed on each image. How are Wikimedia Commons users going to find the images to use for illustrations in other related topics if an image has only one category? Example: A painting of a U.S. soldier dressed in a Vietnam Era field uniform standing in elephant grass on a landing zone with a helicopter in the background was categorized as U.S. Army, Vietnam War, Helicopters in Art, Vietnam Combat Artists Program, the name of the artist, War art, Military artists, and Warfare of the Modern Era, all directly related to the image contents or its representation of the work of a U.S. Army program and a particular artist. All of the categories were subsequently removed except Vietnam Combat Artists Program. I had created a Wikipedia bio for one of the artists who has gone on to become an internationally recognized artist and his group of images had all categories removed except his name. The problem with this edit is that when I created a link badge for all Vietnam Combat Artists Program images on Wikimedia Commons to add to the Wikipedia article about the Vietnam Combat Artists Program, none of his images were included when the badge was clicked.

I have spent several decades as a database designer and programmer and have extensive experience tagging images for search and retrieval so I was baffled by these inexplicable category edits as I didn't see any other mechanism to use on Wikimedia Commons to make the images searchable for multiple uses. You provided a link to a discussion of the proper use of categories on my talk page and I have read it. However, placing only the lowest level of category on an image seems to me to assume that people searching for images on Wikimedia Commons would need to know the tree structure of each subcategory to find suitable images. This requirement to explore an entire tree structure to find the lowest level of category also seems to be unnecessarily time consuming for media contributors as well. It also appears that administrative effort required to constantly examine category assignments to new media additions is also time consuming. On Wikipedia, the category information is augmented by keyword searches of the article content so category assignment is less critical but on Wikimedia Commons there is little other content to facilitate search and retrieval except the image description which in many cases is often terse. I would suggest that a keyword field be added if the rather stilted category assignment process is maintained in its current form. Keyword tags have been extremely successful on Flickr and are certainly much less cumbersome to administer and, in my opinion as both a contributor and media user, are far more effective at facilitating search than the category system on Wikimedia Commons. Mharrsch 17:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Great to see that you understand that Commons is not a tagged system but a hierarchical system. We already made several suggestions to add tags to commons, but a s asecondary filter. I feel that the current (sub) categorisation is the only long term solution. Try to find for example things with the current search engine that supports some sort of keywords. You will see that results are getting pretty much undersnowed by the sheer volume of hits. But no matter what system one uses, without a proper description, they will become next to useless. The fact that we put images in categories augments significantly the (terse) description. --Foroa 18:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I did a check related to keywords you wanted to add. Using the keywords you wanted to add, you get exactly the category you wanted, no noise. Using the same without category, the same but under snowed by all sorts of noise. --Foroa (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess as a publisher I have always found it easier and faster (at least for me) to visually scan image search results rather than have to read and pick through category links. However, until a tag field is added I will try to work with categories as I have tried to understand them. Under the War art category there is a subcategory for collections. Would it be proper for me to add the U.S. Army Center for Military History under that subcategory then the Vietnam Combat Artists Program as a subcategory under it?

I have viewed other category pages like the Category:United States Army in edit view but don't see how to add a subcategory link to a page like that. Could you explain the process?

Mharrsch (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
As an example, I added Category:US Army Center of Military History Photographs to Category:Vietnam Combat Artists Program, so you can see in the history (diffs) what happened. I dont' think this category is right as the images are not issued by the center. [:Category:Vietnam Combat Artists Program]] is already a subcategory of Category:War in art, so it makes no sense whatsoever to add Category:US Army Center of Military History Photographs to it (besides being no art).
If you look into Category:Vietnam Combat Artists Program, you have a visualisation of all images contained in the category. When you use catscan (last tab to the right, after CC, Map, autodelete) you can visualise all images in the category and its sub categories.
Sorry, for us the category system looks simple and easy, but I understand that for a newcomer, it is not that easy. I appreciate your effort to get a better grasp of it. --Foroa (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Today, in an effort to separate military images from post military images produced by participants in the Vietnam Combat Artists Program, I removed the category Vietnam Combat Art Program from the three artists who now have an individual category and instead placed their individual name category as subcategories under the parent category Artists from the United States. Then I placed the Vietnam Combat Artists Program as a category on each individual military image instead. This makes all military program images from the Center for Military History show up directly under the Vietnam Combat Artists Program Category as a visual contact sheet and without displaying any images produced by specific artists later in life as civilians. Their named subcategory under Artists from the United States properly shows both military and civilian work. I think this is a far cleaner way to accomplish what I am trying to do than to create two more subcategories under the artist's name for civilian and military work. I also see no reason why there has to be any subcategories under the Vietnam Combat Artists Program Category since it is already under the parent Categories War Art and United States Army. Therefore, I reverted your change to put James Pollock (artist) as a subcategory back under Vietnam Combat Artists Program. Please do not change it back again. Mharrsch (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As you wish. But sooner or later, as Category:Vietnam Combat Artists Program fills up, someone will "help" to bring structure in it and might align the structure as the one on en:wikipedia. --Foroa (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Velas (town)[edit]

Hello Foroa, why did you deleted this category, after I recreated it asking explicitly for it to be kept, since it's a much more clearer designation than the new one? Not to mention that this category change was not consensual, as many others lately done by that user, such as moving every "freguesia" to parish, something that is not correct and creates confusion. Please recreate the category as redirect, at least, it's a useful redirect for the new rather obscure designation of "Velas (Velas)".--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, corrected by now. --Foroa (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have asked him to refrain from doing those cat renames without a proper debate on this issue, but now and then they still happen.--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

BNF[edit]

The letters BNF means that the manuscript is in National Bibl. of France. This one is not: this is my own mistake during creation of cat. In source wasn't the place of conservation at all, exept one in National Library of Congress. Current name is "place+language+code in the library" - it is the standart type of naming of manuscripts, see Category:Bodleian Library manuscripts. Letters BNF should be removed 'cos there is no sources that manuscript is in BNF.Shakko (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, my problem was related to the name of the destination category name, which is solved by now. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Category deletion question[edit]

Hi, just wondering what was "improperly named" about Category:Churches of Our Lady, Star of the Sea by country etc. en:Our Lady of the Snows (liturgical feast) and en:Our Lady, Star of the Sea show that the two titles are rather different, so churches dedicated to "Our Lady Star of the Sea" really ought not to be mixed up with the "of the Snows" churches as they now are in Category:Our Lady of the Snow churches by country. Regards, Bencherlite (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing. A clear mistake, corrected by now in Category:Our Lady, Star of the Sea churches by country. --Foroa (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it so quickly. Regards, Bencherlite (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Vehicles by city (flat list)[edit]

Hi Foroa. Please, what do you think about this category? Can we call it "flat list"? It seems to be out of standard of all other flat lists... I think that the name must be simply "Category:Vehicles by city", but there is yet this category... Cheers, --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed wrong. Flat lists ought to be generated by the Meta cat template only as otherwise, there is no guarantee that the list will remain "flat". Maybe add a {{Move}} to it. I will try anyway to remove all manually inserted flat lists everywhere in the coming weeks. --Foroa (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason is that I created it (always good to ask the creator) is that it is supposed to collect ALL "Vehicles by city" categories that exist, DISTINCT from a "Vehicles by city by country" subcategorisation where they would all be divided up by countries. If it doesn't quite mesh with your idea of the flat list idea, please still consider the use. Ingolfson (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Why I asked to add a {{Move}} template, so you would be informed.
It makes no sense to create that cat while then, the natural destination Category:Vehicles by city is nearly empty. Making things more complex without apparent gain. And as stated, the confusion with the other autogenerated "xxx (flat list)" categories. --Foroa (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done {{Move}}. --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Copy of the upper discussion in Category talk:Vehicles by city (flat list) --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be eavesdropping, but this is an interesting discussion. I see what Ingolfson is trying to achieve (and I'm guilty of the same - Category:Monuments and memorials by city (flat list)). I see a tremendous value in categories that contain subcats simply by city, with no intervening country categories. If not a flat list, how else to achieve that? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in this. We have a lot of categories of different objects by city. If you look e.g. at this category, you will see that where the category by country exist, you will find the category by city there; where it doesn't exist, the city category remains in the generic object category by city. In our example, there aren't the categories Art of Germany or of Belgium by city; so the categories of art in belgian and german cities stay in the generic category "Art by city". So it's not necessary to call the object category by city flat list ! When you have enough categories by city of the same country, you can create the category of that country by city. So simple! But all this is not a flat list: it's a category by city with a subcategory by country by city. That's all. --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
That's not a satisfactory solution at all, and doesn't help someone who wants to see contents organized by city without intervening country categories. The point I was making about is that there needs to be a vehicle where contents can exist in a category organized solely by city. Your response doesn't respond to that issue. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand why the answer from User:DenghiùComm does not answer the basic needs.
An often recurring problem indeed is that people, whenever they see 10 or 15 categories, they want to absolutely create a deeper categorisation, which makes people loose oversight and make them create all sorts of sides categories such as "xx by name" or "xxx (flat list)".
In the case of Category:Vehicles by city and Category:Monuments and memorials by city, they are virtually empty with the exceptions of "by country" and "... by city (flat list)" side categories, there is no reason not to add the real categories that correspond to the "by city" category name. Because there is the "... by country" side category, people should not be tempted to categorise it deeper "by country" as it already exists.
And say for your self, the categories Category:Vehicles by city and Category:Monuments and memorials by city look pretty ridiculous as they stand now, what is the benefit of going through yet another meta category (remember too that we prefer to reserve flat lists for template generated meta categories). --Foroa (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
User:DenghiùComm simply explained to me how by country by city categories work, which I already understood and doesn't at all address the point I was making. While I agree with you that an extra layer of category is ideally to be avoided, no one has suggested a solution to the issue I raised above. Thus, the extra layer of category seems like the necessary evil, unless someone can point me to a better way. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
As far as I understand it, this corresponds with your requirement that the "xx by city" categories are a vehicle where contents can exist in a category organized solely by city, with the exception of one meta category at the top. --Foroa (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Until someone decides it's a violation of COM:OVERCAT and removes all the subcats that are already in a by country by city category, which is exactly the scenario User:DenghiùComm, trying to be helpful, described above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, I don't expect you to solve the problem. I am just identifying it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that your interpretation of COM:OVERCAT is too restrictive; this applies only for categories that are in the same category tree. The fact is that there is a meta category (by country) that starts another category tree. As you see in Category:Art by city, this really works (and in several other cases in Category:Categories by city (flat list)). But no matter what category you want, you will encounter overcat hunters that find that everything should really be separated down to the deepest possible categorisation, although this problem has become fairly reasonable last year. It is important that it is properly documented in the category. --Foroa (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) {{Metacat}} has been modified so now all "automatic" Category:Flat categories are empty so virtually deleted. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Flat categories. --Foroa (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I disagree with you that I am interpreting COM:OVERCAT too restrictively (the two categories in question are in the same tree). Having said that, I do completely agree with you that COM:OVERCAT should not be strictly imposed in all cases -- there are some circumstances where it makes sense not to follow it to the letter. The problem is, however, how to manage it. Even if we agree that Category:Monuments and memorials in Amsterdam can simultaneously be placed in Category:Monuments and memorials in the Netherlands by city and Category:Monuments and memorials by city, it would be very difficult to stop people from removing the latter parent category with Hotcat. Category:Art by city is a perfect example of how it doesn't work, and is precisely the scenario I am trying to avoid. While I am agreeable that a flat list may not be a great solution, I am still struggling to come up with an alternative. Sigh. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Basically you are confirming that going through a "xx by yy" cat, we are in another tree, and overcat is no longer applicable. But I think that the basic problem is that most people feel one should always categorize deeper and deeper, while your by city categories are going wider and wider. So it is not the name of the category that is going to change the people's attitude. To be honest, I don't think that those by city categories are going to last long time. First, there is no worldwide definition of cities (In Belgium it is a honorary title with cities down to 1000 inhabitants) and secondly, when they would really catch on, you would soon have categories with several thousands of cities, so people will be tempted to subcategorise. --Foroa (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Castellers[edit]

Before we create "Category:Colles castelleres" or "Category:Casteller teams" I would like the hear your opinion here: [5]. --Jordiferrer (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Milford[edit]

Bit of a cross-over on "Milford", but all good. I assume the way you placed them will work for the categorisation java tools, like HotCat? That was mainly what I was unsuccessfully trying to get to do. Ingolfson (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

{{Disambig}} should only contain forward references (otherwise it is flagged for maintenance). While the backlinking as you did might to seem more natural, then we have a problem of HotCat and where to connect Milton as parent cat. --Foroa (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it works now. I mean I wasn't TRYING to do it wrong... Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Pahonia[edit]

Hello. I would very much appreciate, if you could summarize this request or recommend any person, who could do it. I suppose there was enough time for all interested parties. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done mainly by Wizardist. --Foroa (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Gardens and parks[edit]

Please, could you give a link to discussion on grounds whereof you moved many categories from the prevalent form "Parks and gardens" back to "Gardens and parks"? I think, it's not useful to make such massive action without discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

9:39 you proposed massive moves without any previous discussion, 9:42 you started to proceed them. Do you mean, 3 minutes and no discussion are sufficient time for such massive and controversial moves? Especially when you can see that all previous moves and proposals were in the opposite direction? --ŠJů (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, we have been working very hard to reduce the {{move}} backlog (reduced with 400 to 500 items last weeks). We have to appreciate the fact that more people are doing very good work in that department since several weeks. Whenever one starts moving the order in category names, suddenly people check more and you get a lot of additional move requests, so such changes better go fast to avoid unnecesary additional or "stale" {{Move}} requests.
Anyway, it started of with this request that I turned down.
When I checked Category:Gardens and parks , I noticed indeed that about 25 to 30 % of the cats were rather "Gardens and parks", the rest "parks and gardens" (and variants). On the other hand, I noticed that in the "Garden and parks" subcats, gardens was very much dominant in the subcategory names. My experience shows that for multi-name categories, an alphabetical order tends to generate less errors. So I decided to go as quick as possible for harmonisation towards the "Gardens and parks" variant as the best long term solution, despite some additional work. --Foroa (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I think, the alphabetical order can be a good solution in case of equivalent terms (colours, countries etc.) but in case of more complicated relation, some better reasoned criteria should be applied. In this case, both forms are acceptable and both have their reasons to be preferred – in such cases, generally, the prevalent form should be preferred. What is irritative is that some time ago (August 2010?), all these categories were unified to the prevalent form "parks and gardens", and now, all is moved back to "gardens and parks". --ŠJů (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
P. S. - "Monuments and memorials" is also not in alphabetical order but I hope, we will not change it. --ŠJů (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
For "Monuments and memorials", I have been thinking on it when the massive move started suddenly (I thought that the discussion would drag on for longer and hoping that they would converge to a single word category (a new word or either memorial or monument, with the other redirecting to it). So it was too late. Anyway, both words start with a M, the en:wiki uses the same order and there seemed already an established "Monuments and memorials" base. Gardens and parks involved only a 80 or so extra moves. --Foroa (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ischa1 DRs[edit]

Hi, I was looking at a number of incomplete deletion requests (File:KlaasvanKruistumJWF10mei2009.jpg, File:JouwWeekendFinaleStudioOp100509.jpg, File:DeHeideTuinVanDriebergen2008.png) from User:Ischa1 (nl Ischa1), it appears that he has owned up to uploading photos which aren't his, and left the project - eg his post User_talk:Multichill/Archives/2011/February#Grote_schoonmaak but as I have to use google to translate all the relevant postings it is quite slow for me to be sure what I am looking at. He apparently also claims to be User:Trojan [6]. If I understand correctly we should also delete the first uploaded revision of File:Kaiteriteri_strand.jpg. Perhaps there is other material too. Are you able to check this out and maybe post a bulk deletion request instead of completing the individual requests? Any suggestions would be welcome :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, User:Ischa1 downloaded a number of pictures that have been made by his father (or by a friend with his camera), so he wants to be clean and marked such (some/all ?) pictures for deletion. In fact, all pictures that are not taken with a Samsung camera are not his pictures. I have no experience with mass deletes, but I would say; lets delete his 4 or 5 pictures that have an outstanding incomplete deletion request. He looks honest and when I did a few spot checks and I did not find any recent others that should be deleted but several in the older pictures. On the other hand, as User:Trojan he submitted several pictures that are not his own (no Samsung). No real idea how to clean that out quickly. By the end of the week, I might find some time to go through the list, but that seems pretty time consuming, while I am mainly active in the Category department. When looking further down, many pictures have been loaded by a bot ([7]) so really no idea how to handle that quickly, for user Trojan, it is even more difficult to find. Maybe bot work to create the mass delete request or list (user:Ischa1 AND NOT Samsung AND Jpg files) and then verify the list manually ?. --Foroa (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try look at that again soon, let me know if you make any progress in the mean time :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

I'm not 100% certain what you were trying to do to the rename template, but now it's broken. I'm also not sure whether I should just revert your changes wholesale or what, so... you fix it, please. DS (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The template {{Rename}} is broken. I don't know what you did to it but please fix it as soon as possible. If you can not fix it, then revert you changes. /Kemikungen (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Should be fixed by now. Sorry about that. Rename should not be used for category renaming (as documented) as SieBot don't recognize the {{Rename}} template. --Foroa (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the fix. It works now. /Kemikungen (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Massive category move request[edit]

Hi Foroa, could you move all the categories starting with or containing "Intérieur de" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&redirs=0&search=Category%3AInt%C3%A9rieur&limit=250&offset=0) to "Interior of"? Thank you very much! --Edelseider (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Special:Search/intitle:Category:Intérieur or Special:Search/intitle:Category:"Interieur de" might be more selective. Might be a bit controversial. It takes quite some work but I will have a look within a couple of days. In the mean time, you could try to compile a list (I am using excel for that) to generate a list in a {{Move|sourrce|Destination}} form ans submit it to COM:DL. --Foroa (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done - a first big bunch, at least. More soon. Thank you! --Edelseider (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just added another dozen of categories. Once you have moved all of them, I'll add those that remain. Thank you, --Edelseider (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I've now added what remains. --Edelseider (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Flat lists 2[edit]

Hi Foroa. What do you think about this emptying and destruction of Flat Lists by Martin H. ? Made without a discusson about the seasonableness of this intervention! Flat lists are so important for management of categories ! Now it will be more difficult to work for organize, to order, to find mistakes, and to made consistency in our categories. I think that such actions discourage to work more in this area. Working for consistency of categories is yet enough difficult; now it will be much more difficult! Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

See bottom of #Category:Vehicles by city (flat list) above. This is a useful set of cats for maintenance, I use them almost daily. If he wants to delete a series of maintenance cats that are there for 18 months without a valid reason, he has to make a deletion request. I will clean out the manual ones first. Of course, if I am the only one to protest, it might getting difficult. --Foroa (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry ! I don't knew that there was a discussion about flat lists....! An "old" discussion ! What can we do now? To wait that there is a deletion request? However these "tools" are now seriously damaged completely empty... In fact destroyed ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
{{Metacat}} has been modified so now all "automatic" Category:Flat categories are empty so virtually deleted. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Flat categories. Can be all restored just by restoring template, but I want to clear out the "manual" metacats first. --Foroa (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A new set of categories to move now[edit]

I've listed them all at the usual place... Cheers, --Edelseider (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! New request added. I'm being sick of all the disorder, as you see... --Edelseider (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Warning. Cleaning up here can be come an addiction. There is no medicine against it, except maybe sleepless nights. --Foroa (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, I've seen Magnum Force twice ("a man's gotta know his limitations"). --Edelseider (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


Hyphenation Notre-Dame-de ..[edit]

It looks like "Notre-Dame-de-xxx" is the prevailing notation but I am not sure. --Foroa (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so but I've restricted myself on the smaller category of "Notre-Dame-de-l'Assomption" churches.--Edelseider (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What in your opinion the best name in the Category:Rail transport video files?[edit]

Hi, after adding a new video in the macro-category I realized that is growing exponentially. In your opinion could be introduced as a sub-category to avoid becoming too crowded? I see that the category was created for the United States of America but even in my poor English I am not sure of its grammatical correctness. What do you think? Thank you for your attention and excuse my poor English.--Threecharlie (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Good observation. Well, as we have seen with paintings, drawings, ... when it is getting too much crowded, video related categories will be eventually (=finally) named as most other categories. While Category:Videos by subject is still according the old fashion, Category:Videos by country is already according to Commons naming standards. In the end, we will need something like for example: "videos of old trams in Category:Streets in Rione XVIII - Castro Pretorio", not "Roman Rione XVIII - Castro Pretorio old tram street videos". --Foroa (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Echt[edit]

Hello, Foroa, can you move all present items in Category:Echt to Category:Echt, Aberdeenshire, my cat-a-lot doesn't work here. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Suspected promotional image[edit]

Hi Foroa, I want to show to your attention this image, it appears to be a screenshot from a website with promotional content. The description itself says: "Portal with infos, photos and descriptions about the territory of Lake Garda, Trento, Verona, Brescia and Mantua". I think it doesn't meet the requirements for Commons, but I'm not sure, so I'm asking you some advice. What do you think? And how should I act in case it needs to be deleted? Thank you in advance, best regards! --- Vonvikken (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Tony Wills added {{Screenshot}} as it shows Google maps, which is not free. This avoids the trouble of verifying if the screenshot as such is free. Anyway, I don't think that such images are encyclopedic (one could generate millions like this) and it is indeed promotional. --Foroa (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your attention! Regards! -- Vonvikken (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

{{Uncategorized}}[edit]

Thanks If the special page is regularly monitored, then why does the template exist? Koavf (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering too. Those special pages Uncategorized categories, Uncategorized files and

Uncategorized galleries are indeed monitored and rarely exceed 100 items (used to contain thousands). Template is probably used for badly categorised items and for which blanking (discouraged) is not a good option neither. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The template is added by bots to files that are only categorised in license categories or other maintenance categories. Those files have categories so they are not listed at Special:Uncategorizedfiles. But such categories are not very useful when searching, therefor the files still needs categories that describe the file conten. /Ö 18:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not fix the Wikipedia links before deleting?[edit]

Imagine this scenario: you are one of millions of people who have never edited Wikipedia, and never plan to. You hear about the Lorenzo Monaco painting, Adoration of the Magi. You go to the English Wikipedia to read about the painting. Ah, you see there is further information at a link at the bottom. You click on the link and end up at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Adorazione_dei_Magi_%28Lorenzo_Monaco%29. What the heck does that mean? Show/hide Foroa Contribs Unused implausible ---- what?! God forbid you don't even read English!

I know what that means, you know what that means. Millions and millions of other people have no earthly idea what that message means. Millions of them don't read English and really have no idea what that message means. Would it have been so difficult to just fix the en.wp link? Wknight94 talk 12:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I should try to do better in replacing the destination category, next time, I'll check what is feasible. Normally, I repair redirects that translate from another language. Indeed, Category:Adoration of the Magi (Lorenzo Monaco) was moved recently to Category:Adoration of the Magi by Lorenzo Monaco.
It took me several minutes to find out that Category:Adorazione dei Magi (Lorenzo Monaco) was referenced by en:Adoration of the Magi (Lorenzo Monaco) till a couple of days ago. After some more searching, I found that It:Adorazione dei Magi (Lorenzo Monaco) refers to Category:Adoration of the Magi (Lorenzo Monaco), so no real problem there as they can click on the link. I have no way of finding out if this category is referred to by other wikipedias. Now I have a number of questions.
Why you created a couple of months ago the redirect in Category:Adorazione dei Magi (Lorenzo Monaco) in stead of simply fixing the commonscat link in en:Adoration of the Magi (Lorenzo Monaco) ?
How could I find quickly the link to referencing sites such as en:Adoration of the Magi (Lorenzo Monaco) and It:Adorazione dei Magi (Lorenzo Monaco) ?
Why should I fix the en.wp link, while you don't bother to do so ? I can understand that the en:wiki is the most important to you.
Would it not be much simpler to run on a regular basis a bot on the en:wikipedia that checks the commons cat references and corrects them as they do on the German wiki ? --Foroa (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I created a redirect a couple months ago so then I wouldn't need to find or fix any of the incoming links. When you redirect, everything still links fine - just takes one extra step. When you delete, the linkage is broken, and inexperienced users may never be able to re-link them. (What happens for the millions of non-logged-in non-English users? Are they shown English by default? If so, they won't even understand the message they see at Category:Adorazione dei Magi (Lorenzo Monaco)).
I don't know how you quickly find links to referencing sites. I slowly found them by clicking each of the interwiki links individually. My latest approach is that if I only find one broken link, I will fix it on the Wikipedia side - if I find several, I just create a soft redirect and move on.
Which interwiki links in this case ? --Foroa (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I did fix the en.wp link this morning (my time). I only left it unfixed for a while so you could see it.
If someone is willing and able to create a bot to fix such links - on en.wp and elsewhere - that would be fantastic. If I find the time, maybe I will try making one. I wasn't aware one existed on de.wp. Does it even interpret deletion messages on Commons? Wknight94 talk 18:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Look around on this one: de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Interwikilinks/Commonslinks that maintains a list of proposed commonscats (a lot of people create commonscats or interwikis as they "think" it should be).
User:MerlBot maintains some of it. I think that I have seen somewhere a changed commonscat logger bot, but I cannot find it anymore. User Merlissimo has several bots running here, some of them doing fairly good work in IW updates. No matter how, in the first place, you need a detector of invalid commonscat links. While doing that, detecting and replacing redirects should not be that difficult, it happens all the time. Extracting destination categories from the edit summary might be less common, but not impossible according to Multichill. --Foroa (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
On your side, en:User:RussBot might be a good starting point. --Foroa (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of redirected categories[edit]

Hello Foroa, I've seen that you've uncategorized some of the carriage redirects I've created. I'm not sure that should have been done. I recall seeing somewhere that redirects can be categorized on some instances. This happens either in the En-wiki and my home wiki, pt-wiki, and I recall seeing something about it here on Commons too. The reason I categorized those redirects, to start with, was to provide a way to categorize carriages down the tree using the various names they had, which were many and ill defined in many cases. If you remove the redirects, you'll be removing that functionality. I really don't see the problem with categorizing the redirects in those situations, and I see many advantages on that.--- Darwin Ahoy! 19:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, I have missed that line in the template. I've taken it to the Village Pump to check the community opinion on the subject, in case you are interested. Cheers,--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Please, Foroa, don't remove the cat from the carriage redirects, I've now turned it into a maintenance hidden category, so there should be no problem.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Town_halls_in_Piedmont[edit]

If I understand you mean that a correct metacategory name should be Town halls in Piedmont by province; is it correct? --F Ceragioli (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Technically, you are right. But the basic idea is that there is a higher level category that can contain items related to Town halls in Piedmont, such as history, maintenance, architectural tendencies, prevalent styles, organisations ... of town halls in Piedmont. So bots can categorise items properly without having the intelligence to split it up per province if possible at all. --Foroa (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ö contributes...[edit]

Simply see User_talk:Ö#Why.3F.3F.3F. For me is simply a POV and a vandalism.--Threecharlie (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed a POV of categorisation school that "x by y" meta categories should only be created when the parent category is crowded. On your side, you defend the idea for clear and uniform structures that are filled up gradually, avoiding the need to restructure all the time. There is no absolute rule nor consensus for the two schools, so I would suggest to carry on. When needed, I'll do a bot move later. --Foroa (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct title for the category[edit]

Hello Foroa. If you have desire and time, enjoyed reading your views in this debate [8]. Thanks.
Ciao Foroa. Se hai voglia e tempo, leggerei volentieri il tuo parere in questa discussione. Grazie.
--Ligabo (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirects allow categorization[edit]

Hello Foroa. Category:Escaut is (an important river) and the French name for Scheldt, which flows in France for a small part. Template:Category redirect does not forbid categorization. I agree that putting files into a redirected category is not allowed, and such categories appear in Category:Non-empty category redirects, but this is not the case here. Jack ma (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The template states "Redirected categories should be empty and not categorised themselves. " as stipulated in renaming categories. I am living 40 km away from De Schelde (its dominant name during 95 % of its flow), which you call Escaut. If we have to categorize for all items all its possible translations, categories will become a greater mess. Please document that in top hat notes, create galleries with that name and/or make an Escaut subcat for the French part. There are rivers that have 5 to 10 different names (Rhine for example). --Foroa (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It says in French : "Note: Cette catégorie doit être vide. Si ce n'est pas le cas, corriger le nom de la catégorie correspondante dans chacun des fichiers. Ce bandeau est destiné aux catégories existantes susceptibles d'être utilisées par erreur à la place de la catégorie correcte. Il ne doit pas être utilisé pour les catégories aux noms mal orthographiés, dont l'utilisation par d'autres contributeurs est peu probable ; celles-ci doivent être marquées ainsi : {{bad name|Category:nom de la catégorie correcte}}." which is the same you mention in English. I understand that a redirected category should be empty, ie. should contain no file. But categorizing them is allowed, I think, just for the name itself. Escaut is a French river name, "Schelde" (or "Scheldt"?) cannot appear in this list, but Escaut. Make "Escaut" a subcat of "Scheldt" ? I'll try... Jack ma (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just made it a subcat; but I am not convinced : Escaut is not only the name of the Scheldt in its French part, but the name of Scheldt in French (like Rhin for Rhine); that's why such a name should appear in the "Rivers of France by name", and also not be restricted to the part in France (or wallon part of Belgium): Scheldt is Escaut. In Dutch you say that de Schelde flows in France. This was the idea... Jack ma (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

In the {{Category redirect}} template, it is mentioned: "Redirected categories should be empty and not categorised themselves." In Commons:Rename a category as well. This is an unfortunate consequence of a single (language) unique category name. In many countries, items have 3 to 5 different names. Categorizing the "translations" creates too much confusion and people move categories all the time because they find that the other official name in the categories are much better. Concerning rivers, we notice that many rivers change name from one country to another, but it remains a problem and only hat notes and galleries alleviate the problem. --Foroa (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Hi Foroa. I apologize if I'm being such an ass; I didn't mean to piss anyone off like that. Like I explained to Jim, the convo there didnt end up that civilized. As I said here, I find the current deletion logs quite unfriendly and overly novel-like for anyone to read. And I am sure you agree with that.

Since these deletion logs are one of the first things a new contributor would come across, I think we should put some serious effort in polishing that up as much as possible. So what I am basically working on is to have a very-summarized easily-to-understand page which the entire log would link to, thus reducing a lot of confusion to the new user, and helping them understand about the current deletion policy in a much more easier and user-friendly way. Till the linking point, I think you have no objections?

I do quite clearly understand that you didn't like the fact that some entries were removed from the dropdown. This was only done because those were the only ones that were accepted at the speedy deletion criteria. As Jim said, changing the dropdown over and over again, before the official CSD policy is established, just heats things up. So as agreed there, we shall proceed with one clean change once the final policy is agreed upon. Of course, if you find COM:CSD missing important criteria (or having extra criteria), please start a discussion at Commons talk:CSD; I'd be glad to join in the talk.

You're a great colleague, and I don't want to work against you. I'd like to work on this side-by-side with civilized and friendly discussions. No sarcasm meant. Rehman 07:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am really shocked by the phrasing that my actions are motivated by my disliking of some changes. I have no time to follow the tens of pages of COM:CSD, the only thing I would expect is some common sense by looking at examples of deleted categories and the related reason. If there is no way to speedy (mostly empty) categories in the style of "Topic of of xxx", "category:category: city somewhere", "City (somewhere", "chinese/japanese/russian text.com", "Shitty holes in USA", "Parrisshes in Nederland", "plastik", ... I have either to stop cleaning the hundreds of categories per week, or just select an empty or any random deletion reason such as out of scope. --Foroa (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, I don't really see missing delete-reasons in the dropdown revision that I saved. For example, all of:
  • "Topic of of xxx"
  • "category:category: city somewhere"
  • "City (somewhere"
  • "chinese/japanese/russian text.com"
  • "Shitty holes in USA"
  • "Parrisshes in Nederland"
  • "plastik"
...can be deleted per C2, if there is a more properly named category already existing. Unless, you are looking for a reason where you could delete a badly named category, even if there is no properly named category of that subject, like "Improperly named category"? Rehman 09:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
"Unless ... ". Are you kidding ? Sorry, but that is what I am using since several years and tried to state at least 5 times.
Most of the time, they are empty and tend to be deleted without having an alternative name (otherwise, I use indeed C2 (Renamed or duplicate category) or "moved to ...." as you can see here (search for improperly). For a newby, it is silly to state "Renamed or duplicate category" without saying what the good name is or if the category name makes no sense, as in the four last examples above (and the first 3 ones too if there is no correct category existing yet). --Foroa (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, split "C3: Improperly named category" from C2. The description of former C2 did mention that "Improperly named categories" could be deleted on this criteria. But guess that was confusing to the readers. Other than establishing the final policy, do you have any other objections on putting up that dropdown? Rehman 14:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems OK now. --Foroa (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Great! Face-smile.svg Then I shall work on the final policy, and roll it out to the final dropdown afterwards. Best, Rehman 12:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Help me please...[edit]

See this Category:Churches in Emilia Romagna by period... is only one of many bad name categories referred at it:Emilia-Romagna (with - between), a region of Italy, not Emilia Romagna (without - between). Can you support a mass rename of those categories? Thanks :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Most are done by now I guess. --Foroa (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Parallax[edit]

¿Why? [[cs:Paralaxa]] is a wrong interwiki, {{cs:Paralaxa}} is right. w:Parallax itself is a concept of w:Astrometry, that category is more specific than Astronomy. Optic and vision are very broad concepts, I believe that including these categories is overcategorization, it is somehow related, but not enough to directly establish that link. Technically speaking, it is not an error, it would be an optical effect of Earth observation products. At the same level as the aberration and precession. I could go on a subcategory of Category:Optics, but I did not realize at that. Metrónomo (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it because parallex is a concept that is much broader than just astronomy to which you tried to reduce it. The optics and vision category might be too wide, and more precise categories should be possible, but you can definitely not reduce it to astronomy: it is a problem/feature that is encountered/exploited in photography, painting, computer graphics, ... --Foroa (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. I regret my view central, is that I am a student of Astronomy and until now was convinced that Parallax is a term unique to astrometry, is that there is a very tight definition that doesn't support its inclusion in other sciences. Then look for the precise categories that should lead removing general. But I totally reverse your inclusion of incorrect interwikis. Isn't the same Category:Paralax as Parallax. What made ​​you want to do otherwise. Metrónomo (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, the concept parallax started its life because of the distance between our eyes, so initially nothing to do with astronomy. I have no idea if paralax is an existing word (not in English as I checked) or has another meaning. But maybe, there should be a split towards a more specialised Category:Parallax (astronomy). Interwiki's can be very faulty, but I have no time to check them one by one. --Foroa (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
In astronomy, parallax is the arc that moves a star other than the Sun after 6 months. But isn't necessary to separate the category, you can leave as is. Notes my recent changes, I'm happy with the result. Metrónomo (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Foto's[edit]

Dank voor het helpen categoriseren van mijn foto's. Ik doe dit nog niet zo lang, heb vandaag weer veel geleerd over het categoriseren op Wiki Commons. Nogmaals heel veel dank. grote klasse! Picasdre (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ik heb jammer genoeg niet veel tijd, ik probeerde je enkel in de goede richting te sturen. Ik zie dat je snel leert. Aarzel vooral niet om veel op categories te klikken en rond te dwalen in het categoriesysteem. En misschien even COM:OVERCAT lezen; ons categoriesysteem is geen "tag based" systeem. Bedankt voor je mooie bijdragen en veel categorieplezier. --Foroa (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Category move[edit]

Hi Foroa, I moved Category:Hokkaido prefecture to Category:Hokkaido because there was no objection against my proposal after two weeks. Would you please tell me why did you revert that move? I believe I have followed the proper way of moving a category, but if I have done anything wrong, I will do the formal proceedings. Thanks, Yasu (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several reasons.
  • There is Category:Hokkaido (dog) so a disambiguation term does not harm.
  • All prefectures in Japan have the prefecture extension, so I see no specific reason to deviate from that de facto standard and make one exception without a valid reason
  • Most (should be all) subcats are using the terms "Hokkaido prefecture", so the move is basically a mass rename request and should go through a COM:CFD.
Japan has one of the best and most systematic category naming system in the Commons world that almost never creates problems, so lets keep it like that. --Foroa (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay then, I will go through COM:CFD. You are welcome to the discussion. Regards, Yasu (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Reminder on edit summaries[edit]

Foroa,

Please try to be more careful in your edit summaries:

  • If you delete other user's contribution, attempt to leave an accurate explanation of the deletion. If the default reason isn't correct, make sure to replace it with a correct one. If you use tools/scripts to delete, it's your responsability to make sure the summaries it leaves are accurate. The other day, we had a had lengthy discussion of one of your deletions on COM:UNDEL solely because the your deletion summary was incorrect.
  • If you revert other users, please make sure to leave an explanation, preferably in your edit summary. Reverting other users without an explanation may be considered vandalism.

Regards. --  Docu  at 05:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleting a category redirect by stating that the contents has/should be moved to another specified cat is correct.
You know very well that there is no consensus to delete (by redirecting it) sparsely populated galleries; if we keep deleting them, we will kill each initiative to create them. I have undone hundreds of such attempts from you. So a revert from your deletion attempt shows clearly that I disagree with it, I don't think that additional summary texts such as "disagree with last change" will make that much clearer, but in the future, I will make a specific summary. --Foroa (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Foroa,
The undeletion discussion I was referring to is Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-05#:Category:Blouse. Your edit summary mislead myself and several administrators.
Writing "[A] moved to [B]" is not "stating that the contents has/should be moved to another specified cat".
As administrator, we expect you to attempt to explain your edits in terms of Commons guidelines. Merely stating that you don't agree with the current consensus is not sufficient. BTW, as deletions can only be done by administrators, please avoid the term when discussing my edits. --  Docu  at 06:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC) (edited)

Category:Ghent[edit]

Hello, Foroa from Belgium, in the Category:Ghent the Category:Parks in Gent and Category:People of Gent are not renamed as ...in Ghent. Should they, or not, be renamed? Greetings --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, they are there since 3 years. Feel free. --Foroa (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump#Commons:Category_structure[edit]

FYI, it was suggested you might be interested in Commons:Village_pump#Commons:Category_structure. cheers, Rd232 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

well actually you already commented :) but I'd appreciate more input. Rd232 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Masonic buildings[edit]

From Deletion log; 17:16 . . Foroa (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Masonic buildings" (Moved to Category:Masonic buildings by country.) So what should someone now do if they have an image of a Masonic building but don't know what country it is in, or wish to break down Masonic buildings according to some category other than geography (e.g by order of Masonry)? Seems to me that the supercategory should remain. Also, it makes this very hard to find if someone is searching down the hierarchy from Category:Buildings by association - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Category:Masonic buildings should better be an intermediate parent category to Category:Masonic buildings by country. But Category:Masonic buildings as a separate unrelated category makes no sense. I did not have time to correct it then. I restructured it now. --Foroa (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. We seem to be in agreement. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Give way/Yield[edit]

Hi. Won't you join this discussion and Category talk:Give way signs in the United Kingdom? My English is too poor, I'm not able to make clear to two native Englishmen why synonymic country categories should be unified if the British name differs from the American one. (I personally prefer nor the British form neither the US one. Maybe, the original full wording "yield right of way" would be closer to the contintental European name of this sign?] --ŠJů (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal category[edit]

Hi Foroa. Please, can you me explain if such kind of categories are correct and allowed? I think that the categories present in Commons cannot become sub-cats of private users. Saluti, --DenghiùComm (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

For what reason have you removed all these categories without even asking? I will revert your edits. Please discuss such changes first!!!!! --Tony Wills (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Would be nice if all users would start to create their own personal category trees. --Foroa (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
It would have been nice if you had bothered to ask me what on earth I was doing before removing all those categories. Obviously it had some purpose for me, and the name of the category an edit summary when creating it were to make it clear that it is only a temporary category. I was right in the middle of using them when the list disappeared - by blood pressure went rather high at that instant! I will remove them again when I am finished. Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If you need a personal list of categories to find it quickly and to work on it, it's not necessary to create a personal category; it's sufficient that you write in your page the names of the categories in the follow form :

  • [[:Category:Name of the category]].

Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The third person to suggest that, but no, that is of no use to the cat-a-lot tool. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I am happy to report that the corruption of the category system is over, the category can now be deleted :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Mass-deletion of categories ref. Category:Centuries in India respectively Category:People of India by century by you[edit]

Hi Foroa, it was really a lot of work to establish the category trees Category:Centuries in India and Category:People of India by century about months with thousands of edits ...

As i remarked (26.6.), you deleted propably on June 25 (most) of the related categories, p.e. Category:6th century people of India, to start a "new" Category:6th-century people of India and so on, and additionally you did not 'forget' to edit the related {Template:People of India} :-(((

As we had contact before, i hoped that you would 'announce' such actions before, p.e. in the talk of the above mentioned category (Category talk:People of India by century) or template (Template talk:People of India) – as of June 27, 2011, you did not :-((

Honestly, i'm frustrated by such (imho senseless) 'actions', especially we talked about 'bots and frustrations' a year ago, and i thought we agreed ...

BTW: Imho the 'correct way' is to 'announce' in the above mentioned form, and if a consense, to establish category redirects or bot-move the categories instead of creating them "under your name", loosing the version histories and the Wikimedia commons enthusiasts that 'did' the work to establish that category trees ... Roland 22:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: Please, at least, un-delete all the above mentioned categories – as of June 27, Category:6th century BC people of IndiaCategory:21st century people of India etc. – and establish category-redirects !!

PPS: As i remarked minutes ago: 'same procudure' referring to p.e. Category:20th century people of Tibet and p.e. Category:21st century people of Switzerland – same procedure and also a lot of work, as above mentioned :-(
As for India, please un-delete the related categories and establish re-directs!! Referring to that 'experience', i'll not continue to establish time-related categories 'for nothing' :-((

Dear Roland. There have been long time ago some discussion (don't know where any more) that it should be "Nth-century people" and not "Nth century people". Without a clear conclusion (personally I would not have bothered to change that), somewhere in March, user:Ecummenic started a personal campaign to move those categories as you can see here mainly by hand, partly through redirects.
This is typically a thing that should be announced indeed and should be a mass move that completes as quickly as possible in one rapid campaign. As I had not a lot of time at that moment, I requested the user to issue delinker move requests, but he never responded. Then I noticed several reverts and fiddling with the related templates back and forward; all a big waste of energy. Since the delinker is broken since more that a month, I had no means to accelerate the campaign except that I moved the Indian and Tibet trees completely, mostly by hand.
This is a very unfortunate situation in which we are all forced into and as soon as the delinker works again and I have some time, I will try to harmonise the whole situation. I try to make the best of it by adapting the templates (and their invocations) where needed, but we have very limited help and several reverts. I think I moved the Indian tree completely without exceptions. By experience, I know that leaving redirects with "Nth century ... " redirects to the correct "Nth-century ... " just trains people to make even more faulty "Nth century ... " category trees, why I don't even want to waste even more time to create redirects.
So sorry for all those inconveniences, I just try to get it over as quick as possible. --Foroa (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Foroa, thank you very much for your immediate answer. As you 'see', i was (at 'that' moment) frustrated and very emotional (please excuse), and so i appreciate your statement.
So i understand you well, there was no really 'need' for that kind of 're-categorisation', and so let's not waste more time, i.e. my propostion to solve that problem:
When you'll have 'un-deleted' the categories mentioned (on my watchlist, i.e. no need for feedback) – from my side no need to hurry – i'll re-establish the general 'Status quo' respectively will establish re-directs within the category trees Category:People of India by century and (second 'priority') Category:People of Switzerland by century to 'harmonize' with the other country-related categories. Is that 'way' ok ? Best regards, Roland 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
transferred from Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests (as of July 28, 2011), as a 'little reminder', Roland 02:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC):
[quotation]== Mass-deletion of categories ref. Category:People of India by century : Please undelete ==
Hi ... Of course, i contacted Foroa ... Lacking an answer, some minutes ago i remarked when i created a India-related people category that on July 1 the last two redirects also have been deleted. Therefore i ask to undelete the category tree mentioned, to keep the version-histories and imho to keep the usability:
Category:6th century BC people of India
Category:5th century BC people of India
Category:3th century BC people of India
Category:2nd century BC people of India
Category:1st century BC people of India
Category:1st century people of India
Category:4th century people of India
Category:5th century people of India
Category:6th century people of India
Category:7th century people of India
Category:8th century people of India
Category:9th century people of India
Category:11th century people of India
Category:12th century people of India
Category:15th century people of India
Category:16th century people of India
Category:17th century people of India
Category:18th century people of India
Category:19th century people of India
Category:20th century people of India
Category:21st century people of India
Thereafter, i'll establish redirects (p.e. Category:20th-century people of India) to 'harmonize' with the category tree Category:People by century. Thank you very much and best regards, Roland 11:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
----
This is something for you to address with Foroa. – Adrignola talk 02:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
[quotation end]

Category:KWK Bobrek-Centrum[edit]

HI. It is not "Centrum coal mine, Bobrek". The name of this coal mine is Centrum-Bobrek. Look here. Best regards Przykuta[edit] 12:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Pinkpasty[edit]

Pinkpasty (talk · contributions · Move log · Number of edits · logs · block log)

Thank you. I apprecisate you are a busy bunny & you kindly msgd me to inform me of my category fluffs for images I uploaded/contributed onto wikimedia, some of which you kindly recategorised.

I confess I am none the wiser & cannot understand the principals/rules for contributors on wikipedia or wikmedia at all when it comes to where to place them.

I love wiki as it has been such a valueable resource for my own interests & research. Which is 'why' I wanted to contribute some image photos of my own sculptural creative works for others under creative commons license. However, I'm a complete numpty when it comes to making any sense of the way wiki works for contributors, (although any future images I throw at wiki to see what sticks will not include borders, my bad).

Thanks again Malcolm Lidbury http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=lidbury

No worries. Just walk around a bit, click a lot on the category fields and discover the system. Look in the history of the categories and files to see what changed. Within a week, you will feel at home.
You can sign your messages by hitting the little signature icon on top of the Wiki edit window. Simple if you take the time to discover. Just click on the following to start your journey: Category:Malcolm Lidbury. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

HELP: There is a BIG RED copyright warning at the top of my category listing Malcolm Lidbury http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Malcolm_Lidbury

I AM Malcolm Lidbury (aka Pinkpasty) and the images I am loading too Wikimedia are of my own paintings & sculpture which I have personally created & then photographed.

My sculpture blog http://www.malenudesculpture.blogspot.com/

Can some one pleas get rid of the big red warning sign at the top of my own category, of submissions of my own art ?

I really find wiki confusing, hostile & obstructive to newbie contributors

Malcolm Lidbury aka Pinkpasty

@Foroa, problem solved. --Túrelio (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

User:aprabhala[edit]

Thank you for your help in sorting out the category I created as well as helping with some of the tags - I'm learning here, and appreciate it very much. Aprabhala (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome; --Foroa (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

David Stirling (soldier) instead of David Stirling (laird) ?[edit]

On the disambiguation page Category:David_Stirling, there appears Category:David Stirling (laird). However, he's famous as the founder of the SAS.

Is it possible to rename the category as - say - David Stirling (soldier) or David Stirling (SAS founder), recognising that he's famous not for an accident of birth, but for what he achieved. The other two David Stirlings are mentioned for their abilities and skills, after all.

I recognise it might require changing the category on pages linking to the category, but perhaps there's an automated tool for that ?

I'm contacting you because you recently (05:59, 17 June 2011) sorted the disambiguation page (Thanks for fixing my previous edits).

Clacksnapper (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I hesitated indeed with the (laird) disambiguation. I don't think that putting achievements in a disambiguation is neutral and a good thing; in the end, one could disambiguate with (successful and most famous general). Moreover, relatively few people will know what SAS means. I think that (military) disambiguation, followed by (soldier) are the best . Just tell me and I get it moved. --Foroa (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for a swift and reasoned response. Of the 2 options, I'd go for (military) as a disambiguator. I'd guess that in the English-speaking world, at least, more people have heard of the SAS than know the name its founder but I'll take your advice and go for (military). Clacksnapper (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. To play the innocent: which en:SAS, fr:SAS, it:SAS, nl:SAS, ja:SAS, he:SAS do you mean ? --Foroa (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

IW search[edit]

You said at COM:VPR "It is a real pity that commons is configured not to include interwikis (IW) in the search database..." and mentioned that en.wp has this. I still don't know exactly what you mean, but it sounds like a MediaWiki setting which could easily be turned on. If you could clarify what you're talking about, we can see if there's community support for it and then file a bug. Rd232 (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

En:wiki claims that it includes interwiki's in its search database, which clearly is not done at Commons. This is very valuable as "translation engine". Further investigation (I used Fiets, the Dutch word of Bicyle, but one could use any Russian, Chinese, ... word as 聖彼得堡), shows that in fact the interwikis from the main article/gallery space seems to be in the search database, but not the ones from the category name space. So not sure if this is a switch/feature or just a software design decision. --Foroa (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hm, I still don't entirely get it; interwikis are just text in a page and the search should cover everything that's stored in the source text. Where does en.wiki make this claim? I can't find anything in en:Help:Searching, except the bit about searching source text (so "zh", not "Zhongwen"). Rd232 (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
PS do you think you could do some archiving of your talk page? At 260k and 130 sections, it's quite big, and quite slow to load for me. Rd232 (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
En:search states: "The source text (what one sees in the edit box) is searched. This distinction is relevant for piped links, for interlanguage links (to find links to Chinese articles, search for zh, not for Zhongwen), ...". This does not seem to work however in the category name space, at least not with my tests, and certainly not on Commons.
It is true that my talk page is getting too long and needs archiving. On the other hand, it is in a similar order of size as many discussion pages such as the village pump, an average category display with thumbnails or Commons_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, there are many recurring and linked discussions, so there is no real hurry. --Foroa (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hm. dunno. As to archiving - yes, true, but those tend to have autoarchiving to keep page size down and/or have a lot of text which all kind of relates to one subject so isn't archived manually. There's no need for conversations whose purpose has been served to be kept around unnecessarily. NB If you wanted you could use User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo for set-and-forget archiving after a month, say, within your existing archive structure. Rd232 (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
As I stated, there are many recurring and related discussions, they don't necessarily age. See for example #Archivering and #.22Cast_iron.22_versus_.22cast-iron.22. Like on CFD, there are still discussions open. I have been thinking on making a FAQ page.
Archives break links and makes it difficult to find things. I will never use Miszabot. I am following many tens of discussions and sometimes, 30 % of the items on my watchlist are distractions caused by unneeded Miszabot moves; I don't want to cause that to the 120 people watching this page. And yes, I need absolutely to watch bot operations. --Foroa (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, fine, it's up to you how to manage your talkpage, of course. I just think it would be helpful to clear out discussions which are no longer current a bit more often. Rd232 (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Verriest[edit]

Hi, Foroa. 'k Hen gezien dan ze joun foto's van Hugo Verriest willn wegsmytn. Me kunn da toch nie loatn gebeurn hee? :-). k' Hen 't trouwens ook al an myn frak met één van myn foto's. Moa doar ist er nieks an te doen... Groetjes en toet da me joun nog e ki zien ip de vls ;) --Zeisterre (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Joa'z. 'n Goe reactie; oe eij da gevondn ? Duriez es t'er ôok ol eutgesmeetn. Da's êen van de reedns da'k ier nie mêe iploade (en nôois over licensies klappe): de foto's da'k 't liefst zie smeetn ze der êest eut. Hêel die auteursrechten affaire es ne zotte kluts: de ryke artiesten zyn beschermd en koomn nog ryker, de klêentjes bleuvn onbekend en doardeure ôok klêne. Oaverreks met de open source gêest. Teut de volgende kêe. --Foroa (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ge moete kêe diene tekst ierboovn deur Google translate droain: ne goen speech vôo Pfaff of Di Rupo. --Foroa (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ik hen myn vroeger al ofgevroagd van wien dat da beeld was, moa 'k han da lik noois gevoendn. Moa met dat die gast zei: 1948 work (date is on side view of sculpture) hen 'k eki goed gekeekn en ip ze schoere stoat er "J. Lagae" (en 'k peizn lik 1913 moa 'k zyn 't nie zeker). 'k Goan e ki moetn goan kykn in 't echt. En mè te googeln hen 'k ton ook weregevoendn by 't Bouwkundig Erfgoed. Dus is 't juste. En die vertoalienge ip Google translate is inderdoad de moeite... :-) --Zeisterre (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Rebellion and atypical, hard working[edit]

Je viens de changer wikt:fr:Utilisateur:ArséniureDeGallium, parce que ce que tu as dit est tout simplement une définition si vraie de moi. Je crois que je vais la garder longtemps. Amitiés. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 19:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Au plaisier. Par contre, je ne suis pas sure que ma remarque apportera des votes supplémentaires pour Commons:Administrators/Requests/ArséniureDeGallium. --Foroa (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh[edit]

Hello, please explain me why. Thank you. Catfisheye (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I restored it so you can see with your own eyes that there is no file with it. --Foroa (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Strange, 'cause I am almost sure to have seen it. But thanks. I will try again. :) Catfisheye (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Category name[edit]

Hello Foroa, please rename the Category:Église Notre-Dame de Monzon to Category:Église Notre-Dame de Mouzon. Rauenstein (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Dank u. Rauenstein (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured pictures of Belgium[edit]

Hello. I've created the three smaller categories back. It is probably better this way, I think. Thierry Caro (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no split of the categories in Belgium between Flanders and Wallonia for the simple reason that the Flemish/French speaking communities are different and overlap with the Flemish/French and Brussels territorities. See Category talk:Belgium. --Foroa (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The North See belongs not to Flanders nor Wallonia, so there where several error. I did not check for the German community. --Foroa (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Caucasus 1380 map de alt.svg[edit]

Can you please restore the file? I'm really sure there was a file uploaded, maybe you could not see it because the svg was not rendered. --Don-kun (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I restored completely File:Caucasus 1380 map de alt.svg. --Foroa (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
No file by this name exists. -- Perhelion» › 16:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
At least now there is a file. Cant image how I created the description page without uploading a file. Maybe there was an error on Commons while uploading or something like that o_o --Don-kun (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes maybe, that's already happened to me, as I had specified an incorrect file extension. -- Perhelion» › 10:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Hans Böhm[edit]

Hallo :) heb weer even wat tijd dus ja, kan het niet laten en was even hier aan het rondkijken :) Maar goed. Kwam Category:Hans Böhm tegen, met daarin twee verschillende onderwerpen gevat: de 16e eeuwse Drummer of Niklashausen en de Nederlandse schaker en televisiepresentator. Nu wordt de en: paginanaam gespeld als "Hans Bohm", maar de tekst heeft consequent Hans Böhm. Kan je een suggestie doen hoe de categorie in tweeën te splitsen? (Ik dacht de historische figuur in "Hans Bohm" onder te brengen, maar omdat de en: pagina niet erg duidelijk is...) Alvast bedankt. groeten -- Deadstar (msg) 09:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Er zijn een reeks de:Hans Böhm. Hoedanook, ze stammen blijkbaar allemaal uit Duitsland, dus de umlaut is wel nodig. Hoe we politiekers met dezelfde naam maar een verschillend jaar disambigueren ben ik nog niet uit, ik zou zeggen, (politician, geboortejaar). Het heeft geen zin de allergie voor de umlaut van de en:wiki te erven. Disambiguation dus voor idereen: (chess player) en (drumner). Beste groet. --Foroa (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hartelijk dank! -- Deadstar (msg) 09:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Museu de Belles Arts de Valéncia[edit]

Hi, why did you remove Category:Paintings in the Museo de Bellas Artes de Valencia instead of redirecting to Category:Paintings in the Museu de Belles Arts de València? Museo de Bellas Artes de Valencia is correct and official, as you can see here Lobo (howl?) 10:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone moved the whole category tree of Category:Museo de Bellas Artes de Valencia to Category:Museu de Belles Arts de València which is the official Valencian/Catalan name which is used on the en:wikipedia too. It does not makes sense to keep redirects to some of the translated subcategories.

Art categories[edit]

Hello Foroa, I believe you have a good knowledge on the category-system and I wanted to ask you for your opinion. The categories for art-periods, -styles and -production cultures are badly structured, but it is difficult to get started cleaning up. One thing that puzzles me are two seemingly parallel trees for "art by origin" and "art by culture": With the exception of Ancient Greece and Rome, all other cultures could be put in both. The consequence is, that there are categories that fall (naming-wise) into eigher or of the two branches, but should really be all in one (e.g. Category:Statues by culture and Category:Sculptures by origin (plus Category:Sculptures by period)? One thing I beleive will help, would be to avoid "period" as much as possible: I collected and linked a lot of the "by style" and "by period" categories, and by now i think the "period" is disambigous. "by date" may be most to the point for years, decades and centuries, "by style" for ...styles, - but i have no clue about origin or culture. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Art_by_period is a mix of it all and shows what i mean. Do you have a preference, or do you know of any discussion so far regarding all this? Best, --ZH2010 (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I want to say that I am impressed by the huge volume of quality categorisation work you did already on Commons. Thank you for that.
I admire your courage in tackling the art sector. The only remotely related discussion that I know of is in Category talk:Modern art. It shows that we are badly missing some more formal categorisation scheme for it as some can be found in Category:Commons category schemes.
To me, there are two classes that need to be separated as much as possible:
  • Category:Art by origin for art that is originating in a country but clearly exported in other countries. style and period should not matter
  • Category:Art by culture: Many of the items should not be here. I have been puzzled since some time to find a better name for that. Most of the items in it should be in art by origin. What we need I feel is a category that allows to collect various Cultures, Civilizations, ethnic groups, kingdoms, ... such as ancient Rome/Greece, Carthaginia, Mongols, Kurds, Basque, Celtic, Ottoman, Levant, Inca, ... along with the various city-states, (smaller or large) Kingdoms, and the various subjects in Asia, Africa (the latter being fairly empty), .. that no longer fit in our actual political distribution. Basically, I think that we need for many world wide categories two major structural sets: a set of "xxx by country" and a set of "xxx by culture/civilisation"
So basically, I think if we can agree on a name, document it properly and get some basic cat strutures right, we can (try to) get it going.
And frankly, each art pice should be categorisable by country or by origin, and by culture (if not from our contemporary world. The rest are secondary cats as far as I am concerned. --Foroa (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Great, than you are somewhere, where i am too...: i would also like to sort all those former historical entities: there are categories "by former country" or "by historical state" (or something like that), while the first named mostly link to country-cats (only), and the second named mostly link to history-cats (only). I dont particularly like "culture", as it a) has flowing borders with "civilization" and "ethnic group", b) i believe people of different backgrounds may have differing understandings of definition "when culture" or "when statehood" and c) whould just create a sort of artifical divide between "cultures" and "states" or the like.... ?!
For the very most of archaeological objects of (ancient) cultures, it shouldnt matter if the production culture was a state, a kingdom, a culture or an ethnic group - whether it extended over one or several modern-day countries.... wheter it had blurring borders with other cultures or whatever...: trying to pigeon-hole all these characteristics (as the system currently does to some extend) makes it difficult to find things.
We normally call art-objects by an adjective (which i think is also fine for category:Art) - but the adjective also makes no judgement or differentiation on state, culture, ethnic group or even dynasties. My preference would therefore be to set up a solid cat-tree for "by origin" (or something that goes with that meaning), while "culture", "former country", "historical state" and the lot should be bound within "origin". I can see, that for most (visiting) user, the most natural may be to categorize new images by "culture" or "former country".... - still i think the "origin" is a lot easier to handle? Greez, --ZH2010 (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, we are in mostly in tune. Some comments.
I have the feeling that for many art and cultural objects (and possibly products such as vehicles, food, ...), we'll need the "xxx by origin" cats for distinction between objects found in a country, and objects originating form a country. An example of such emerging cats are in Category:Paintings of Italy that contains Category:Paintings in Italy and Category:Paintings from Italy; most confusing. On the other hand, we could think of extending origin to include equally cultures/civilisations/former countries but that might become too long/wide I am afraid.
Concerning We normally call art-objects by an adjective ...; this works only for some art related objects and provided you have no deeper categorisation. Sooner or later we will get stuck with that too once categories go deeper, such as "Early ancient Greek pottery", various deeper cats by Category:Ancient Rome by period, British empire combined with victorian or renaissance, ... In Category talk:Roman law, there is a discussion about that and in Category:Ancient Roman categories, we can see that such a style cannot be consequently used throughout.
So we agree that we should try to fix the best possible name for what we call by origin/culture/civilisation historical entities. As a side note, I think that later, we will encounter related problems one we get more items for contemporary "global" items that are less and less bound to countries, such as music, film and other art forms (and probably computer and society things such as fast food, Yuppies, Hippies, ...) that cannot be pinned to a country --Foroa (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So you think the example with Italy is good? "confusing", but i understand what you say. and its what we need? i ve seen those thoughts about adjectives and actually i agree. - if origin is the best option available will need to be checked. i ll try to think of other options too. re: the sidenote: by country will not be the only geo-localization parameter, and i think "by continent" and "by region" (as in here) would be handy to have for other cats too. --ZH2010 (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In most countries, they seem to be satisfied with "Art of xxx", but from and in versions are coming up. I did not say that Italy is a good example, just saying that some people want to differentiate and so it grows kind of organically.
Concerning locations in Belgium, see User_talk:Ingolfson/Archive_2010#Categories_of_Belgium_by_location. Using by city in Belgium is asking for troubles. --Foroa (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mexican curious monkey.jpg[edit]

About File:Mexican curious monkey.jpg, Andreateletrabajo did the Spanish translation of the description:

  • "Fotografía de un puesto callejero de curiosos artículos mexicanos. Las curiosidades mexicanas van desde lo artístico, lo colorido y lo humorístico a lo religioso. Aquí puede verse contenido humorístico, colorido y religioso."

Would you mind adding it to the image page? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done. Animals acting as humans is not realistic for a puppet. --Foroa (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ultra wide angle lenses[edit]

  • Shouldn't it be for hardware only - perhaps sub-category:Taken with wide-angle lenses is more appropriate for photographs?
  • Should it include lenses (and photographs taken with them) that barely scratch the definition in en:Ultra wide angle lens ? Most of my own photos were taken at F=12mm on a 4/3 camera (17x13mm sensor) - but it's not really "ultra", visually.
  • Another Q, what about photographs made with lenses that are UW on full frame sensors, but actually taken with cropped-sensor cameras? i.e. Canon 16-35/2.8 is "ultra" on FF bodies, but not on APS bodies ?
  • Perhaps the category must clearly state the difference between UW rectilinear lenses and fisheyes?

NVO (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

    • Even better (or worse) example is Canon 17-40/4 zoom. It's advertized as FF lens, but it's actually helpless in this format. On APS it's a decent standard zoom with around 28 mm equivalent short end, nothing ultra. Will it qualify? NVO (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I have a fish eye lens and overall, I don't like such lenses or ultra wide lenses at all. Anyway, zooms start overlapping all that in the customer segment, so personally I would try to blur differences between wide and ultra wide, and keep it only for some very clear technical items. Most people have already troubles differentiation normal and wide lenses, so lets not make it even more complicated. The sensor size increases even more the perception, so we have to keep that side as simple as possible. So certainly no category:Taken with wide-angle lenses. --Foroa (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Kategorie Bergerac[edit]

Das Name für die Kategorie ist frei und es wird definitiv keine zweite Kategorie Bergerac geben. Ich schiebe deshalb alle Dateien wieder zurück, weil es keinen Grund für Bergerac, Dordogne gibt. Auch in dewiki nun Bergerac. gruss Rauenstein (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If Category:Bergerac is disambiguated in 10 of the 13 wikipedias, including the French and English, there are plenty of good reasons. It is not because the de:wiki does not do so that the others have to be ignored. We are Commons, remember, and we try to be as much culture neutral (no primary subject) as possible, why we have more disambiguation than most wikipedias. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Panoramio review needed[edit]

Hi Foroa, could you please review all the pictures I uploaded here. I don't quite like the idea of not having been thoroughly vetted and checked. Thank you! --Edelseider (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC) ✓ Done by Leoboudv (talk · contribs). --Edelseider (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Bridges over the Droitwich Canal[edit]

Sorry about that, I was creating categories for Category:Canal bridges in England and children when I found Category:Bridges over the Droitwich Canal. I replaced it with Category:Canal bridges on the Droitwich Canal but someone objected. I'm now moving them all to the suggested format (Canal bridges -> Bridges over canals) so I never redirected or removed some of the old empty ones, intending to reuse them. The few that I did redirect were deleted by an administrator. Scillystuff (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

NARA category structure[edit]

Thanks for your help with the categories. NARA's catalog is actually hierarchical: each item belongs in a series with like items, while each series belongs in a record group with like series. That is, record groups are not types of series, but are collections of series, and have no documents directly categorized in them. That's why I originally had each document in a category for its series and each series in a category for its record group. So, [9] isn't really quite correct, unless you want to make a category for record groups too, rather than putting them directly in the main NARA category like I did initially. Dominic (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I start to understand. Its difficult for me as I try to get them organised as they arrive. But without having an idea how many of them will arrive, it is difficult. I tried to organise them in a thematic way in Category: Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. Would there be no flat Table of Contents of the whole set (record groups with the containing series) along with the number of images ? Problem with the record groups is that it takes some work to dig them out, while we could simply put the record groups on a page with links to the categories it contains. It all depends on the volume of series and record groups you will have; a hierarchical record/series categorisation might be needed if we speak about hundreds of series. It looks that we have 400 or so record groups, each one having tens of series, so a hierarchical category system might be indicated. --Foroa (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly. It should be File:Document.tif > Category:Series > Category:Record Group > National Archives images (or something intermediate between this and the record groups). I think I'll work on making a list and creating them all automatically, so we can probably leave the rest red linked right now. Dominic (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
That's probably the easiest. I think that those cats could be named a bit more compact, such as "NARA RG075 <series name>" where RG075 is the Record Group 75. This will make them sorted automatically according to the record group. If you autogenerate the categories, it might be a good idea to insert a {{Hiddencat}} and a category header template that explains that the cats are autogenerated etc ... --Foroa (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
They do get long, but I think it is more important that the categories actually be human-readable than that they be short. Dominic (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:National Archives and Records Administration/Error reporting[edit]

By popular demand, error reporting is here! I'm just letting you know personally since you've been involved in one of the threads related to errors encountered in the NARA catalog. If you can add error reports to that page from now on, we'll have an easier time relaying them to the NARA digital description staff, and we'll be able to track our progress. Let me know if you have any problems using the page; I already added one report as an example. Providing corrections for mistakes in the online catalog is one of the best ways we can show demonstrable benefits to the institution, and you'll be helping all the other users of the archives, so it's really useful. Thanks! Dominic (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me[edit]

Sorry, for my mistakes, can you help me? Look at my history. Its short enough. I fear I made more mistakes today for I do not knwo how Commons is working. Zabia2 (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No real problem: you filed the deletion request properly; now you have to wait on reactions. --Foroa (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks. Really, now I can go to sleep. Greetings from Austria! Zabia2 (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Niederzwehren Cemetery[edit]

What sense does it make to have a gallery within a category showing the same content? It's confusing to me and should be deleted. Shouldn't it? HeinrichStuerzl (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Galleries and categories are two different things. See for example Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010/06#Category_with_Subcategory.2C_Page_and_Media. --Foroa (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

File:STS-126 APU installation.jpg[edit]

Hey Foroa, the Orbital Maneuvering System and the APUs are two different systems. Or did you have other intension when adding this category? Regards --myself488 talk 21:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was a bit too hasty (text talks about it but is not the topic). Corrected by now. --Foroa (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Category moves[edit]

I know we have differing views on when to move categories, but right now I'm bit concerned with how they are moved about:

  1. If its potentially contraversial you should really {{move}} it instead of unilaterally deciding. For what its worth, I agree on Warwick but you sent it to wrong place per w:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#England.
I made a redirect and there was no reaction for a week, so basically the same procedure has been followed.
On one hand the suggested procedure states as first rule: The usual convention is to use [[placename, ceremonial county]]. For example, Warwick and when looking in En:Warwick (disambiguation), there are several Warwick variants in England. So your rename to Category:Warwick, England with a rule that is context dependant seems a bad idea (equally using a redirect). --Foroa (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Doing something and looking for objections is not the same as "I'm going to do something" and looking for objections: For a start, it gets placed in Category:Requested moves where someone may notice it, your method is only going to be noticed by someone who happens to have the page on a watchlist.
With respect to the English guideline - read on on that page:
When the city and the county use variants of the same name (and disambiguation is required) disambiguate with England for clarity throughout the English-speaking world; thus Lincoln, England, not Lincoln, Lincolnshire. So moving to Warwick, England is consistent with the en convention, Warwick, Warwickshire is not.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree, you clearly want to move to a primary topic in England and forget the variants in Cumbria. But I don't will waste my time on that discussion. --Foroa (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The variants in Cumbria aren't called Warwick and while there may be a possibility for confusion between a Warwick in Cumbria and a Warwick in Northumberland, there is no potential for confusion between a Warwick in Warwickshire and a Warwick-in-Eden in Cumbria. Variations on a name are different and do not need disambiguating - that is seperate from primary topic concerns.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
That is a side issue here in any case, please don't just use {{category redirect}} when a move is potentially contraversial, use {{move}} instead: The first doesn't indicate what an objector should do for a start..--Nilfanion (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. More importantly, if you do move something could you fix some of the links from Wikipedia articles too? It probably only needs to check the article for that subject on the major wikis, for example for Norwich - en, de, es and it wikis all have broken links to a dab page - and those links will hang around for months because wikipedia editors likely won't notice.

That second thing is a bot task really, but it should be possible to fix a few at the time.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I find the time to move 1000 to 2000 categories per month. Do you really think that I will cut my productivity here in half because of categories that are badly named in the first place, that are badly linked in the second place (If the en:article would refer to Warwick, there would have been less of a problem. I try not to waste my time of work that will eventually be done by bots. --Foroa (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Its better to get the job done right first time than to half-do it and say "bots can clean up later".--Nilfanion (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. If we do permanently bot work, bots will never be created. And you changed the cat name without bothering to adapt links to Commons; who will do it later ? Certainly not me. --Foroa (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I fully intend to sort the incoming links to Warwick later - question is is Warwick, England acceptable (bearing in mind the uniqueness of the term in England)?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me for intruding here, I have nothing to say or add to this particular topic -- I am taking advantage of the "edit" link to start a new topic and I am thinking that "Nilfanion" is related to "Nilbot" (or something like that) who uploaded some very nice "Created with Blender" videos here. Is my memory correct on this? -- Queeg (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I've had nothing to do with video uploads, my bot does a few maintenance jobs.--Nilfanion (talk)
Your bot is getting the credit for the artwork File:Plastic screw anchor-animation.ogv. Does the bot make itself the author of everything it uploads? When I saw this, I assumed that it was the bot author. The bot author should probably remember having created a video like this and having it on the Main Page. -- Queeg (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Niabot is not my bot... Niabot is the main account of an entirely different editor ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I apologize for intruding here. I am not sure at what point I can claim to have viewed literally thousands of videos, but a few names get remembered and when they are similar to other names. The euphoria of having crossed a mark in my personal quest. These are all reasons and not excuses, by the way. A wrongful intrusion on a conversation between others is still something I am apologizing for. -- Queeg (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your call (please)[edit]

I just found Category:Linen and Category:Linen (flax). I was going to try using the delinker templates when I realized that I am not capable of determining which way to move things (Linen --> Linen (flax) or Linen (flax) --> Linen). Incapable at this moment, perhaps incapable ever.

They are the same thing? One was created in 2011 and the other was created in 2007. They are not equally populated but one is more populated than a simple mistaken 2011 creation should be.

I don't think that there should be extra words included if the subject doesn't need it.

A nice example of language evolution. Category:Linen is the root word for flax based textile sheets. Flax becomes expensive and rare, bed linen becomes a popular name, although it has nothing to do any more with flax. Most frustrating for me, especially if you know that all my grandparents made their living by processing flax. --Foroa (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The more I type this, the more I realize that this seems to be about following English wikipedia rules here, which is not really a good way to go being that there are so many other 'pedias and that English wikipedia already has the advantage with the English prepositions, articles and other grammar syntax.

Well, we can even not find an agreement between the various English variants. On the multi-language issue, I will respond later. --Foroa (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't language choices have been developed for categorization by now? This leap in language transformation of display would/could reflect the cosmopolitan nature of commons so very much better.

Yeah, I knew that I was not thinking enough about this enough to use that template competently. We always called them "sheets" which has its own problems.
I often wonder while categorizing things here, if having a few extra characters in the alphabet helps to avoid these overlaps? And then wondering if English and/or Spanish might be worse for this also because of lesser characters (written language is a codification similar to assigning internet addresses or phone numbers) because as languages they were so promiscuous when they went abroad and the new speakers in the far away places adapted it for their own. Had I been looking for images of sheets, I am not certain what I would have searched for here first. Our "sheets" were never made of linen -- I can kind of remember my mom telling me about real linen and how the real thing was too nice for small destructive little beings like me, my brother and our age peers would have been.
Nilfonion mentioned etymology -- word origins. I wonder if there is a similar word for the study of policy and how that changes things, policthyology maybe. These two things occur here simultaneously. I almost typed "simultainteously".

Related to this, possibly, is when I searched here for "T-38" it was in a description of an aviation transport vehicle. Search found a Russian tank which is an off road transport vehicle (if I remember correctly). I had to go to English wikipedia, search there and I found that the name of the aviation transport vehicle had been moved here from <vehicle designation> <vehicle common name> to <manufacturer> <vehicle designation> <vehicle common name>. The video I was categorizing was made by NASA, who had contracted the aviation transport vehicle from the <manufacturer>.

So, here is my next question. I know a person whose grandfather had been contracted by NASA for a device which was included on at least one of the Apollo missions. Can I move the category of that device from "Lunar Command Module" to "Printech Lunar Command Module" (<manufacturer> <vehicle>)?

That'd be way cool if I could do this and it seems that it would keep with the English Wikipedia way of doing things here.... -- Queeg (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Northrop T-38 Talon (not quite typed from memory) -- Queeg (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I just looked again at that category. "Northrop T-38 Talon" has been categorized under "Northrop". I am quite certain, without looking, that the English Wikipedia article contains a link to the article there about "Northrop". Perhaps the links do not work in chrome, ie or mac-branded browsers?
Is there a word for idiot in Dutch that I could safely use here for anyone arguing for this kind of thing? I am certain that if I ever could afford a Northrop vehicle, I would probably also have the intelligence to click through to the manufacturer without the assistance of having included it in the category name and a browser capable of moving through a hyperlink. Maybe I am wrong about this?
On the otherhand, "Printech Lunar Command Module" is looking mightily appealing and within reach at this moment. -- Queeg (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)</end of rant></end of celebration of the demise of "Agricultural videos"> thanks for the talk space. -- Queeg (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

High Peak[edit]

I know we don't agree on the concept of the primary topic but just ignoring me is not acceptable, and I'll take this straight to the AN if the same happens again. I'd point out that the concept does have limited support on Commons, see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/01#Disambiguation of categories and when it comes to specific cases it is agreed with (Category talk:Melbourne.

With regards to High Peak: Category:High Peak, Derbyshire shouldn't exist (as more than a redirect) as its redundant to Category:Borough of High Peak. I've pointed Category:High Peak as a redirect to the Borough category as opposed to reverting, as that was the parent category anyway, and it is the primary topic (High Peak is different from High Peaks). That is closest to the situation before any of the recent edits to High Peak - if you want to replace that redirect with a dab, you need to start a discussion about it: CFD is probably the place.

Also, Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing categories in grid SK0595 is not Glossop. If you are going to categorise one of those grid square categories, check against OS mapping and check which CP the area is in - that's the category. SK0595 is outside Glossop.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop reinventing the "primary topic" rule in Commons: it does not exist. We are only more tolerant and make a couple of exceptions for major capital cities for historical, practical and national symbol reasons. If Category:High Peak would have been properly disambiguated from the beginning, it would probably not have contained nearly 1100 images. And I guess that Category:High Peak, Devon, High Peak Estate, High Peak Junction are quantité négligable ? --Foroa (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The primary topic rule does exist - Category:Jesus and Category:Mathematics are both examples. I have tried to establish its existence (or otherwise), you've provided no evidence of its non-existence. Regardless of that the validity of "primary topic" or not, a contentious page move should not just be done unilaterally - and Category talk:Boston makes it clear these issues are contentious. Contentious moves should not be done speedily, but only after discussion.
With respect to High Peak, "High Peak Estate" and "High Peak Junction" are not High Peak. The reason for the 1000+ files is not the lack of disambiguation, but the lack of categorisation (Category:Glossop should be in a subcat of the High Peak cat but isn't.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to notify you in case you haven't already seen, I've started a thread on the lack of discussion at the ANU.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Question, regarding [10] you mention there is no formal rule. That clearly is true, but I strongly believe it de facto exists as supported by examples such as cats and dogs (both ambiguous terms) amongst many more. How/where would you suggest the rule could be confirmed to not to exist, or confirmed to exist, on a formal basis? Would a discussion at Commons talk:Naming categories be appropriate?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Cats and dogs, like thousands other items such as locks, doors, buildings, ... are just the head of a topic tree with all needed subcategories. They have nothing to do with the disambiguation categories, that group things that are basically unrelated (besides the name), are "forward" linking and have no subcategories. --Foroa (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a case of yes and no. Clearly they are the tops of major category trees, but they are both ambiguous topics. Category:Cats is about the domestic cat, but how about Category:Cats (musical)? See w:Cats (disambiguation) and w:Dog (disambiguation). Category:Seas is another example (notice the rogue Geograph image there?), as is Category:Art cf w:Art (disambiguation).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Most disambiguation discussions concern geographic place names where we don't want errors made as for example frequently done in the Geograph images. As can be seen from those images, we still have to create hundreds of places in the UK, many of their names will interfere with the existing ones. --Foroa (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh I agree Geograph is a problem from the categorisation point of view, and I am putting a lot of work into sorting it out. It doesn't help that the bot has such a high error rate at present, and the biggest issue there is not actually disambiguation (or the lack of it). Disambiguation is a nuisance and causes some misplaced stuff - that sea image I mentioned just above for one (there's a bunch more in Category:Hope). The big problem is the bot deciding its of X instead of Y, because the location is closer to the point X than the point Y. This is like a bot deciding an image of Lille is of Belgium, because its closer to Brussels than it is to Paris. In some cases, this error rate is very high and I can beleive the 35-50% error rate reported by the current complaints on the AN.
Its not surprising that Geograph is resulting in these disambiguation discussions either, in effect its growing pains, before we just had categories for the highly notable "primary subjects", while now we are flooded with things for all the minor places we haven't even considered - I know we have categories for locations that en.wp doesn't have articles on (something inconceivable before Geograph). We need to have some logic as to when to disturb the status quo and when to leave it alone (some are clearly right like your move of Everton the other day). It would help of the bot was rather more intelligent IMO.
Just to get the Category:Civil parishes of England sorted, which ought to contain something like 10,000 subcats, Category:District of South Oxfordshire should contain dozens like Category:District of South Lakeland. And then there's all the tiny hamlets, such as Category:Luton, Devon. A ton of work is needed on the category tree, and given that I'm hoping theres a long break before we get another batch uploaded.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Jiak Kim Bridge, Singapore[edit]

Sorry, there is a typo in the new name of the category. It should be "Category:Jiak Kim Bridge", not "Jiak Kiam Bridge". You have already listed the category for renaming at "User:CommonsDelinker/commands". — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much :-). — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Gare de Traou-Nez ??[edit]

(Please, do not blank categories or galleries, use {{Badname|Good name}} or {{Speedy|Unused and empty}} if no replacing category exists)

??? je ne comprends que le français. Quoique (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Un peu de politesse pour ceux qui ont bossé sur ce catégorie: la moindre des choses qu'on peut faire lorsqu'on détruit un catégory: c'est le nom vers ou elle est partie. --Foroa (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
J'ai mis un example dans Category:Gare de Traou-Nez. Ainsi, la destination sera documenté dans le edit summary du deletion. --Foroa (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Walserhaus[edit]

Ok Foroa, let me try to explain this one more time to you (and I guess you can read english): Category:Walserhaus as such is not a sub-Category of Category:Buildings in Piedmont and Category:Buildings in Aosta Valley. Why? Because Category:Walserhaus also contains Walser-buildings outside Piedmont and Aosta Valley (which means outside Italy). That is why only Category:Walserhäuser Piedmont should be associated directly with Category:Buildings in Piedmont. Agree? If yes, please correct, if no, please explain yourself. --Andres Passwirth (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess that you understand English. You never explained it, you just emptied the category, which I did revert. Now I properly documented and categorised it. --Foroa (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Foroa, now it seems to be fitting. Next time I'll try to explain myself right from the beginning ;-). Keep up your great work!

Anachronisms with Haute-Garonne and Midi-Pyrénées[edit]

Uh? (Hello Foroa) I so completely wonder why you did do what you did to Category:1385 in Haute-Garonne and the two others? They didn't exist at the time! - Olybrius (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There are millions of places that did no exists hundreds of years ago: United States, Belgium, Netherlands, Serbia, ... Overall, the reference frame work is the actual geographic/political division. I just reverted yours because I am fed up of cleaning up redirects with other template defined categories hanging in them. If you want to redirect them (which is not necessarily a good move), then do them all or leave them. --Foroa (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't mind anachronisms at all, but quite a few people seem to apparently, I find that fussy, but well I'm not alone, so I chose to rename these categories with a perfectly unambiguous name. That complicates things a bit indeed but at least that's precise. As for the cleanup thing, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Aren't the redirects cleanedup once they are emptied by Russbot? I'm doing them all, but please that takes time. And also, remember, you're an admin, so you have to enjoy chatting endlessly (I mean your last reverts weren't exactly admin-like or instructive). How can I know you're fed up, if you don't tell me? Well, actually it would even be better to notify people before getting fed up (I know, vita brevis, but hey, you're an admin...). - Olybrius (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It is just too easy to create categories using template generated categories and "hope" that RussBot will move them. Look in the cats that I reverted: were they empty ? Could a bot rename them ? Not at all. Another example in [[11]]. So I am telling you by reverting them in the hope that your eye will fall on it. --Foroa (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
OMG! The lazy bastard! I thought that robots, unlike humans, were reliable, how naive of me. I am also too trustful I fear, when I read "So don't bother to empty these categories, eventually, a bot will empty what needs be emptied." at Category:Non-empty category redirects, I thought, cool, robots are such nice fellows, but now I realize they are only the harbingers of chaos... - Olybrius (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Funeral homes, mortuaries, morgues and mausoleums[edit]

I just encountered a mess. Some of my personal problems with the terminology seem to be reflected in the category histories also.

First, a confession -- I noticed your name in the edit history of Category:Morgues and reinstated the category without discussing it with you first.

Second, I confused the word "mortuary" with "mausoleum" while re-instating the category.

Third, and most importantly, I really needed to have the category "Morgue" existing here in the way that the word is used here (the United States) currently. File:Aljazeeraasset-gaza09012009407.ogv a 2009 video of the conflict between Israel and Palestine has rather vivid images of the use of a morgue (and others from the same time and source). It is in this case, a room where the recently departed are kept. The room has no religious affiliation. It is part of a medical chain of events. People who have access to this room are medical officials, criminologists and specially invited civilians for the purpose of identification.

It seems that Category:Mortuaries have more in common with Category:Funeral homes and perhaps these two categories should be merged. Perhaps "mortuary" has more of a religious background and funeral homes are not so much like this except that I have never seen an establishment that called itself a mortuary here in the United States. Moreover, in the rural community I know the most of, both the protestant "mortuary" and the catholic "mortuary" were called "Funeral homes" and there was that difference in the clientele of the two businesses. (part of my people are almost all completely "nuts" collection of trivia)

The way that the Category:Mortuaries was being used here is causing files to be put there that are of Category:Mausoleums -- little buildings associated (by me) with Category:Cemeteries. Here they seem to be owned, filled and maintained by families -- but I have not made this a target of research to make this claim as a fact.

Morgue is a far more technically purposed building.

That is the reason that I re-established the category "Morgue", it would be nice to know the word in other languages to put on that category so that it will be filled with the appropriate images. I understand that the word morgue is used in Europe the same as mortuary. I don't know what the word is in England for the technically inclined and not religious room. -- Queeg (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I'd agree with Queeg. Why were morgues (places were the cops scavenge dead bodies for organs) replaced with mortuaries (places were ripped-open bodies are stapled back together)? Exact name for each group may be discussed, but they should be kept apart. I missed reclassification of some of my uploads and will wait until category naming settles down. NVO (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • For what its worth, I was pointed here by Queeg. The problem is in en-GB a "mortuary" is where dead bodies are stored and post-mortems are carried out. If you look at [12] and [13] you can see the term "mortuary" being used as an American would use "morgue". The use of morgue in en-GB is increasing, due to American influence, so Brits understand its meaning but its not the normal term. "Funeral homes" (typically "undertakers" in en-GB, but it would be understood) are where the bodies are tidied up before burial/cremation. A mausoleum is definitely something else, as its the only one that has anything like "permanent" storage of the bodies.
Television and movies. Drama or comedy; law enforcement, war or medical fictions; the reporting and/or narration of wars (should be non-fiction) eventually there is a morgue either mentioned or visited. It is a fact that television and movies are the only source of this word for me. -- Queeg (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest the ambiguous term "mortuary" is not used at top-level at all, and the terms "morgue" and "funeral home" are used instead. These cover the two concepts and are unambiguous, and would be understood by en-US and en-GB speakers. At the "<topic> in <country>" level, other variants are probably ok "Mortuaries in the United Kingdom" isn't ambiguous for instance.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
My feeling is that in most of Europe, morgue and mortuary (for funeral home, funerarium, pompes funèbres ...) provide the best compromise. Maybe wait a bit and see how they grow. People tend to be a bit touchy about death customs and related burial/religion category names. --Foroa (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wakefield[edit]

Kan je me misschien tips geven over hoe ik het beste Category:Wakefield kan uitzoeken? Ik heb een (incorrecte, niet goed geformatteerde) disambiguate toegevoegd, maar het kan best zijn dat die 2000+ bestanden in de cat vrijwel allemaal in de bestaande Category:City of Wakefield thuishoren (als ze van geograph komen tenminste). En is Category:City of Wakefield een correcte benaming of moet dat iets van Category:Wakefield, England worden? En heeft het nut om alle andere categorieën die "wakefield" in de titel hebben (Category:Wakefield F.C. bv) ook te noemen in de disambiguate? Alvast bedankt. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuus - ik zie nu dat Category:Wakefield, England waarschijnlijk deel zal moeten uitmaken van Category:City of Wakefield, the larger local government district. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've partially reverted this in same manner as the related ones for Harrogate etc above - especially as Wakefield, the settlement, not the district, is arguably primary topic (meaning see alsos are the correct way to sort). In this case, discussion should be done at least partly to figure out how to disambiguate - en is not a good model here.

There is a distinction between w:Wakefield and the w:City of Wakefield, but the Wikipedia names for the topics are poor - the "City of Wakefield" gives no indication its of the district, it sounds like its of the city. "Wakefield, West Yorkshire" and "Wakefield, England" are both ambiguous too as they could both be referring to settlement or district. The only real solution is to use something like Wakefield (district) for the district, and if the consensus is the town needs disambiguating, adding a (city) or (settlement) suffix to that.

With regards to the Geograph files - that's easy enough: Just move them Category:City of Wakefield. "City of Wakefield" contains "Wakefield" so thats correct. If you can tell which are of the settlement, keep them there, but otherwise don't worry about it.

Disambiguation should be between any terms that are called "Wakefield". w:Port Wakefield, South Australia is always "Port Wakefield" not "Wakefield", but there's no harm in including it. The people may or may not be worth mentioning. w:Wakefield F.C. is called "Wakefield" (look at the text on http://www.wakefieldfc.com/) so should be included, as people will use "Wakefield" to refer to the football club.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to move all geograph files into the other category? And I have no knowledge of any of the Wakefields involved, I just came across it. Can you let me know if there's anything specific (non-discussion related) I can do right now, let me know, otherwise I'm going back to my usual activities when I get the time. Thanks for your help. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Problem is working out which images have been checked already: Unchecked Geograph files have a sort code of z, placing them after any checked files. However, some of the "manually checked" images are of the district such as File:Woolley.jpg and File:Yorkshire Sculpture Park - geograph.org.uk - 12737.jpg. Many of the "unchecked" images are definitely of the settlement, as my bot has partially categorised many of them such as File:20-22 Little Westgate - geograph.org.uk - 1200074.jpg and they are in the correct category. I'll work out the list of files, but it isn't "easy" to split out.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Nilfanion. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no such rule as primary topic on Commons (only tolerated for old historical capitals and national symbols). Not disambiguating it will only make the problem worse. --Foroa (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Please stop stating that assertion without any evidence of it as opposed to your own personal opinion on this. We can, and should, have such a rule - working out its scope is the important thing not saying talking past each other saying "yes it exists, no it doesn't". In this particular case, I'm not sure about the primary topic but I am equally unsure as to what is the correct way to disambiguate at all.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
My 2c: in the case of Wakefield certainly, I would find it most helpful if there were disambiguated categories for all of them. At least then I have a clear category for whatever Wakefield file I'm looking at, without having to know anything about the topic besides where in the world it is. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
In this case, I'm inclined to agree but I might disagree with that on others. For example Category:Ghent, for which the "primary" city is likely of greater significance (based on population count) and there are less other uses globally and none approach the significance of the Belgian one. But Ghent is hardly a city with global recognition.
My concern with Wakefield, is if we are going to disambiguate it we need to disambiguate it not move it to a different term that's still ambiguous. Category:Wakefield, West Yorkshire and Category:Wakefield, England are both ambiguous - is it the settlement or the district? Category:City of Wakefield is almost as bad as plain Category:Wakefield (The English settlement and district or one of the American cities?). enwp fails to provide decent guidance here imo, and we need to get it right.
Also got my bot working on sorting the category out - its moving 1,500 to the district category (but may be of the city), the remainder are of the settlement proper.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Lets not mix up things. There is the discussion whether disambiguation is needed, which basically is doubtless.
There is a discussion whether the current Wakefield category concerns a district or the city. As happens often, people started up things by mixing city and districts. This can be seen as many UK districts/cities have thousands of images; I guess that this is the logic of the Multichillbot. If one uses one name for two different things, unavoidably, we run into problems. This is discussed further on the Wakefield cat.
Should Ghent be disambiguated ? Probably yes, as should many historical cities like Bruges, Rome, Napels, Cologne, Florence. But I feel that in the first place, those cities should use their own name (Brugge, Roma, Napoli, Köln, Firenze) instead of their bastard name. In addition, Ghent is a special case; from wiki: Until the 13th century Ghent was the biggest city in Europe after Paris; it was bigger than London, Cologne or Moscow. So a nice argument for your beloved primary topic discussion. Your personal recognition does not seem to correspond with its historical recognition. --Foroa (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed on Wakefield - that ought to be discussed there (and if you have any ideas on how to resolve the ambiguity between town and district?). Many UK categories have hundreds or thousands of images, as images are of that location, but we don't have the category tree established below that level. Confusion between district and city is only part of that.
As for Ghent, I don't think it should be disambiguated, because of primary topic concerns: The fact its more significant in historical terms, as well as present day considerations (such as population), than the places of the same name in the USA are all factors in that assessment. My personal recognition has nothing to do with it - I do know where it is, but know most people around me here wouldn't.
What I dislike is exceptions, I'd much rather fit any apparent exceptions into a single system that explains why some get disambiguated and some don't, and then lets us extrapolate to other things. A primary topic test is the basis of such a system, a system of "we disambiguate everything, except this town, this concept, this animal because they are too important" doesn't tell you how to handle "this rock". "We disambiguate everything, unless one topic is much more significant than the others" does allow that extrapolation - we don't need to list every exception to know what it applies to. In terms of cities, some capitals are disambiguated some aren't (and won't have consensus for it any time soon, if ever). "Disambiguate absolutely everything" is also a logically consistent system that also allows extrapolation, but is IMO for the really obvious cases disruptive and may be less stable as if another new concept of that name comes along even if its completely irrelevant to everyone... I know the individual cases are locations, but this is not just about that - its about the whole category system.
The translated name thing isn't a big deal to me really, it doesn't matter if its at Bruges or Brugge if we have the right redirects in place. But in abstract, I would like to see things correctly located. My concern there is what is right - is it Danzig or Gdansk? The limitations of category redirects are a problem, but from the usability point of view you should be able to look for "Bruges" or "Brugge" and find what you wanted.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ships of[edit]

Please have a look at User talk:Mike1979 Russia for a discussion about categorising Russian ships. Extra work, I am afraid. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

We have such problems all the time with historical related items. After all, most countries exist only in their current configuration since a couple of hundreds of years.
In a sense, we are lucky that historically, most countries grew into bigger entities that encompass the older smaller ones. For all historic related items, we take as reference the current configuration, so for example the US history includes the Category:Thirteen Colonies, but the date categorisation belongs to the subcats of the US history. Colonies will be another harder problem, but tend to be part of the current country history.
Last decades however saw an evolution where many larger entities fall apart into smaller entities, such as Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Sudan, ... and there, I guess, we will have to create separate entities as it is for example not practical to link back all Soviet Union related cats to all its previous member states. We are thinking to find a "by former country/culture/civilisation/ethnic/tribe" category naming that could integrate all entities which are not currently an official country. Suggestions welcome. --Foroa (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Metacats[edit]

Why this change to Category:Musical genres? I agree that it's not of the form "category by", but it still seems to me that it's a metacategory in that I would think it should contain only other categories (individual genres of music). I don't see any pictures currently in this category that demonstrate a reason to the contrary, they are simply misplaced. Did you have something in mind that I'm missing? - Jmabel ! talk 23:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The basic rationale for meta cats is to avoid that bots (and humans) put images in that category: they either put it in a higher level category or in the specific lower level category. In your specific case, if a medium arrives about the history of a couple of music genres, an unknown (or non existing yet) music genre category, an atlas of music genres in a specific area, ... then it has to go in Category:Musical genres, not its parents nor its children. In theory, most categories could be considered meta categories (and hundreds of attempts have been made), but not by our definition (luckily). --Foroa (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that is technically true, but the fact remains that at the moment the category has become a catchall for media, none of which appear to belong there. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Med. equipment from BMS department[edit]

The location of equipment is not cause to place these images in MIET-category. Alex Spade (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a subcat then; in the end, those images will be linked to MIET anyway. --Foroa (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Subcat is not possible. Reference to smth is not equal to be part of smth. Alex Spade (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Oktoberfest[edit]

I have created a consistent and correct category tree about this topic. Therefore, I have removed your "move"-tag. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many topics that originate in one place/country and spread all over the world. It would be great if all people, like with octoberfest, would keep "their' items in categories like Category:Oktoberfest celebrations around the world. Do you more such private categorisation schemes ? --Foroa (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I know of "many topics that originate in one place/country" here on Commons. But there is only one Oktoberfest. The other parties are just copies of the original, so they deserve a special category matrix as it exists on en:wiki. There is nothing "private". --High Contrast (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
There are many items like that, and there is only one Holocaust neither. --Foroa (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It is disgusting that you bring up the Holocaust in this context --High Contrast (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Jamie Luner photo[edit]

Hi. Is the permission information on this photo all correct and in order? Does it not require an OTRS ticket or anything? I just wanted to be sure. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Rossow, Löcknitz[edit]

Why Löcknitz and not the status quo? Greets -- Niteshift (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So far, as one can see in de:Rossow (Begriffsklärung) there are 3 Rossows. Experience shows that more will pop up, so the sooner we disambiguate, the less we have problems. If you have a better disambiguated name, feel free... --Foroa (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I choose the name "Rossow (Landkreis Uecker-Randow)". Don't wonder, if the name will change after 2011-09-04 once again, because of the so called "Kreisgebietsreform" (district reform) on this day in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (see here). The citizens will vote for the names of the bigger districts together with the state elections, so that I can't take the new district name yet. Greets -- Niteshift (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

only a little about categories[edit]

I just watched a video -- the translation told what the question was but not what the answer was. I was wondering if you could spare the time to watch the video and briefly (it does not have to be a word for word translation) tell me what her answer was.

A typical "political" answer. She was appointed as minister of social work and she will miss a bit the previous job. But now, she will have potentially a bigger impact on the social relations in the Netherlands, which on its turn should facilitate the European integration on the long run. --Foroa (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Disappointing but not surprising. Perhaps "typical political" is a moniker for all firsts in that particular field. In this video, she has a really nice face and I thought perhaps there would be more. However, I appreciate the translation very much. -- Queeg (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the part about categories, the problem as I see it. Category:Female politicians of the Netherlands and Category:Male politicians of the Netherlands also, if it is "important enough" to know that Marga was a Category:Single women how come the status of the Prime minister Category:Willem Drees is not noted via a similar categorization Category:Married men? But mostly -- what is the sense?

That's how discrimination is creeping in the system. First you make gender neutral cats, and then you isolate the females in separate categories. As most items arrive in the gender neutral ones, some in the male ones, the females are getting on the lowest priority. A lot of work and overhead for adding a category level that generates confusion and that has only an item reduction of two (most subcategories achieve an item reduction of 10 to 200). You could hide them indeed even deeper by creating for example "young black hair female politicians of ...". --Foroa (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
That this woman was "the first" is eh, categorically(?) special, but it seems that the "categorization of everything" which is here is not branched in a way to manage the "firsts". Perhaps even the article structures of the wikipedias are not such to encourage articles of this nature. Interesting that the category doesn't exist evenly wrongly here. When I first learned about the Category:Members of two minorities individual who refused to remain in the segregated area -- I was six years old and all of the "big kids" would take the seats in the back of the bus because our road to school shared some qualities that can be found on amusement rides (the bus would drive over a large bump and the children sitting in the back bus would be propelled up). In real life, the children segregated themselves based on physical and mental dominance. I remember feeling "left out" because I was very young and not aggressive when riding on that bus.
People, especially when put into groups -- even logical groups; are nuts, completely insane. I have yet to see a history of anything that cannot be reduced to this overly-qualified statement. -- Queeg (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You might realize that you are forming part of the commons group, while heading the video subcategory nuts group. --Foroa (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Vining the new categories with the existing categories falls somewhat short of a "heading" in my opinion. It is also easier to "make an observation" about the sanity of others than it is to make the same observation of the sanity of yourself. That being clearly stated, the reasons that I am burying (or even disguising) my thoughts into such a project are as sane as I can make them.
While thinking of the existing tree -- I become so annoyed with what I will call "British". The day before yesterday it was Category:Traffic (which used to be a category redirect which said "English wikipedia claims this is road traffic" or something similar and today is gone and the deletion is attributed to you from last April -- it was really a {{category redirect}} this week even) and yesterday I was annoyed with Category:Petrol stations.
On traffic, perhaps an island that cut down all of its trees doesn't have traffic on waterways or in the air any longer? United States uses the word "petroleum" as a natural resource, not a single product and always (or for a very long while) made a distinction between "kerosine" and "paraffin". It is unfortunate that so many of the United States "really good names" for things are early brand names. The example for this set of complaints is "vasoline vaseline" -- a petroleum product but with the exception of some lug nut (and similar) applications is a cosmetic and sold as a cosmetic and is rarely found in a petrol station even though it is "petroleum jelly". I suspect that "vasoline vaseline" is a naughty recycling of the word "gasoline". Perhaps that word will go the way of "Aspirin" which started life as a brand name but changed into a common name that is so much easier to communicate with than "Salcyllic acid" (spelling is wrong). In the United States, often natural gas products can be acquired at gas stations -- those are not directly a petroleum product as they are not necessarily derived from a breakdown of that "black gold" that comes from the earth.
A speaker of something other than English must be completely annoyed here, if my annoyance with "my English" not being used is any way to measure things like this. However, my problem with the "Traffic" redirect to "Road traffic" is from trying to find a place for video from the Netherlands, which has or had problems due to traffic on land and on water. In two clicks here I go from Category:Air traffic control to Category:Road traffic and my not so sane view on this is that the Brits have grounded themselves because they do not want to wash dishes (this group of one is not an exception and has some issues). And I am still left with this one question which I have asked for almost 40 years ago by now, how come British musicians don't sound Brit when they sing?
If one day, the categories can also be language specified, the speakers of other languages will become annoyed with the use of the Queens modern English here. And then, one additional "annoyance" or "problem". I know all of these Brit words from television (Rant about "tellie" and "the wireless" avoided), and much more from television than from movies. And not very often from music lyrics.
About videos from the Netherlands. I figure that I watched between 2 and 3 hours worth of these yesterday. Sometimes they are a kind of boring but usually not. I am mostly really sorry that there was not video in the 1600s because I am finding the evolution of that mud flat to the airport that I spent about 45 minutes at to be eh, one of those really interesting stories which perhaps matches NASA stories for human endeavor and creativity and at the very least "interesting" and kind of funny. -- Queeg (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If the opportunity comes up to remove this biased, extra political and backwards accelerating categorization -- only activists in that field/category should have those cats, I think -- would you help or at the very least not interfere? A big part of "getting over it" is to "get over it", unless I am mistaken about this....

I have given up ranting against female/male categories, but I would not be surprised to see over time other qualifying categories, such as "number of divorces", children production, IQ of parents and children. In the long run, they could distillate cats such as fertility, DNA quality, EQ and social potential. Commons/wikipedia could potentially serve as a database for DNA cloning and human engineering/design. --Foroa (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe that will be my next project. Clean it out and if nothing else, just see which is the "first" to return, heh. -- Queeg (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Rants aside, I am really just here to see about a translation. Thanks. -- Queeg (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. While I often regret not learning another language, I am very uncertain which other language I would like to have learned. -- Queeg (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not going to be your enemy. If I remember correctly, the only difference that we ever had was between the occasional use of common names vs only always using scientific names for anything which had been taxonomically identified, and the need to diffuse some categories is going to be the determining factor for that and the way that the common names nicely branch into their industrial and productive other categories. But that was a long while ago and I am only a small amount of certain about this memory.
For example, the "rewrite" here is giving you credit for moving everything from "animals of" to "fauna of" which, you were not alone responsible for and now you are going to be a part of moving everything from "fauna of" to "animals of". That whole thing began as a way to separate the real lifeforms from the political life forms. Having failed due to politics, now the only thing that can happen is that the mess gets shuffled from one name to another?
Have you been the same "individual" for your whole time of participation here? -- Queeg (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I am still the same incarnation, but I have not a clear view of possible other incarnations of me. On the other hand, I have several indications that you might be an older incarnation of the late Carol Spears who disappeared here as she could not live any more with all the traumatising experiences on Commons. She might have been reading books of Milan Kundera or Jean-Paul Sartre for a couple of years, although she hated reading and preferred very much more watching television.
Concerning other languages, I think that even after 50 years, we still have problems mastering intelligible communication with people using one single language. When knowing a bit of other languages, we even have more excuses not to understand the other people. --Foroa (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that it is a good thing to remove female "politicians of xxx" provided that you replace them with "politicians by xxx". The fact that you don't replace that make them disappear from the political world, so it makes things worse and will get you into troubles. --Foroa (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Hi Foroa! Thank you for creating the Theresa Caplan Commons category. I'm the Wikipedian-in-Residence at The Children's Museum of Indianapolis and have organized a few separate content donations and photography events related to museum topics. (User:Dschwen, in particular, has taken many fantastic photos on our Backstage Pass events, all of which can be found in our main category. I'd be happy to have your help in categorizing or placing in articles, or if you know of others who'd be interested in volunteering with this project, I'd love to touch base with them. Thanks so much! HstryQT (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I try to help a bit newcomers and initiatives, but I have currently no real intention to move to Indianapolis. I guess that you have more chances to recruit help by advertising on the related articles. --Foroa (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Cat: Houses in Adelaide[edit]

FYI, Cat: Historic houses/Houses in Adelaide is a duplicate of Cat: Houses in Adelaide. I've been removing "Historic". when I have completed moving the contents of Historic houses/Houses in Adelaide to Houses in Adelaide, both of the empties can be deleted. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

So are both of the "Historic" categories now empty and now deleted? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Most houses that arrive on Commons are historic one way or another. And what is the difference between a historic and a non-historic house ? --Foroa (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Schandpaal - Grenspaal[edit]

Dag Foroa, ik zag dat je mijn bijdrage terugdraaide. Schandpaal, Grenspaal? Is dit misschien een grenspaal die ook als schandpaal dienst deed? Vandaar mijn redenering. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Dag Lotje. Zoals je hier kan lezen is het om iemand aan de kaak te stellen. Het lijkt mij niet erg logisch om die dingen op de grens te zetten, maar ook niet onmogelijk. Ik denk hoedanook dat de vorm meer naar een schandpaal nijgt. Grenspalen waren gewoonlijk sobere gedrongen blokken. --Foroa (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hiddencat[edit]

Hi, what's your opinion about that, that, use HIDDENCAT on years of birth and death categories etc.? --ŠJů (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not mentioned: similar discussion on Category talk:Ships by name --Stunteltje (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Some deleted files[edit]

Hi, Could you restore the following pages. I don't know why Flickr upload bot did not complete the uploads, but I'll take care of them. I'd hate to have recreate the pages as I'd put in all the descriptions and categories and I don't have the necessary flickr links offline (they are all in the pages).

cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the pages; when I try to upload the image (as I did on File:Venu Srinivasan.jpg) I get the error message "This file contains HTML or script code that may be erroneously interpreted by a web browser." Do you know what this is about? I tried to change the source file name twice to see if the problem persists, but I get the same error. Perhaps the bot ran into this problem and didn't complete the upload (the bot operator appears to be inactive and has mentioned that they won't be responding to posts, so I'm not sure where to ask the question). cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
No idea, but I noticed that many people are surprised when their files are deleted because the flickr download failed. Keep me posted if you find the reason. --Foroa (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I've asked for help at the Commons:Help_desk#Flickr_uploads. I've referenced this conversation too. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why such deletions ?[edit]

Why do you deleted category redirects such as this one ? It's useful to keep the redirects for those who would still continue to add former cats (especially with hotcats which allows to transfer automatically). Could you undelete those redirects please ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Category redirects suck. With getting close to 2 million of categories, we have to use redirects for really important redirects, such as things that have several names. For categories like "Nude and partially nude women with red hair", one can invent thousands of permutations, so redirects make no sense. Only 5 to 12 % of the categorisation work is done with HotCat, while it is the most vulnerable for saturation, system load and bad training. --Foroa (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
OK I understand... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation?[edit]

Category:De Zeven Provinciën (ship) belongs not to Category:Ships by name, in my opinion. We gather in the last category only individual ships. User ŠJů reverts my disambiguation. Is it an idea to ask for second opinions? Or just block the action? --Stunteltje (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Made Category:De Zeven Provinciën, a proper disambiguation. --Foroa (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, nice peace of work. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence Ogilvie[edit]

Thank you for creating Category:Lawrence Ogilvie and organizing some of my transfers. I transfer a lot of images from the English Wikipedia to Commons, and I try to categorize them correctly, but sometimes I don't think to make categories like this. Well done. Quadell (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I know, it is a tough job to categorize random images, often starting from zero. Categorisation is never deep enough and never ends. You are doing far better than average, especially considering the volume of "blank" files you are transferring. Some people limit categorisation by adding men/woman, views, country, painting, people by name, ... --Foroa (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Categorie: Buildings in Hasselt[edit]

Hoi Foroa, waarom voeg je eigenlijk de Categorie:Buildings in Hasselt toe aan mijn foto's. Deze categorie zit toch al in de Categorie:Onroerend erfgoed in Hasselt. Of zie ik dat verkeerd. Groeten, Sonuwe (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sonuwe. Category:Onroerend erfgoed in Ghent en dergelijke zijn eigenlijk labels en/of lijst, geen echte categorie, en bevatten ook andere dingen dan alleen maar huizen. Als je kijkt in Category:Buildings in Ghent zie je dat die twee moeilijk in een categorie te plaatsen zijn: sommige kerken zijn erfgoed, andere niet; we kunnen toch moeilijk iedere structuur twee keer maken: een in erfgoed, een andere ernaast. --Foroa (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Ik vrees dat ik je uitleg niet snap maar dat zal aan mij liggen. Ik zal voortaan de Categorie:Buildings in ... toevoegen hoewel ik het dubbel werk blijf vinden. Sonuwe (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hierin zit deze Categorie nu zelfs driemaal. Sonuwe (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Category:Buildings in Hasselt zat er inderdaad te veel in. Een mooi voorbeeld van hoe Category:Buildings in Hasselt en de erfgoed categorie mekaar overlappen en dooreen lopen. --Foroa (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Rijksmonumenten in IJlst[edit]

Foroa, waarom voeg je aan alle afbeeldingen in Category:Rijksmonumenten in IJlst de categorie IJlst toe? Dat is toch echt overbodig. HenkvD (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ik zie dat je je voortdurend vergist met je erfgoedcategorieën. Zoals je kan lezen in #Categorie: Buildings in Hasselt: een erfgoed categorie is een label/lijst en vervangt in geen geval de bestaande structuren van buildings/churches/cemeteries... in de gemeente. Het was inderdaad niet echt nodig om die te ontdubbelen voor gemeenten zoals in IJlst die amper een paar fototjes hadden, maar zoals je kan zien, Category:IJlst kan nu al nieuwe structuren gebruiken. Gelieve dus in het vervolg enkel erfgoed categoriën toe te voegen, en niet bestaande gemeente of buildings categoriën weg te nemen. --Foroa (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Foroa, ik snap niet waar je het over hebt. Hasselt is een discussie hierboven met iemand anders. Een erfgoed categorie vervangt misschien niet een categoeie Buildings in .. maar zeker wel een categorie van de plaats. Ik zie dat je inmiddels een categorie Buildings in IJlst hebt aangemaakt. De door mij gemelde wijzigingen staan echter nog steeds in Category:IJlst, bijvoorbeeld File:2011-07 IJlst Oude Stadhuis.jpg. Svp controleren. 07:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Dat is te kort door de bocht. Zoals ik in de Hasselt discussie zei: erfgoed categorieën zijn enkel een label en vervangen geenszins de bestaande en vooral toekomstige categorie structuren. Op termijn komen er hoedanook diepere structuren in de gemeenten. In [[:Category:IJlst] heb ik ook een aantal verloren categorieën bijgevonden en eentje bijgemaakt, hetgeen dan ook mijn stelling aantoont. --Foroa (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hoezoo zijn erfgoed categorien alleen een label???? Als er geen categorie Buildings in ... bestaan hoven ze echt niet ook in Category:IJlst gezet te worden! HenkvD (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Als regel altijd den bovenliggende categorie (IJlst) verwijderen als de onerliggende categorie (Rijksmonumenten in IJlst) altijd behoort tot deze bovelniggende categorie. Dat jij voor Belgie je eigen regels stelt (zoals voor Windmills in Belgium) betekend nog niet dat dit de algemene regel is. HenkvD (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dringend verzoek: niet zomaar sjablonen weghalen[edit]

Hallo Foroa, Bij deze dringend het verzoek om te stoppen met het verwijderen van het sjabloon Onroerend erfgoed. Dit sjabloon is verplicht aanwezig op de betreffende bestandspagina's in verband met de fotowedstrijd Wiki Loves Monuments. Ik heb al jou wijzigingen daarom moeten herstellen. Enkel dit sjabloon op de categorie is niet wenselijk. Dit geldt ook voor eventuele coördinaten. Alvast bedankt. groetjes - Romaine (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

On commons verhuizen wij altijd coordinaten en labels naar het hoogst mogelijke level, in dit geval de categorie: dit vermijdt dubbel maintenance werk en geeft minder vergissingen. Wij voegen ook geen tientallen erfgoed labels en coordinaten toe als een uitgebreide categorie plots een erfgoedlabel krijgt. toe aan een Voor zover ik in de teksten kan vinden heb is enkel de Wiki Loves Monuments template verplicht. --Foroa (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Coördinaten kunnen heel specifiek zijn voor één deel-locatie. Bovendien komen gebruikers primair uit op de bestandspagina, en daar dient de primaire informatie, waaronder ook geo-info, te vinden te zijn. Door het ontbreken van coördinaten op bestandspagina's kan er jusit meer vergissingen optreden doordat men op de bestandspagina geen coördinaten ziet en aannames doet. Verder zijn er projecten die juist proberen aan bestandspagina's coördinaten toe te voegen. Wij voegen dus wél alle relevante erfgoedlabels en dergelijke toe op artikelen, omdat individuele bestanden geïdentificeerd dienen te worden, en niet de categorieën die slechts voor de navigatie bestemd zijn. Het is prima om informatie aan een categorie toe te voegen, maar dat neemt niet weg dat ze ook op bestandspagina's te vinden dienen te zijn. Er is absoluut geen beleid vastgesteld om informatie van bestanden te verwijderen! Daarnaast zijn de coördinaten en identificatie-labels (via sjablonen) van bestanden een noodzaak voor bots om de juiste koppeling te kunnen leggen tussen een bestand en de monumentenlijsten. Daarbij tevens opmerkend dat er bots lopen die automatisch de labels aan bestandspagina's toevoegen, en het dus buitengewoon zinloos is die te gaan verwijderen. Ik ben de organisator voor Wiki Loves Monuments in België en Luxemburg, en de mede-organisator in 2010 van Wiki loves Monuments in Nederland, ik weet dus zeer goed waar ik het voer heb. Bij de vele Wiki Loves Monuments-wedstrijden zijn juist die zaken verplicht die jij aan het weghalen bent geweest. Bij deze dus nogmaals het verzoek dat dus niet meer te doen. Alvast bedankt! Groetjes - Romaine (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with this one! :-) Romaine (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed Category[edit]

Hi Foroa! Why did you remove this Commons Cat? Is there something wrong with it? Greetings - --Sir James (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Belgium is too generic and a substantial part of the buildings in Bruges are culture heritage (there are thousands of official cultural heritage buildings in Belgium). Currently, there is a "Wiki loves monuments" action going that intends to organise a heritage classification as you might see in Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2011. This should lead in Flanders to the proper categories from Category:Onroerend erfgoed in Flanders along with the links to the databases from the government. In the long run, all images or categories, as I did now for your image, will receive a proper category and cultural heritage ID (Category:Onroerend erfgoed in Bruges . --Foroa (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay; thanks. --Sir James (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Ships by name --Stunteltje (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Dear Foroa,

thank you for improving my user´s page. Loooks nice now.

Sincerely yours,--Markus Frechinger (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure (and job as Commons don't support hard redirects to other wikis). --Foroa (talk):

Your strange intersect[edit]

Can you explain what was the point of this? It's like intersecting motor vehicles and 4 wheeled vehicles into Ford. Palosirkka (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

See COM:OVERCAT. The template instructs a bot to remove from the images the categories which are overcat/redundant as being already present in the current category or its parents. --Foroa (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite get this "along with 3 subcategory levels of B" thing. Does it mean that all category detailing from B to B-3 will be stripped and lost? Category:Red Hat is a granddaughter of Category:Free software. If a file from Category:Red Hat is also in Category:Geographic information systems, will it lose any connection to Red Hat or not ? NVO (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Images belonging to a certain category don't need to be categorised in a higher level category. {{Intersect categories|Geographic information systems|Free software}} will remove from its contained images all categories that refer to the intermediate categories between SAGA GIS and the referenced categories (with a limit of 3 levels). --Foroa (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm still in the dark, perhaps only an actual trial will tell. NVO (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not delete, just redirect categories[edit]

Why are you deleting moved categories? Commons:Deletion policy#Categories explain that (not mispelled) moved categories should be redirected and not deleted. Eg. Category:Meteor crater is definitely not a misspelled name. Moreover I noticed that you take time to delete already redirected categories... is there something useful for the project in that? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Category redirects suck. With getting close to 2 million of categories, we have to use redirects for really important redirects, such as things that have several names. Only 5 to 12 % of the categorisation work is done with HotCat, while it is the most vulnerable for saturation, system load and bad training. Try for example what would happen if you needed "category:politicians from Rome". I left Category:Meteor Crater (proper name), while Category:Meteor crater is an error against the plural and if it is created, should be redirected to Category:Impact craters, not to Category:Barringer Crater. And yes, I try to keep redirects tidy and I am repairing or making many of them too. One could argue that we need a redirect of all categories in 270 languages of wikimedia. --Foroa (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

William Byrd[edit]

What is the point of moving "Category:William Byrd" to Category:William Byrd (composer)? Even if there are other people with this name who have categories on Commons, the composer is by far the most well-known of them. Graham87 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons is a media repository for 270 wikipedias and 700 or so Wikiprojects. Besides some exceptions (national symbols), we have no such things as priority or primary topic as those are too much country and culture dependent. If you search "William Byrd", then you will notice that only half of the images pertain to your William Bird. And as you can see in En:William Byrd (disambiguation), there are many more to come. --Foroa (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
OK Fair enough. Graham87 (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Toronto ferry 1972.jpg[edit]

Ik mis de vaardigheid om dit op te lossen. Als je naar de bron kijkt op Flickr, zie je dat de foto in Commons gespiegeld is. Op zoek naar de naam, dan zit die op het stuurhuis, maar het valt op dat die niet symmetrisch is aangebracht. Vermoedelijk valt een deel weg achter iets op de verschansing. Spiegel je de foto, dan is de kans heel groot dat het om de Thomas Rennie gaat, want er zijn geen andere namen die er op lijken op [14]. Kortom, wat doe ik om de plaat gespiegeld te krijgen en dan maar gelijk de juiste naam erbij? --Stunteltje (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ik ben vrij zeker de letters THO te herkennen in spiegelbeeld, vermoedelijk gevolgd door MAS. Ik probeer er morgen verder naar te kijken, maar het ziet er naar uit dat de originele beschrijving klopt. --Foroa (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories of journals[edit]

Hello Foroa, I appreciate your comments at Category talk:Scientific journals. I have also newly added my analysis to the Category talk:Serials, periodicals and journals. I believe, that you will find that useful in some way. Thank you for your cooperation and have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Monuments and memorials by city (flat list)[edit]

Hello. I don't remember this being resolved. Did I miss a discussion? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess that you refer to the discussion in User_talk:Foroa/archive_2011#Category:Vehicles_by_city_.28flat_list.29 that is still open since 5 months. The fact is that I noticed of wildgrowing of manual addition of flat list categories (normally only inserted by the {{Metacat}} template). Moreover, in most (flat list) categories, data was spread over the main and the flat list category. Your Category:Monuments and memorials by city (flat list) was probably the only one that was well maintained. As a consequence, Category:Monuments and memorials by city contained only two categories: Category:Monuments and memorials by city (flat list) and its by country mate. I have no problem moving them to another category, but I wanted to tidy up the flat list categories and I doubt that making all sorts of side categories will resolve your problem. So I cleaned up these ones, most of them very redundant --Foroa (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding.

Yeah, I never followed up on that older discussion because, frankly, you and were at cross-purposes and were talking in circles. I mulled the issue over for awhile, thinking that a great compromise suggestion might occur to me, but sadly it never did. I have no problem with you tidying it up, because I couldn't come up with a better idea. However, I do think that the subcats ought to have been moved by Category:Monuments and memorials by city by name. Thoughts? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Foto's Hasselt[edit]

Dag Foroa, ik zie op je gebruikerspagina dat je administrator bent hier. Ik ben blijkbaar nog niet goed wakker en heb zojuist File:Hasselt - Huis De Bleyden Hoeck.jpg opgeladen. Dit is niet het huis De Bleyden Hoeck (relict 23100) maar wel het neoclassicistisch herenhuis op de Vismarkt 9 (relict 23102). Kun je dit bestand hernoemen naar File:Hasselt - Huis Vismarkt 9.jpg. Dank bij voorbaat. Groeten, Sonuwe (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dank voor de snelle service. Groeten, Sonuwe (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Statues of lions of Saint Petersburg[edit]

What true category?--AndreyA (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of aircraft images by registration[edit]

Hi Foroa,

since you have previously been involved in the discussion, I would be happy to hear your opinion about this proposal. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of too recent monuments used by government[edit]

Hello Foroa, I think we must create a list of monuments with links which the government uses pictures while the monument is more recent of age than 70 years after the death of the architect. Romaine (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hard to find, most are speedy deleted and only the Flemish sites show images. Most critical items are in the Brussels area I think.

--Foroa (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified windmill, Broechem[edit]

Hello Foroa, Why is this mill unidentified? I think it this this mill: http://inventaris.vioe.be/dibe/relict/13956 - Romaine (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Its indeed in the claimed area, and could indeed be Category:Stenen molen, Oelegem. But we have no acknowledge that it is really from that specific mill, and thare used to be other mills in Ranst. There is a little chance that it is Category:Den Steenen Molen, Boechout too. Better save than sorry. --Foroa (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Gmina Kraków[edit]

Hallo Foroa. Die neue Kategorie "cultural heritage monuments in Gmina Kraków" ist FALSCH. Bitte ändere es in "cultural heritage monuments in Kraków". Übrigens gemeindefreie Städte und Städte allgemein in Polen tragen keinen prefix "gmina". Gmina bedeutet "Gemeinde / commune / municipality". Der Name "Gmina" als Teil des Eigenanmens ist nur vorbehalten für "Ländliche Administrativbildungen". Viele Grüße 80.171.89.201 07:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I know. People fill up all the time wrong cultural heritage categories in Poland. I just create them to categorise them in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Poland, so the organisers are aware of it and can take the appropriate actions. --Foroa (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hallo Foroa. Please change "cultural heritage monuments in gmina Zakopane" in "cultural heritage monuments in Zakopane". Gmina Zakopane is in Poland NON-EXISTANT, only Zakopane, please 80.171.89.201 07:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Those are categories generated by templates. I have no tools to change individual templates. --Foroa (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there's one more to delete: Category:Cultural heritage monuments in gmina Częstochowa. Yarl 11:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

delection of a category[edit]

Hello. I believe the category "Sacramento" was incorrectly deleted. We need to put this category Category:Edifício na Rua Garrett, n.º 90 / Farmácia Durão with location above:{{Object location dec|38.71084|-9.141533|region:PT}}, the building is indexed: {{SIPA|20897|PT031106270881|}}Sacramento is a location in Lisbon, Portugal.--Celia Ascenso (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, the category is manual. There exist many Sacramento's. --Foroa (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Genk - Hoeve Zonhoverweg 125.jpg[edit]

Hello Foroa, please delete File:Genk - Hoeve Zonhoverweg 125.jpg because I've taken a picture of farm number 127 which is not on the Flemish heritage list. I'll take a new picture of the correct farm instead (if it's possible because of the long distance to the road). Best regards, Sonuwe (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Renamed to File:Genk - Hoeve Zonhoverweg 127.jpg, no need for deletion. --Foroa (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Babel[edit]

Hi Foroa, was your deletion of Commons:Babel intented or just a mistype? --Túrelio (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A mistake. I thought I restored it, but it seemed to have failed. I needed 3 attempts before the restore functioned. --Foroa (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad categories in Poland[edit]

Hallo Foroa! Immer wieder führen Sie falsche Kategorien in Polen ein. Wieso machen Sie es ? Galuben Sie, es macht wirklich keinen Spaß Ihre Fehler immer wieder zu koriegieren. 1. Es gibt keine city Chraplewo in Polen - diese Kategorie müsste heissen "Chraplewo (powiat nowotomyski) in Polen gibts noch andere "Chraplewo's". Kategorien "cultural heritage monuments in Opalenica" und in "Kuslin" sind auch falsch, es muss DRINGEND zugeführt werden prefix "gmina" - weil hier sich um ländliche administrative Bildungen handele. Damit Sie keine weitere Fehler machen schlage ich vor dass Sie sich mite der administrativen Aufteilung in Polen bakannt machen und erst dann neue Kategoriewn in diesem Bereich schaffen. Jetzt muss ich Ihre Fehler korriegieren. 80.171.35.206 15:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hold your horses. I am NOT really creating those categories: they are implicitly created by the declaration of it in many images, so they appear in Special:WantedCategories. I just allocate parent categories to such categories and sort them in a very obvious place so that people of Poland can take the appropriate action. I checked indeed that Category:Chraplewo needed disambiguation so I put it in a very obvious place as the various Chraplewo categories did not exist at that time. If you want to make your self angry, do it against the people that allocate the wrong categories, not with me. --Foroa (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't realise, that wanted categories is actually working :). In the future I'll check for missing Polish categories, but you can of course apprise me of some I could miss. Yarl 18:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

...or just simple give me these redlinks, I'll fix it asap ;). Yarl 20:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Romania with errors[edit]

Hi Foroa. You included in this category 2 other categories (see [32]) and I'm not sure what the error is. Could you please explain what you were trying to achieve? The "... with errors" category should be as empty as possible at all times. Thanks--Strainu (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I discovered those non-existent categories in Special:WantedCategories. Because I have no time to investigate if those category names are correct and how they should be fitted in your existing structure, I categorized them temporally into Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Romania with errors, so it becomes apparent for you that it need to be categorised properly. I could try to categorise it properly, but my possible incomplete categorisation might then pass unnoticed. --Foroa (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Foroa, I will put them in the right category.--Strainu (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My User Category[edit]

Hi,

I saw that you have deleted my redirect categories. I try to explain my problem. I used Category:Uploaded by user:Xfigpower since 2 years but, there is a problem with UploadWizard, so that you cannot inform a category with ":". So I decided to use Category:Uploaded by user Xfigpower for uploads and I would hope that a bot will correct later the right category.

I see today that you delete this category (you haven't made a mistake) so, in order to resolve definitely all those redirects, I choose by now Category:Uploaded by Xfigpower.

Could you permit the use of redirect from Category:Uploaded by user:Xfigpower/Category:Uploaded by user Xfigpower to Category:Uploaded by Xfigpower, so that bot could do the cleaning. Thanks -- Xfigpower (pssst) 15:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons prefers user in a user category name to avoid confusion withy formal "artists". I moved it all to Category:Uploaded by user Xfigpower, so your problem should be solved. Best. --Foroa (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Met cat-a-lot een verkeerde move?[edit]

Dag Foroa. Ik zag deze verandering die volgens mij niet zinvol is. Er staan nu 2 plaatjes bij Category:Cities and villages in Belgium die er volgens mij niet moeten staan. Is dat correct? Groeten, Wouter (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dank u. Inderdaad, Cat-a-lot is gevaarlijk en soms heb ik de indruk dat hij zelf de verkeerde row neemt, ik heb al te veel verassingen gezien, ook bij anderen. --Foroa (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:Strange categories[edit]

✓ Done I talked with the user. Let's see what he answers.

thanks for the warning :D Béria Lima msg 08:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand Historic Places Trust[edit]

I'm trying to understand why you have moved some of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust categories, but I can't quite see your reasoning. Have I missed a discussion about it? Before you moved, did you look at the overall structure, as it was proposed on this talk page? If you did, you would certainly have seen the link to the corresponding discussion on WP. "Auckland Region" is certainly what NZHPT themselves use, and not just "Auckland". So I'm keen to hear what motivated you to move those categories. Schwede66 19:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that I understand what you mean. Can you give links to one or more concerned moves ? --Foroa (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that some concerned categories have been moved by hand, some via COM:DL by Ingolfson (talk · contributions · Number of edits). I just executed and cleaned up. --Foroa (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you've got the right diff - thanks for digging it up. I've never come across COM:DL. I shall ask my friend Ingolfson to chip in. Hope you don't mind if we continue using your talk page for this. Schwede66 10:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Schwede66 - the move was basically because of my understanding that with the amalgamation of en:Auckland Region, en:Auckland City, en:Waitakere City and so on into the "SuperCity", there is formally speaking no "Auckland Region" anymore, solely a en:Unitary authority simply called en:Auckland. I don't think the term "Auckland Region" formally exists anymore. Maybe being a bit pedantic, I therefore moved the relevant NZHPT category into a simple "Auckland". If you think for consistency it is better to keep it saying "Region", like all the other categories, we can reverse that. To be 100% honest, I was a bit of two minds even when I did it. Especially if NZHPT keeps using it, we can certainly reverse. Ingolfson (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. Having just had a look at the NZHPT website, it would appear that they have completely changed their regional structure (mostly by amalgamating adjacent regions). The Auckland Region is still there, but much else has changed. Sigh. Ah well, the least we could (and maybe should) do is to keep the categorisation consistent between WP and Commons. Schwede66 11:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
As I suggested? Lets undo the move, so having consistent "by region". If Schwede66 agrees, we can put this on the Delinker / Foroa can action it directly? Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
Thanks - much appreciated. Schwede66 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

for fixing my errors--Pierpao.lo (listening) 07:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

International Train timetables[edit]

Wat happened to the international Train timetables category? There often is a special part of the national train tables for the international timetables? Can such timetables only be categorised by the individual countries? Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC) (File:International trains Table 7 in Belgium 1933.JPG)

A mistake with Cat-a-lot (happens frequently with that tool). Should had been moved from [:Category:International Train timetables]] to Category:International train timetables. Corrected by now. Thanks for noticing it. --Foroa (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Women only.JPG[edit]

Category:Sexual harassment should probably be added to the Category:Women-only passenger coaches generally, rather than to that particular image... AnonMoos (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure but it would probably not harm. Some of Category:Women-only passenger coaches can exist because of cultural or religious reasons. --Foroa (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't think that File:Women only.JPG has a greater relationship to Sexual harassment than other files in the same category -- it only happened to include the words "Sexual harassment" as an explanation on its image description page. AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Problem that such trains in China are against sexual harassment, but in Japan, it seems to be a more cultural thing. If I work on categories, I try with a quick search to see if it can be completed, which on its turn attract guys like you that examine the problem a bit further ;). --Foroa (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
There was another German mine moved that had a large discussion, but don't ask me which one; we reduced the move backlog with 450 items last days. --Foroa (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:SDAG Wismut Tagebau Ronneburg (Thüringen)[edit]

Hi, i do remember a discussion about this category, but cannot find it anymore. Is there anywhere a recent discussion concerning the move to Sonderdeponie? --Markscheider (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The move request was outstanding since Februari 2011, no discussion and no linked pages to it, nor to the destination category. --Foroa (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
So my memory does not serve me correctly. Anyway, i'm just asking, because the original description of two of the pics in question is most likely misleading. --Markscheider (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Strange categories[edit]

Understood. Best regards. --Nelson Teixeira talk 13:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:UCKG Church Ongwediva.jpg[edit]

For information.--Bapti 16:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This morning, I did some cleaning in Special:WantedCategories. In Category:church, there were about 40 files from all sorts of countries, mostly categorised, so I just removed the church category massively. -Foroa (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Category:La Merced, Málaga[edit]

Hi Foroa. This category that you have created doesn't have any pictures of Málaga (Spain), apart from the subcategory. The pictures you have added are of some place in Central or South America but not of Málaga, Europe. Regards, --tyk (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not surprised. Most people think that their Merced the only in the world is. The pictures I added previously were uncategorised images and if you look in the text, the only sensible word is La Merced, so I decided to send it to "The" Merced, and disambiguated it at the same time. Leaving it uncategorised solves nothing, sending it to a place, even a bit wrong, get the experts together. --Foroa (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Believe me, I'm well aware that Málaga´s La Merced is not the only one in the world, but at the time I created the category there was no need to desambiguate. But thanks for the compliment, tyk (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I noticed your great job. If we all create categories because "at the time", we are the only one, we will continue to rename category trees, considering the 42000 new categories per month ... I have other ambitions ... --Foroa (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Categories[edit]

No prob mate... leave it on my own. Saludetes Valdavia (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Province naming standard in Spain[edit]

OK. Sorry. --Tres1416 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, the charm of motivated and hard working people (in French: Le nez dans le guidon). --Foroa (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Lithographs[edit]

In the category "Category:Lithographs of people by country", there have been created a number of subsections, and every one of them is wrongly named, so I presume that every print that has been categorised, will need fixing as well.

The main category is "lithographs". That is the English term for the product of the art of Lithography. They are called "lithographs", not "lithographies". If you are the person who created the categories, could you fix them, please?

Amandajm (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny. I created the parent cat and corrected many such errors in Spain. I only notice now the wrong ones. Should be better now. --Foroa (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC).

Awaiting responce[edit]

I am awaiting your response at my talkpage.--Kevmin § 07:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The row over "trade rows"[edit]

There's something wrong going on there.

First, you moved it to "in Russia", although the category contained and still contains images from Belarus. I added a note, explaining that trade rows emerged during the Empire, so it encompasses at least three present-day countries. It could have been split into three "trade rows in country" subcats, but it's a can of worms. Their construction coincided with the partitions of Poland, and was interrelated with it - small part of a larger colonization effort - so there's a potential for more EEML-style bickering.

Second, what's the point of this addition of GUM interwikis? GUM was built one hundred years afterwards. It inherited the name of the old place, and anyway it's just one building, not a class of them. It's like interlinking Madison Square Garden to gardens in general.

I admit that current name is quite awkward and ambiguous, but it is used in English-language press, and I just don't see a better English alternative. Arcades are too general and don't retain the very narrow periodization of the Russian original.

Cheers, NVO (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hold your horses.
First, the category contained since March 2011
{{move||if this should be a special category for Russia, it should be renamed. If not, it should be recategorized}}

[[Category:Buildings in Russia]]
[[Category:Shopping arcades]]
[[Category:Shopping arcades in Russia]]
, move requeste by SJU.
So don't blame us for moving an uncontested, undocumented and non understood category after 6 months
I added some information that relates to it, the best I could find in a reasonable time span. If you are not happy with it, improve it and/or issue rename request. If you cannot come up with an acceptable and documented solution, I will transfer the whole bunch in shopping arcades in Russia, so I get rid of the problem. --Foroa (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Definitely not shopping arcades - shopping is usually understood as retail only. "Our" subjects were half retail, half ... business parks?
Anyway, I see no point in resisting a notion accepted by Cambridge U and Yale U editors. NVO (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Museums of Dacia[edit]

Hi! I noticed you deleted/moved Category:Museums of Dacia to Category:Museums about Dacia. It is not a biggie but there are two things: 1. With delete and recreate, instead of rename, the history of changes was lost. Also, there is no redirect so links pointing to Category:Museums of Dacia from Wikipedia confuse people into thinking that the category was removed not moved. Any reason for this? 2. When I created and named the category, I followed this model en:Category:Museums of Ancient Rome. I think is shorter and correct to say "of" in this context in English. See also en:Category:Museums of Ancient Greece and parent en:Category:Civilization museums

Any thoughts?!

Thanks and regards --Codrin.B (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi.
  • concerning deletions and redirects search for suck on this talk page. Anyway the deletion summary is clear and clickable, so it makes no real difference as one has to click on redirected categories too.
With this I have to completely disagree. The redirect message is very clearly pointing to another category. On the contrary, the deletion summary starts with "Wikimedia Commons does not yet have a category called Museums of Dacia.". Then you have to dig through the whole text to find out in the summary of the deletion (if you know what summary of a deletion is, most readers have no idea) to find out a message like "Category:Museums of Dacia moved to Category:Museums about Dacia)". And that is if the person who deleted the category put such a link there. For a reader (not editor), who goes to en:Category:Museums of Dacia and clicks on the corresponding Commons link, the deletion message will be very confusing and a possible dead end, when in fact there is Commons content on that topic. In Wikipedia, if an article or category is renamed, the user is taken automatically to the new name. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Besides the relatively few soft redirects (1,5 %) in En:Category:Wikipedia category redirects, can you show me category redirects on en.wikipedia that have been left after a category move and work perfectly ? --Foroa (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Yuu might read in En:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion: Redirecting categories -

It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. --Foroa (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree the soft redirects are not the best thing. But how about using a hard redirect? Why have the user stumble at a page which says "Wikimedia Commons does not yet have a category called Museums of Dacia."?--Codrin.B (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • on Category:Museums of Dacia there was an uncontested move request since May 2011 so you cannot say that we hurried the execution of the move. Basically, the name is wrong, the museums are not of Dacia.
  • en:Category:Museums of Ancient Rome is not very clear: does it concern museums about ancient Rome or museums of ancient Rome. I plan a complete overhaul of ancient Rome and Greece category names so the structure can be identical to very old, medium old, contemporary civilisations.
  • we have a general problem with art/museums in/of/from xxx. Look in the top subcats of Category:Art of Italy. The subtle differences in art in/of/from Italy is a good recipe to get it all mixed up by most casual category workers. When they use Hotcat, they will just click on the cat that seems to satisfy the need without really thinking about the subtle differences. One need to spend minimum ten minutes in art in/of/from Italy to understand it as I did some months ago, and I notice now that I have forgotten the details now. In the past, we had to merge again may in/of and of/from category pairs into one as they where simply not maintainable.
  • I do agree that for this move, there was no real hurry, there are many more recent places where such a renaming is needed, but the move request was outstanding, so we moved it. --Foroa (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all clarifications! I didn't realize the Museums of Dacia category was marked for move and it was outstanding. I can see the issues with in/of/from. I ran into many subtleties with all these categories myself. I personally think that tagging is way more powerful, clear and helpful, yet not in use in Wikipedia. But as long as categories are used in Wikipedia and commons, I think it would be very important and useful to have example of correct (or suggested) category hierarchies in some help pages, so people can follow those guidelines. Category:Art of Italy indeed looks messy and I've seen many similar but I would appreciate if you can point me to some categories which have been cleaned up and can be used as examples. I never tried to invent categorizations, I always looked for examples, hence I found en:Category:Museums of Ancient Rome and followed that categorization on Wikipedia articles. Later I found the need to have a similar category in Commons and preferred to keep the same name and have the categories on Wikipedia and Commons in sync. Now they are not... --Codrin.B (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question[edit]

Hi. I found the following two images: [33], [34] in this article on Wikipedia. The second citation in that article is to this webpage for Prudential Cleanroom Services, where both of those images are seen as one image. Each image was uploaded by a different editor, both of whom claim to be the copyright holder, with one image uploaded with an Attribution Sharealike license, and the other with a public domain notice. At first I wondered if an authorized staffperson at PCS uploaded them, but it's two different users. One of the images requires Attribution, yet there is no Attribution on that external site. So either PCS is violating the license of one of the two images, or the two editors who uploaded them violated PCS' copyright. I figured I'd let you know, since you have more Commons know-how than I. Nightscream (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am concentrating on categories and I get rarely involved in license problems. So I suggest to take this to COM:VP or Commons:Village pump/Copyright. --Foroa (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Building address[edit]

Hi Foroa, I saw that you changed the names of the categories for {{building address}}. I actually had begun with the same category names as you, but this leads to some grammar problems for countires like UK or Netherlands that should have a "the".--Zolo (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please follow Commons naming standards. This is even more important for template generated categories. Whenever one starts a deviating standard, in a minimum of time, people copy it for other purposes. --Foroa (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I am willing to follow the standard, but I cant see how a reasonably simple template could work in this case without grammar mistake. Anyway I am not sure these categories are useful in the long run, I created them mainly to see how the template could work for various countries. --Zolo (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
So what I am supposed to do create Category:Buildings with addresses in Netherlands or hack the template into producing Category:Buildings with addresses in the Netherlands ?--Zolo (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Category:Buildings with addresses in the Netherlands of course. That is a problem one has to face with all templates that auto-generate categories. By the way, buildings are on an Island, there seems to be other categories in Category:Buildings with addresses. You want to look how you will manage and sort those categories, some of them contain already thousands of images. --Foroa (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that Category:Buildings with addresses in the Netherlands would make the template more complicated (not much more complicated but it would look ugly). Sure buildings can be on an island (but they are in the UK and in Australia), what's the connection ? I know that there are other categories in Catgory:Buildings with addresses, but I dont see any with more than 10 files. The template is undergoing changes so this cannot very clean yet. I was thinking of either:
Which one would be better ?--Zolo (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Category:Buildings with addresses by country might be the best choice as they are likely to get deeper categories. Such a category as Category:Buildings with addresses in Germany with thousands of such buildings without any naming or sorting rule might make no sense if they are not deeper categorised.

Concerning the Islands, that is the English language as you can see in Category:Buildings on the Isle of Wight and I believe there are more examples like that. --Foroa (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have been told that automatic categories are all right only for maintenance. My purpose was not to use the template for real categorization, but to make it easier to find buildings using the template for a particular country and check if it worked (I think we use "on" for really small islands but not for island countries: "in Barbados"). Anyway I have just realized that we could add "&filefrom=" in the URL of Category:Buildings with addresses to get that. So I suppose the subcategories can be deleted.--Zolo (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but those categories are real categorisations, this is not maintenance, and I noticed several other strange categories in Category:Buildings with addresses. Naturally, people will use the template on categories and will try use get deeper categories. --Foroa (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Currently the "real" categories like Category:Churches in Berlin-Gesundbrunnen are manually added. Other methods would certainly be possible (desirable ?) but since the current system is manual, I think that "Buildings with addresses" should remain a maintenance category. That's why I am suggesting to delete "Buildings with addresses in" categories. Category:Buildings with addresses would thus remain flat and its purpose ("keep track of the template use") clear. Regards,--Zolo (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Not correct: the template adds categories as in Category:Huis Casterman (Brugge). --Foroa (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I know. What I mean is that apart from maintenance categories for bad usage, there are no deeper categories related to the template. If this is clearer to separate "Building with addresses (categories)" from "Buildings with addresses (files)" I can do that.--Zolo (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian bilateral relations categories[edit]

Heya, I've just logged on to find my watchlist full of category moves under Category:Bilateral relations of Russia. I can find no discussion on these moves, and am wondering why they have been done under a schematic which is not correct with dash, n/mdash. These categories are also heavily linked to on enwp, as a result of my editing over there, and now all category links are broken. But firstly, I need to know why, for example, Russia–Zimbabwe relations has been moved to the totally incorrect Russia - Zimbabwe relations. Cheers, russavia (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Because I was fed up with moving those categories all the time. There where actually 4 main tendencies: with hyphen and with em dash, surrounded with spaces or not. Not to mention the dash variations. Many people try to harmonise in their country without respecting the conventions in the other countries, which obviously don't work in an international context. Because of Canada that was the first one to attempt to harmonise on Commons, most categories used spaces surrounding the separator and because many keyboards in many countries are lacking one or more dash keys (and dashes are a source of problems on Commons), I standardised to the Canadian format. --Foroa (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Being fed up is not the way to decide how to categorise. In the process of this, a categorisation scheme in which I have been involved myself has now been completely broken; i.e. ALL incoming links to those categories are now going to lead nowhere. I think the best course of action is to undo the moves, and then start a discussion, because it is now a clearly controversial move. Would you like to do this, and start a discussion, and possibly advise editors who have been involved in these categorisation schemes so as to get their input. Unilateral decisions such as this shouldn't be done. russavia (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Editors clean-up and standardize categories all the time. 99% of the time it's unproblematic and non-controversial, but everyone once in awhile it gives rise to a concern among one or more editors. While it's very important to raise those concerns, it is also important to understand that editors can't canvass opinion everytime that they try to fix something, especially for changes which on the surface would appear to be non-controversial. If we complained about "unilateral decisions" every time (and we have all done that at one point or another), the much-needed maintenance work on the Commons would grind to a halt. Everything is always fixable, can be changed upon discussion, and it is important to keep it in perspective.

Also, I would just note that it is unreasonable to expect that one country's subcategory can be harmonized without regard to all the other subcategories. Category trees work as a whole, and if other subcats are organized or named differently, one should not be surprised if that formatting or naming convention is eventually imported to the other subcats. It doesn't mean that the recent set of edits was correct, but merely that the recent set of changes should not be a surprise.

Having said that, Russavia, you might be absolutely correct in your views as to the proper format. As someone who created many of the original Canadian categories, I am perhaps the one you should be blaming, and frankly I chose that format because of keyboard issues. I have no problem with switching all the categories to the "Russia–Zimbabwe relations" type format. I don't care how we use spacing, dashes and hyphens, as long as we pick one option. My other suggestion, so as to remove the problematic aspect of the category naming entirely, would be to move to a "Russia and Zimbabwe relations" format, and to ditch the hyphens and dashes entirely. What do you think? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not blaming anyone per se, but this move was very poorly thought out. Category:Bilateral relations of Russia is one of those categories which is highly developed over a period of a few years now. The subcategories have incoming links from multiple Wikipedia's; all of which are now broken, and which now need to be fixed. The space between the country names is also very poorly thought out. Why not simply Abkhazia-Russia relations instead of Abkhazia - Russia relations. I believe it is inappropriate to discuss move such as this on a user's talk page; but rather they should be discussed at a central location so as we can wider input into the issues here. That is in essence what I am requesting here. As it stands now, some 300+ edits now have to be made to enwp just to fix the broken links just to the Russian bilateral relations categories. Please start a discussion at a central location, and perhaps inform major contributors as to the discussion. That is what should have occurred in the first instance. russavia (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with Foroa enusring that the categories were named consistently. I'm not very sympathetic to your complaints about process. Regardless of subjective views as to what subcats were "highly developed" (whatever that means), if the naming was inconsistent, this should not come as a surprise. The subcategory for one country does not live in splendid isolation from other countries. Links to en-wp can be fixed; we don't maintain inconsistent category structures because links to Wikipedia projects are treated as if they are cast in stone. I am, however, receptive to your substantive concerns. As it stands now, I don't have an issue with the naming, and presumably the person with an issue should be initiating the discussion, but I am happy to assist, as there should be consistency and ideally the chosen solution should satisfy everyone. As per your request, I will start the discussion, and alert you both once I have done so. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/10/Category:Bilateral relations by country. I also put a note at Village Pump/Proposals to alert other editors to this discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Celtist symbols[edit]

I'm not opposed to the category move as such -- however, you should be aware that the category was created with a specific intention (to group together somewhat modern symbols which may or may not be fully historically authentic), and was not a simple error for "Celtic"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, its difficult to guess your intention to deviate from standard naming if it is not documented. Normally, I would have waited two weeks before moving, but the move request was not properly made and it looked so obvious, ... --Foroa (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Персоналии по алфавиту and Category:Святые по алфавиту[edit]

What is the meaning of this? Does it not mean "Category:People by alphabet" and Category:Saints by alphabet or something like that? Why link that to "Icons of saints? The reason I ask is that Category:Icons of saints now has a lot of files of living people. --MGA73 (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for signalling. If I remember correctly, there was a bunch of images that where all categorised in those non existing categories and in Icons of saints. So I decided to temporarily redirect it to Icons of Saints, so people have one week to react or change it. Normally, I watch such moves after the cooldown period, but for some reason, I did not notice it; they might have been moved by hand too. Should be correct by now, cleaned out icons by saints. --Foroa (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Cool :-) Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese name space[edit]

Hello Foroa. Although, as a noobie to Commons, I disagreed with you on the "freguesias" versus "civil parish" category renaming discussion, I am quite thankful for you intervention on the latest issue. I was finding that there seemed to be a lot of new Portuguese-only names appearing in the categories. I hope you will monitor these changes and/or support my renaming of categories to a English-friendly variant in the future. As you can see from the Azorean-related categories, many of them already have these variants (obviously I am referring only to castles, forts, churches, etc.), except in specific circumstances where English common names wouldn't apply. I have already addressed this issue on the Commons help desk, and they advised me to post to Commons:Categories for discussion, which I will attempt to do as soon as possible. Once again, thank you for your intervention. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, as stated, I am only tolerant to a certain degree. Just post obvious cases on COM:DL. --Foroa (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Foroa. User:Tm has reverted several category rename requests at Commons:Delinker using the statement that there has not been a "consensus for years" (to paraphrase). The request I have placed was to eliminate the Portuguese definitive articles and translate the name "catedral" to the appropriate "cathedral". I am getting tired of User:Tm's insistence on converting all English variants to Portuguese. Where can I present my arguments? The user has not responded to my talk-page comments, and justifies his reverting of the Delinker without appropriate justification. Further, he has already once reverted the SieBot changes. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You did the right thing by posting it on COM:CFD. Once it is there for 2 weeks, we continue on COM:DL. --Foroa (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

He is back. User:Tm has begun reverting all naming within the Portuguese namespaces "Churches of...", "Chapels of...", "Hermitages of..." and the like. It seems to me that instead of talking, he has seen his block as justification of the former all-Portuguese naming. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Kingston Prairie Preserve[edit]

Hi Foroa; Category:Kingston Prairie Preserve is located about 3 km SE of Stayton, Oregon, but is in Category:Linn County, Oregon whereas Stayton is located within Category:Marion County, Oregon. That is why I removed Category:Stayton, Oregon.[35][36] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting. It seems to be associated with Stayton, Oregon, but this is indeed debatable. --Foroa (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with Category:Saturn V?[edit]

I have been attempting to populate Category:Saturn V today in between bouts of parenting. I don't believe there is a name conflict with anything else necessitating the disambiguation clause of "(rocket)" in the title. On the other hand, "Saturn" means many things, so Category:Saturn (rocket) rightly needs it. -- Ke4roh (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for improving the categories around Saturn. I had two reasons to rename Saturn V:
As can be seen in COM:CAT, The category name would be enough to guess the subject, which is not the case, especially when looking in En:Saturn V (disambiguation),
A subcategory better uses the same naming convention as its parent category. --Foroa (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete this request?[edit]

Why did you silently delete my request to fix on obvious spelling mistake on a category?[37] "Discarge" is not a properly spelled word in any language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Same question here with the other request. Train2104 (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. Sometimes, I need to wait several minutes before the delinker edit windows opens, so this time, I forgot it. Executed by now. --Foroa (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Little mistakes like that happen; it's no big deal. Thanks for fixing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In or on the Isle of Wight?[edit]

Hi,

I have been creating English county categories for churches by patron saint, such as Category:Saint Thomas churches in England where there is a good likelihood of many churches in each county, for diffusion of the huge number of geograph.org.uk church images. The template that creates the Counties of England header for each category, {{Counties of England|prefix=:Category:Saint Thomas churches in|suffix=}} expects each category to be something in somewhere, but there also seems to be established precedent that when the somewhere is an island, it is something on somewhere. In order for the header template to be useful, I have been adding a redirect from in to on so that the category can still be reached from the header. I notice that you recently removed one - http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Saint_Thomas_churches_in_the_Isle_of_Wight. Am I doing it wrong? Scillystuff (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: in U.S. usage, definitely "on" an island (although a little tricky if something Island is thought of as the name of a community rather than the island itself, e.g. Staten Island). UK usage, as I understand it, not so systematic. In fact, for that very island, a Beatles lyric "Every summer we could rent a cottage in the Isle of Wight, if it's not too dear..." - Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
We have a similar problem on several islands in Sweden, Japan, Portugal, ... where administrative/political districts/provinces/counties/cities overlap with the geographic landforms. But there, they tend to be less pedantic and understand that as in this case, with "Isle of Wight", in fact it is meant as "county of Isle of Wight", so they can keep the naming uniform and don't have to change from "churches in England", to "churches on the Isle of Wight" to "churches in town xxx of the Isle of Wight". Your solution with a redirect seems rather clumsy, so I would suggest to add some more intelligence in the template to cope with that. I believe that they have something comparable (translation issues) in the French department templates. --Foroa (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately the in or on is part of the prefix of the template, so a modification to choose in or on within the template would require a change to every page that the template is used on, which I fear would be unpopular. Scillystuff (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Not really, all that is needed is to add an extra field eg "IOWprefix". If the Isle of Wight needs a different prefix, it can be defined when needed. If its not needed (for "of" prefixes), or not defined, it can fall through to the default prefix. Minimal disruption there, and does fix the problem longer term.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Not really, some templates, such as {{Regions of France}}, sense if the wanted category is there and if not, they try another combination. This in or on is not casted in stone. --Foroa (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Um {{Regions of France}} is like {{Counties of England}} in this respect, it requires the full prefix ":Category:Churches in" as input. Its not able to "say ok '...in' doesn't work, is it at '...on'"? Regions of France tests for variants of the region names, which is not defined by the user on each transclusion.
These templates are badly coded, as users should not have to enter ":Category:" as part of the prefix parameter. The conjunction "in, on, of..." shouldn't be necessary either. If the user has to define it, it should be a seperate parameter from the main part of the prefix. Fixing the templates to be more logical would take significant effort.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Uncategorized file[edit]

Thanks for the immediate answer. Of course I agree that nested categories are not OK. But that's not my fault, because when I upload a new file, I put only ONE double square bracket (in old form) or make it without bracket at all (in upload wizard) for categories. After uploading suddenly occur those nested categories, and I don't know why. --Silverije (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Vijvers van Elsene[edit]

Hey. Ik heb de categorie Category:Ixelles Ponds enigszins heraangemaakt, maar dan met hoofdletters (want dat was inderdaad niet het geval), omdat het een eigennaam is van 1 geheel, en deze nu ook als subcategorie van Category:Ponds in Ixelles geplaatst. Dus 't is niet óf het een óf het ander, maar het 1 als deel van het ander. De "Vijvers van Elsene" is het geheel van (tegenwoordig) 2 specifieke vijvers (meertjes) in Elsene, zie bv. nl:Vijvers van Elsene, fr:Étangs d'Ixelles, en:Ixelles Ponds, dus vandaar dat er ook artikels zijn onder die naam ;-). Deze zijn ook op zich sinds 1976 beschermd (nummer 2071-0006/0) onder die naam vandaar. Misschien gaan er niet direct nog veel andere vijvertjes in Elsene gefotografeerd worden, maar als die er ooit zijn, dan zijn die natuurlijk wél bestemd voor Category:Ponds in Ixelles. Maar het geheel (het park + meren) van de "Ixelles Ponds" is dus ook 1 entiteit, vandaar 1 subcat ;-) Ik heb ook een erfgoedsjabloontje toegevoegd, ik hoop dat het een juist sjabloontje is voor Brussels beschermd erfgoed. --LimoWreck (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ik kende wel de Etangs, maar had de link niet gelegd en nooit gedacht dat ze zo in het Engels vertaald zouden worden, temeer daar er geen hoofdletter was. Bedankt. --Foroa (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Ja, door het gebrek aan hoofdletter was het inderdaad een logische correctie en dus hernoeming. Ik wist ook niet dat ze het zo vertaalden in het Engels, maar de en-wiki suggereerde dit alvast, Google Books bleek dat te bevestigen ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Matarranya[edit]

Dear Foroa, You have incorrectly redirected the (linguistical) Category:Matarranya to the (geographical) Category:Matarraña despite the explicit definition given in Category:Matarranya: "Natural Catalan-speaking comarca in Franja de Ponent, which includes current official Aragonese comarcas of Bajo Aragón, Bajo Aragón-Caspe and Matarraña". Afterwards you have incorrectly re-categorized all the categories in Category:Cities and villages in Matarranya‎ into Category:Cities and villages in Matarraña. Therefore, now there are categories in Category:Cities and villages in Matarraña wich do NOT belong to Matarraña, but Bajo Aragón or Bajo Aragón-Caspe. Yours faithfully, --Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Lets not play little games. As you can see in en::Matarraña/Matarranya and Category:Matarraña, Matarraña and Matarranya are since years the Spanish and Catalan words for the same comarca. Trying to give different (political) meanings to basically the same word makes no sense and creates unavoidably a mixup. --Foroa (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Foroa, First of all, keep the required respect in your register. Second, I am not playing any game. If you ara unable to understand the difference between the two terms and their meanings, at least avoid making basic errors: you have categorized some cities and/or villages as belonging to two different comarques at the same time, as e.g., Category:La Sorollera (this belongs only to Bajo Aragón and not to Matarraña). So, please, fix the error you have created. And please, pay more attention next time in order to prevent this elementary errors. Yours faithfully, --Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the mistakes I hope, but of course, Matarraña and Matarranya remain synonyms on Commons and I don't think that introducing some new "Natural Catalan-speaking" type of Comarcas and insert them in basically administrative Comarcas is a good idea. --Foroa (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the errors. I agree with you that terminology might be misleading in this case. However I wonder how to categorize Catalan-speaking cities and villages that previously belonged to the historical comarca of Matarranya (see Historical comarca of Matarranya) in a way that could not be considered as politically-biased. Take into account that all these cities/villages are nowadays splitted into 3 different administrative comarcas, as well as joined to some other non-Catalan speaking cities/villages. --Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me, but I believe that those are better grouped in a separate parent cat to avoid confusion. Question is if you really need that intermediate category or you can connect them directly to the territory or Catalan speaking cities, ... --Foroa (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hernoemingen in 't wilde weg[edit]

Hey Foroa: die gebruiker tm die je enkele dagen geleden aansprak omwille van zijn inconsistente, onbezonnen, vaak zelfs foutieve hernoemingen in 't wilde weg is weer bezig geweest met lukraak categorieën hernoemen, zonder reactie op jouw mededeling: dit was zijn reactie op jou vraag: [38] .... Mochten ze nu ook nog enigszins gangbare en correcte "vertalingen" zijn, tot daar aan toe, maar zelfs zijn engelse "vertalingen" zijn gewoon erbarmelijk. Ik draai voorlopig zijn gedoe even terug, want hij maakt zo van commons maar een zootje. Zo maakte hij van "Château Cockerill" de naam "Castle of Cockerill", alsof Cockerill een plaatsnaam is ? 0 google hits. In het Engels zou Cockerill castle nog enigszins een gewone constructie kunnen zijn, maar zelfs Engelstalige teksten geven via google gewoon "Château Cockerill" (de Engels dwepen natuurlijk graag met het woordje château), om maar aan te geven dat zélfs wanneer men een meer engelstalige naam zou kiezen, deze gebruiker alleszins helemaal er niet in slaagt dit op een goede manier te doen (laat staan dat het lukraak voor slechts enkele gebouwen in een hele nationale structuur in BE, FR, DK, of wel land dan ook moet geburen). Straks denkt hij nog dat "Arc de Triomphe" en "Reichstag" in het Engels moeten... --LimoWreck (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tm weigert in te gaan op iedere discussie, alhoewel hij vrij goed is in Engels. In feite is het een wraakactie omdat wij momenteel een renaming doorvoeren van zijn Basilieken in Portugal, die meestal enkel "Sé da ..." genaamd werden. Hij heeft geprofiteerd van de wiki loves monuments actie om zo Portugees mogelijke namen in te voeren, het liep werkelijk de spuigaten uit. Aan de ene kant heeft hij gelijk omdat wij meer tolerant zijn voor namen van Germaanse en Romaanse oorsprong terwijl wij de namen in centraal en oost-Europa moeilijk kunnen verstaan omwille van de vele vervoegingen (Zie vb Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Kostel). Zo moeten wij laveren tussen tolerantie en de regels. Maar inderdaad, renaming is niet zo eenvoudig en vergt heel wat opzoekingswerk. Omdat ik tussen twee vuren zit ben ik blij dat er eens iemand anders revert; ondertussen gaat hij hopelijk wat kalmeren, en ten slotte sta ik er in dergelijke discussies meestal alleen voor. Bedankt dus, maar dat sluit niet uit dat we ooit onze bekendste kerken en gebouwen in het Engels gaan moeten vertalen, alhoewel ik wel meer voor een hybride aanpak ben; Sint-Jacobskerk naar Church of Saint-James lijkt mij niet optimaal. Zoals op Commons evolueert de en:wiki ook naar meer selectieve naming tolerantie voor Romaanse en Germaanse naming, maar probeer daar maar eens een regel in te vinden. --Foroa (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Tjah, vooral voor kastelen in bv. Nederlandstalig taalgebied ga ik wel eens voor een Engels aanduiding. Franstalige komen dan gewoonweg weer vaak letterlijk met de aanduiding Château voor in de Engels literatuur (zoek maar eens wat Belgisch en Franse kastelen in Engelstalige boeken via Google Books of zo). Het erg is dat hij eigenlijk totaal geen benul heeft waarover hij het heeft... want zijn voorgestelde kerknamen met pakweg 'Bon Pasteur' of iets als 'Church of l'Épiphanie' zijn duidelijk geen Engels te noemen, maar enig benul heeft hij daar blijkbaar niet van. (Als men toch volledig voor Engels zou gaan - in zoverre mogelijk voor eigennamen - dan moet het natuurlijk goed vertaald worden. Mogelijks vindt men gebouwen dan wel niet meer zo vlot terug). Het gaat bij zo'n namen ook niet meer enkel om de vraag om al dan niet te vertalen, maar zo'n gedrochten zijn gewoon een rampzalige en amateuristische mengelmoes van talen die duidelijk maken dat hij het niet eens snapt, wát nog schadelijker is voor commons. Ook Gebruiker:Romaine heeft dit proberen duidelijk te maken, maar hij heeft weer alles zitten reverten, wat mij vooral problematisch en schadelijk lijkt als het op zo'n ondoordachte en foutieve manier gebeurt. Het lijkt ondertussen duidelijk dat er meerdere gebruikers duidelijk bezwaren hebben + dat het helemaal niet binnen enige Policy valt + dat het vol fouten zit... des te wraakroepender dat een gebruiker die niet weet wat hij dat kan doorgaan met conflicten creëren + van commons een zootje maken. --LimoWreck (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Uitlegpagina verborgen pagina[edit]

Ik zag dat je zojuist de betreffende pagina hebt aangepast. Ik meng me niet graag in de discussie die er over gaande is voor wat betreft de scheepsnamen. Maar ik ben er inmiddels achter waarom ik ze wel zie en veel anderen kennelijk niet. Dat vind ik niet in het net bijgewerkte artikel, vandaar even deze toelichting. Het blijkt dat je in het door mij gebruikte Monobook ook preferenties kunt instellen en daar heb ik waarschijnlijk zelf indertijd - lang geleden - aangegeven dat ik die categorieën wilde zien. Ik keek even in de andere versies, die bieden ook die instelingsmogelijkheid en daar was het vinkje niet gezet. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Zover ik begrepen heb werkt dat feature niet op category displays; daar worden ze altijd apart als Non-topical/index: categories displayed, onafhankelijk van de switch. We kunnen natuurlijk verdedigen that "ships by name" een index category is. --Foroa (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Ik blijf graag buiten die discussie (vandaar ook het Nederlands) omdat ik niet ver genoeg in de werking en het systeem van Commons en Wikipedia zit. Kan dan niets bijdragen. Overigens, die Standaard-vraag snap ik niet helemaal. Je zoekt naar een voorbeeld of een echte standaard? (Ik moet nu naar m'n andere vrijwilligersputje, kijk hier pas vanavond weer.) --Stunteltje (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Mijn vraag is: waar kan ik op commons de beste/meest up-to-date Commons ships by name definitie vinden die vrij algemeen geaccepteerd werd. Tweede deel: is die geupdated om de tugs/submarines en de built date te preciseren. Met andere woorden, waar kan ik naar verwijzen als er iemand een verkeerde ship name gebruikt of in twijfel trekt.--Foroa (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Electricity Resort District of St. Petersburg[edit]

I'm thinking of a more appropriate name - the target article is about Electrical grid of Kurortny District of Saint Petersburg - but it's too long. Perhaps, instead of a one-of-a-kind district-level category, it should be on the city level - directly below Category:Economy of Saint Petersburg and Category:Power grids in Russia ? NVO (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You might want to build on Category:Power grids in Russia so Category:Power grids, Kurortny District of Saint Petersburg, possibly via Category:Power grids, Saint Petersburg. --Foroa (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Maps of Łódź[edit]

Thank You for moving to proper name. Piastu (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

CategorizationBot[edit]

Dag Foroa, nadat je een paar keer bent tussengekomen (bedankt!), toch dit éne vraagje, waarom doet CategorizationBot wat hij doet? Ik volg hier de Userpage van Michiel Hendryckx en stel vast dat bedoelde files wel degelijk categorized zijn. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Dag Lotje. Toch niet. CategorizationBot is sinds een paar maanden wel een stuk strenger geworden omdat hij nu niet meer de hidden en niet bestaande categories en templates als category in aanmerking neemt. De fout melding in de file komt wel op het moment dat de file opgeladen wordt of maximum een uur later (afhankelijk van upload utility), op de talk page een stuk (groepering eens per dag) later, zelfs als de categories ondertussen veranderd zijn denk ik. Ik zag geen fouten op Michiels files, maar soms is het gedrag van CategorizationBot inderdaad moeilijk verklaarbaar, maar ik lig er niet echt wakker van ... Beste groet. --Foroa (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay... bedankt. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Licentieprobleem.[edit]

Godenavond Foroa,

Wil je misschien even hier kijken? Ik kom er geen steek verder mee. Ik had dit lemma (Ja, ik ben Sir S.) aangemaakt en permission gevraagd of de foto geschikt was. Edo was van mening van wel. Nu schijnt die Flickr-gebruikster ergens tussen de duizendf foto's een niet vrij screenshot te hebben gehad en nu staat ze op de blacklist. Maar ik vind het redicuul dat nu net die enen foto er niet op kan vanwege dat feit en vele andere wel. Efin, kijk zelf even naar de discusisie. Vriendelijke groet, Devil's Revenge (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for trusting me. Regards. --Millars (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hate towards paedophiles category[edit]

Hi, i think that you have misunderstood what was going on. If you review the change history of that category, you'll see it more clearly. User ŠJů has taken it upon oneself to guard that category against all edits, when the only other contributor (ZH2010) has removed the cat, SJu has reverted without any explanation. Later i came to this category and thought that it is simply wrong to suggest that every act of hate towards paedophiles is actually linked to them, i have remved the category, just to be reverted without any explanation. I have tried to discuss but the arguments were not only unsound, but based on a fallacy (The suggested comparison with Antisemitism doesn't hold water, as it is not in the category Jews). I have removed the category stating that. SJu reverted again. Now i understand that there is no 3 revert rule here, but reverting again and again without explanation, and purposefully hiding the revert as minor should be considered as abuse. I did try to reach a compromise, by placing a note, which was probably properly removed, as without a proper reference it was a POV statement. And after it was removed as such, but the paedophiles category was kept, i removed the cat; as if the statement linking the two is POV, so must be the actual linking. SJu has again reverted without an explanation and trying to hide the revert, which i have restored... And that is where you have entered. I have no intention of starting a revert war, so i am going to attempt to negotiate again. For now i won't remove the category, i do see that there is some link between two cats, so it should be discussed how they are linked.

In my opinion saying "category A is related to category B, therefore A should be a subcategory B" is a mistake, because by that same logic we should also place B inside of A, making it circular. "Paedophiles" is a category for the self identified people, "Hate towards..." is a category for the media of acts related to the hate, which may or may not have been committed by closet paedophiles or even directed at actual paedophiles. Currently wiki software doesn't offer a way to link two categories without the hierarchical relationship, i suppose it would be possible to create "People and issues related to paedophilia" and place both there, but i think that's a horrible way forward. But a "see also" heading is very seldomly used on the category pages.

Anyhow, i do not have an answer, but the current situation is simply misleading to the way that most people read the category tree, i.e. in a hierarchical way. Beta M (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I am awaiting your reply, i do not want to start the edit war, and thus am waiting to try to communicate in a rational manner. Please answer. Beta M (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
For clarity: it concerns Category:Hate for pedophiles. In a first reflex, it seems logical, natural and clear that this should be a subcategory of Category:Pedophiles. When thinking a bit further, a logic that states that Category:Pedophiles are pro Category:Pedophilia, Category:Hate for pedophiles against Category:Pedophilia, so both categories should be at the same level in Category:Pedophilia. So Category:Hate for pedophiles should be at least in Category:Pedophilia, some people will argue that it should be in Category:Pedophilia too.
Anyway, the last Category:Hate for pedophiles revert war was removing them completely out of both categories which is a major mistake anyway. --Foroa (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Request to check JarektBot order[edit]

Hi, may I direct your attention to this entry and ask for your comment please? Hartelijk bedankt! --Hagar66 (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Schaechtele[edit]

Hello Foroa,

you created the gallery page Schaechtele three years ago. Is there any particular intention behind it? I'm not even sure what the name is supposed to mean (Schächtele is Suebian dialect for little boxes). Regards --Rosenzweig τ 16:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest; no idea any more, I did some 110000 edits since. As I am not really active in that area, I guess that I copied/isolated that gallery part from Category:Schaechtele, but that is about all I can say. --Foroa (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
OK and thank you; I have nominated both for deletion. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 18:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Schaechtele[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Schaechtele 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 <articlefeedback-table-heading-page>, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
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 | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rosenzweig τ 18:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"The" in regions and districts[edit]

Please note this discussion. How do you think? Should we rename hundreds of categories "... in ... Region" and "... in ... District" from the Czech Republic, Slovakia and maybe other countries? --ŠJů (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Category redirects[edit]

Please stop deleting my category redirects. I will be reading these categories. If there’s a reason to delete, please list it on a category discussion. Thanks! Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to delete category redirects that are based on typos or that use a generic name, such as "Melbourne hotel" or "yacht Club Resort" that could apply to tens or hundreds of places allover the world. --Foroa (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Which one did I add that was based on a typo? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Category:Disney’s Caribbean Beach Resort: I can find 6 different separator symbols in my edit box: '‘’‘’′
And you won't tell me that redirect collections such as Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Egyptian_egg_ovens, Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:O.B._Macaroni_Company and Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:V._La_Rosa_and_Sons_Macaroni_Company are useful for the project. That makes on average 6 directs per image (times 12 million images ?). If all people start to do that with the close to two million categories, and in 270 languages, along with in/of/from variants and various orders and capitalisations (Melbourne hotel and Hotel Melbourne), we will end up with over ten billion categories. Curious to see how well hotcat and search functions will survive with that. Try Special:Search/intitle:Category:Egyptian, Special:Search/intitle:Category:Macaroni (20 % useful categories) or Special:Search/intitle:Category:Rosa to get a taste of it. Or try to type "category:O.B" in the search box/hotcat to find something that is not macaroni. --Foroa (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I find the cat redirects immensely helpful & I know others do to. Among other things, it avoids duplication. I have created cats many times only to find a cat on the subject already exists under a different name. If you disagree about the cats I create, please state your opinion in a cat discussion instead of deleting without discussion. That does not achieve consensus.
I question the technical limitations of Commons based on what you say above. I see no evidence of this - please direct me to a discussion page on this so I can understand more. Perhaps there is a technical answer to the issue you raise if it is in fact a problem, like not including cat redirects during use of HotCats or searches. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

Please, express your point of view on Commons talk: Naming categories – Mixing languages in category titles. Thanks, --Petrus Adamus (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I will try to repply in the coming days. --Foroa (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you please contribute? Thanks, --Petrus Adamus (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

category: japanese people[edit]

dear foroa;

please explain why you deleted the category redirect for japanese people < people of japan?

do you not feel that "japanese people" should be redirected to "people of japan"?

Lx 121 (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

WHY have you done that? Songsblame (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

One cannot rename categories like that, especially if their name is different from the referenced wiki articles. Please use [[COM:CFD}} or {{Move}} procedure. --Foroa (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I have asked them to be moved as you have ruined everything. Songsblame (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain...[edit]

You didn't explain your reversion of my attempt to initiate a discussion of Category:Boatlifts in Henrichenburg, Germany versus Category:Altes Schiffshebewerk Henrichenburg. So I reverted it.

Please see Commons:Village_pump#hijacking_of_the_members_of_a_category Geo Swan (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I just restored the category in support of your discussion. Badname is for empty categories that should be deleted asap. --Foroa (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"Philadelphia Public Library"[edit]

Hi! About http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Philadelphia_Public_Library

It is a plausible redirect. The default name of "XX Public Library" is always plausible. "X Free Library" is not a usual form of the name, but it is the form that Philadelphia's library uses WhisperToMe (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Was a broken redirect linking to the non existing {{category redirect|The Free Library of Philadelphia}}. I have no plans to make and maintain the million of variations possible on each possible name. See #Category_redirects above. --Foroa (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Based on what I read above, I have a question:
Has there been a category redirect discussion on the village pump yet?
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Many, there are two schools, but most people with a long experience and that do maintenance work converge to a minimal approach. --Foroa (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding Category:People of the Czech Republic[edit]

Hello, why do you add Category:People of the Czech Republic en masse to single files that are already listed in their own categories? This edit is a nonsense – his category is already listed in Category:Men of the Czech Republic that is a subcat of People of the Czech Republic. Such edit is not good as well, she is a woman of Slovakia, just photographed in the Czech Republic. --Gumruch (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Enelex and other users added an amount of uncategorized files with people of the Czech republic. I was under the impression that my search filter was fine enough to add them en masse, but obviously, it needed more checking. Should be corrected by now. --Foroa (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I see it now, all the files were shot in Neoluxor. I will try to start some new own categories for people by Enelex. --Gumruch (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Need of explanations for Category:Quarters of Anderlecht[edit]

Hello,

Can you please explain why this category was improperly named? Such a category seems appropriate, whatever its name is (Quarters/Subdivisions/Distric/Administration of Anderlecht). Binabik (d) 16:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The deletion edit summary was not really correct, it just not fit in the current category organisation in Belgium. As you can read in Category talk:Belgium, categories in Belgium are optimised for quick and easy navigation. At the tree levels such as Category:Belgium, Category:Brussels and Category:Anderlecht, we have on the top left side of the categories the rather static deeper subdivisions that allow to quickly navigate in deeper levels without the burden of passing over an intermediate category, such as Quarters of Anderlecht/Brussels, Towns of Brussels, .... So starting from Belgium, you can get in any place within 2 to 4 clicks, depending what path you are following. Sorry, I should have explained more, I am probably too much used on that organisation that never has been challenged, so I assume that the whole world will grasp that by just seeing it. --Foroa (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Research reactors[edit]

Research reactor is the commonly accepted name for nuclear research reactors, and all reactors below this category are nuclear. I you insist, I am not opposed to a rename to Nuclear research reactors, but I don't think it is necessary. What do you think ? Bomazi (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That's probably commonly accepted in your country and in your speciality, don't expect that a Russian or Chinese chemist will understand the same "implied" meaning. I've seen chemical (Category:Continuous stirred-tank reactors and biomedical research reactors too. Besides, en:Research reactor seems "Commonly" be limited to "non-power reactors" not to include power generation reactors, which seems incoherent with the contents of the categories, so there is a need for clarification. --Foroa (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I will do the change. Bomazi (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Les, Catalonia[edit]

Bonjour Foroa. Peux-tu m'expliquer pourquoi tu crées la Category:Les, Catalonia alors que la Category:Les, qui n'a pas d'homonyme, existe déjà ? Pour information, j'avais moi aussi créé cette catégorie il y a quelques jours et je l'ai faite supprimer le jour même quand je me suis aperçu de l'existence de l'autre catégorie. Père Igor (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Utiliser une catégorie comme Les, c'est comme créer des catégories le, it, la, il, the, it, in, on, un, one, ... Les a aussi une signification différente en beaucoup de langues: wikt:fr:les. Un jour ou l'autre, on va devoir le renommer comme témoignent les intewikis dans Category:Les, Catalonia et Category:Les. De plus qu'on attend, de plus qu'il y des confusions et du travail d'aligner les subcatégories. Et comme tu as vue toi même, ce n'est pas simple de trouver une catégorie comme Les. --Foroa (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC) --Foroa (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Locomotives of Britain[edit]

Category:Preserved industrial steam locomotives of Britain et al.

Poor call, IMHO (and this same point has been discussed before). The UK comprises both GB & NI. Northern Ireland, in railway terms, is a different gauge from GB and has far more in common with southern Ireland, not the UK mainland. Changing railway categories from GB to UK is not merely a rename, it's also a non-obvious merge across two domains that ought to be kept separate.

Just where was this discussed?

Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly wrong indeed, requested here by user Ravenseft and due to a broken SieBot, only executed later. Can be reverted, let me know. --Foroa (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Well thanks very much for at least pointing me to that page. I've been here a few years and never yet found out how these arbitrary 'bot renames from the sky were triggered. Shouldn't there be some level of notification or discussion before a change like this is implemented?
I would suggest reverting all of these. If we need to have a category for "United Kingdom" then it could easily be created as a super-category of the "Great Britain" ones. This is probably worthwhile at the high levels, but not right down into the many sub-cats. There's not much content that belong under UK but not GB, but anything under Category:Rail transport in Northern Ireland and its child categories would be affected. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Mostly restored. Please restructure as needed. We try to avoid the intermediate "Britain" level, as for many people, the differences between the United Kingdom, Britain and England are not clear and in the en:wiki, there are close to 4000 categories that start with British. --Foroa (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Galleria di Piazza Scala (Milan)[edit]

Hi, what was the reason for moving Institution:Gallerie di Piazza Scala to Galleria di Piazza Scala (Milan) ? It is Gallerie not Galleria and Milan is not useful as there are no homonyms. I suppose that the removing of the "institution:" is a mistake.--Zolo (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a move request from Giovanni d'allorto to make it conforming the Italian name rules. Someone moved it back, so one day, we will move it again. Giovanni created tens of thousands of cats in Italy, and in Italy we disambiguate allways, a matter of having a system and not a situation dependent and changing rules. --Foroa (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
As you can see also on Italian Wikipedia the name is Gallerie di Piazza Scala and conform to Italian naming standard (category and institution). The request seems meaningless. --M.casanova (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I suppose "(Milan)" is makes sense if this is Commons convention. Just dont change "Gallerie" to "Galleria".--Zolo (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Artificial lakes[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Artificial lakes 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!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

User:JarektBot block[edit]

Foroa, I am a little confused about the block of my bot. Before you blocked me I replied on my talk page that "I am stopping the bot and will try to figure out how to make requested changes before running it again". Than I stopped the bot run. Why did you fill I need to be blocked after that? --Jarekt (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems that I blocked the bot 8 hours before I saw your answer. No need to worry. Best. --Foroa (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories of origin, deletion of galleries[edit]

Hi Foroa,

Thank you for all the good work you are doing. Perhaps you can help me with a couple of issues I am struggling with. 1. Many users change categories like "Fossils from Spain" to "Fossils of Spain". I think this is not correct. The word "of" refers to ownership, while the original "from" refers to origin. There is no point in undoing these changes since so may users make thes " improvements". Do I have a point or should I just accept? 2. When I started, I got comments I needed to add categories. When I added categories, users started to delete my categories from my files because they did not exist. When I created categories, users started to redirect and delete categories. My first category did not have 'media', and I used an example that contained a gallery. Now users are deleleting my galleries from the categories. All of this feels extremely whimsically. Is there no standard, so that I can do things the right way from the start in stead of having to watch how others change may efforts for good or worse? I have now made about 1000 contributions, If I have to guard them all, I will not have any time left to make new uploads.

Thanks for your advice, Regards, Ronald

Thank you Roland for your many contributions and good work. I was under the impression that the fossils take the better part of your life. The debate between on and from will never end, but we have to harmonise somehow. As on Commons, most things that grow naturally in a place (nature, culture, wine ,rivers, people ...) use the of form, which is slightly more open, less possessive than from.
Could you be more precise about changed galleries or categories that you don't agree upon ? --Foroa (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I checked, and in the past, there have been attempts to bypass your galleries as a redirect, which I reverted (hopefully all). There is a consensus, although maybe not completely documented in COM:TOL to categorise galleries only with their species category, not the parent. Only categories are connected with the higher level categories. Watching 1000 items does not seems a major problem to me; in general those things undergo a series of edits only once in a while. (I keep almost up with 120000 items in my watch list). --Foroa (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much[edit]

for removing my working category "xyz" from my mass upload. It helps me to not overlook any of the uploads, and to fill in categories more easily. What exactly is so difficult to understand in "mass upload, description, author, categories follow within the next days"?? --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I try to clean out the thousands of misnamed and wanted categories. As all images where in the same and valid category too, I decided to remove the xyz cat. Sorry for that. If you create a temp working user category, your cats will not pop up in the wanted or uncategorised categories. --Foroa (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Categorieën Beers of Belgium[edit]

Ik heb gisteren een aantal wijzigingen uitgevoerd bij de categoriën, waarbij ik de bieren die in een subcategorie staan, uit de hoofdcategorie gehaald heb. Ik dacht dat dit zo aangewezen was. Deze wijzigingen zijn door jou terug gewijzigd. Een voorbeeld: "File:Cantillongeuzebio.jpg", had ik naar één subcategorie gezet en staat nu terug in twee subcategorieën EN in de hoofdcategorie. Jij bent zowat de specialist in deze zaken. Kunt U me zeggen of dit inderdaad de bedoeling is? In dat geval zal ik daar in de toekomst rekening mee houden. Mvg Dirk Van Esbroeck (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ik denk dat je in Category:Beers of Belgium twee klassificatie systemen vermengt: bier by name en beer by type. Je kan niet in een enkele categorie bepaalde bieren hebben zoals Artois, Jupiler, Kasteel, Floreffe, ... en anderzijds bieren per familie (Lambiek, kriek, trappist). Het systeeem moet uniform zijn: hetzij allemaal per naam, hetzij allemaal per familie. Ik zou het gewoon en eenvoudig vlak houden, en de type "side categories" apart zetten zoals ik nu voorgedaan heb. Wij hebben dit probleem voortdurend met te diepe categories: barokke schilders van België uit de 18° eeuw moeten ook voor de gewone stervelingen in de painters from Belgium te vinden zijn. Dus: side cats voor de specialists, hoofdcats voor jan publiek. Trouwens de trappists komen ook uit Nederland, en straks gaan we Lambics, krieks en trappisten vinden in China, zodat ook hier je logica niet werkt (alleen trappisten mogen in hun cat en in beers in Belgium: niet werkbaar dus). Beste groet. --Foroa (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Bedankt voor de informatie, dan moet ik inderdaad een aantal wijzigingen terugdraaien. Ik neem aan dat zodra er een lambiek buiten België gebrouwen wordt, dan de categorie Lambic Beers in een extra categorie (by country) ingedeeld wordt? Bovenstaande file Cantillongeuzebio.jpg is in de categorie Gueuze ingedeeld en in diens subcategorie Musée bruxellois de la gueuze, is dit dan ook in orde? Mvg --Dirk Van Esbroeck (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Inderdaad, tenzij je een tussen-subcat lambic/trappist beers of Belgium maakt, maar dit loont de moeite niet. File:Cantillongeuzebio.jpg lijkt mij goed, mettertijd zal het nog categorieën bijkrijgen, zoals bio beers, brown beer botles, beer labels from Belgium, manneken Pis in art, poppies in art, ... Beste groet. --Foroa (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hartelijk dank voor jouw snel antwoord. Ik heb zelf meer dan 200 foto's opgeladen bij de Belgische bieren, en wil me nu wat bezig houden door deze wat "fijner" in te delen in de categorieën. Mvg --Dirk Van Esbroeck (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Huang Quan.[edit]

Bonjour Foroa.

Je voudrais savoir pourquoi la catégorie Category:Huang Quan (peintre) est passée en Category:Huang Quan (painter) alors qu'il n'y a même pas de page en anglais. Je trouve ça, discriminatoire, sauf s'il y a une bonne raison. Merci de rétablir si possible. Cordialement --Colibrix (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

7 décembre 2011 à 13:01 Foroa (discuter | contributions) a supprimé « Category:Huang Quan (peintre) » ‎ (Moved to Category:Huang Quan (painter).)

Bonjour Colibrix. Si je suis votre logique, les premiers arrivés pourraient définir la langue utilisée. Un truc comme zh:黄荃 pourrais venir ambêtant pour vous si c'est en arabe, chinois, russe, grecque, … En plus, si vous trouvez une peinture d’un certain artiste, il faudrait chercher s’il s’agit d’un painter, maler, peintre, pentristoj, pittori, malarze, pintores, (Wiki supporte 270+ langues). Pourquoi Commons doit bien uniformiser sur une seule langage. Et oui, c'est discriminant pour les autres 269 langues. --Foroa (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

{{Decade years navbox}}[edit]

Hi! I reverted your unreasoned edit on {{Decade years navbox}}. I agree with you that many by year categories maybe should be hidden, but adding {{hiddencat}} to {{Decade years navbox}} makes also meta categories (like Category:2011 in Finland by city) or "nearly meta" categories (Category:2011 in Finland) hidden. ––Apalsola tc 08:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, that was a quick compromise in an attempt to make those categories more discrete. As I see it going (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:J_1982_and_his_by_year_categories), we might need to launch a bot to delete many of those categories as already many images are lost somewhere in those categories; some images having 3 to 4 time related categories without real topical categories. --Foroa (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that dicussion. I think we need some time related categories (like "2011 in CountryX" and "2011 in CityX") but it should always be a secondary way of categorization; the images should be found by content related categories, too. And the time categorization definitely must not bee too narrow. ––Apalsola tc 09:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Upgewarmde kaffie[edit]

Dag Foroa, e je gie ol a ki hoard dat a tasse upgewarmde kaffie met e heêl slichte smaake in't oed brugs zoe 'a ragolle' noemn? 'ken dat orn zeggen van een oegde bruggelieng moa vien' da nievers weêre. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah lotje, nôois van g'ôord, en k'vinne er niks van ôok nie; vroegre zoatn er en poar echte bruggeliengen (Andries1204) ip vls.wikipedia. Van woa zyje gie (ik benne van juste boovn Kortrik) ? --Foroa (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
'K peizden da je gie wist van woar dak zyn :). Zoetde moeite zyn vor e ki by Andries1204 te gon vragen? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Ninik dus, t'es éen van d'êeste kêern da'j in't dialect schryft. Die'n Andries es verzeekrs Vls:Andries Van den Abeele, nl:gebruiker:Andries Van den Abeele en dadde], ... --Foroa (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Schachtel[edit]

Dag Foroa, bestaat er een mogelijkheid om de "schachtel" onder te brengen in de Category:Cardboard boxes ? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Dat is inderdaad een meer logische plaats. Natuurlijk blijft het verschil tussen paper, karton en Corrugated fiberboard subtiel en niet altijd zichtbaar en is er daar wel wat opkuis nodig.

Category:River Wye[edit]

Not quite sure why you've done this; you've essentially made a subcategory the main category. There is only one River Wye, it just happens to flow through Wales and England. Same argument applies as to River Tweed, which flows through Scotland and England, and has only one category. I've explained my action on the Talk page, so if you want to comment there, fine. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As one can see in en:Tweed River and en:River Wye (disambiguation), there seem to be more than one such river in the UK AND in other continents. Moreover, Category:Wye River, Victoria seems to be a place too. And maybe you can distinguish Wye River from River Wye, I noticed that most contributors change the naming order as they think it is. So we better get it right before the categories have tens or thousands of images. --Foroa (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
On the latter point, I go by the en:Wikipedia article title, assisted by the OS map. The problem with rivers in Wales is they they tend to have dual names, in Welsh and English, and we can only have one name for a category- unless we have redirects from one language to another. I'm not convinced of the merit of that, because I presume that readers are intelligent enough to deduce alternate names, and there is an alphabetical list by names already (and which is now more complete). As regards the Wye, I'll have a think about that and reply on the category's Talk page. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
First, thank you for your great work. It is not always easy to map geographical items in subdivisions that are basically political/administrative. We have many cases of rivers that flow through several language areas, and in that case, the English naming requirement is a blessing, at least if such a well established name exist. Sometimes workarounds such as Category:Escaut are added, but there is no easy general solution. For the Welsh names, I would suggest redirects from main (article/gallery) name space to the English category as those redirects do work (and references from wikipedia to the galleries). One of the problems of our category systems is that the deeper we categorise, the more we loose oversight, so if you could point me to a fairly complete list of rivers, that could be of some help. Maybe we should create some worldwide flat list such as Category:People by name, Category:Ships by name, ... Another problem on Commons is that on wikipedia articles, names change easily, so one name is re-pushed easily to make place for another. With complete category trees, this is a different story, why we try to foresee evolutions and avoid country, region, cultural or contributor specific primary subjects. --Foroa (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
And thanks for your appreciation. I'm regarding this as a first stab at refining categories for rivers, etc. of the UK trying to get the structure right. Of course, it has thrown up some anomalies, and I've tried to resolve these as I go (e.g. by splitting and creating disambig pages). I agree that links from Welsh names to English names and vice-versa, might be useful and I've already tested this at River Dovey, so perhaps I'll go through the list again and add them. I think one of our major problems with they way we categorise things is that we may assume too much knowledge on the part of those searching cats, and the search facility is fairly primitive. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Good. You are right that we should try to minimise the search effort and the associated knowledge, why we should favour list/by name categories at the highest levels; basically, they are more important than the precise regions, counties, cities they are flowing through. --Foroa (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

SieBot and CommonsDelinker — prod feedback[edit]

FWIW in my experience, if you use the mailto feature the gents check that and respond, usually, within a day with information that it has been rebooted. I have not found notes on talk pages successful for either. It has been very successful repeatedly for me the past couple of months.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, I was under the impression that each time, I noted the blocking on the user talk:Siebrand page, the problem went away very shortly after that. But I guess that your method has better chances to work. Do you have an idea how we can see when it has been rebooted ? Best. (In French, they call such an approach: bretelles et ceinture ...;) --Foroa (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
No magic. For SieBot, when I get told and the contributions start again. For CommonsDelinker, again when they say, and then checking through tools:~delinker. So, nothing special, I just keep being cheeky in emails to them. They say that they are happy for email, and don't seem to want to have others do the task, so I am comfortable (got there eventually) just nagging. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Knijntje143 afbeelding[edit]

Dag Foroa, deze afbeelding vind ik, moet worden genomineerd voor verwijdering vanwege 1/ datum op de afbeelding en 2/ voor derden misschien denigrerende beschrijving. Wat denk je? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Dag Lotje, geen echt drama; hernoemd en de datum watermark zou er eerstdaags uit moeten verdwijnen. --Foroa (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Fijn, bedankt. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

File:FOTO PIERLOT.jpg[edit]

Dag Foroa, dit is waarschijnlijk geen watermerk maar een vorm van sluikreclame op deze afbeelding. Moet dat eraf of vormt dit geen probleem hier? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oei, duppelpunt vergeten! Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Inderdaad, veel fotografen en leveranciers van beelden pogen hun stempeltje op hun bijdragen te zetten, zoals dus ook deze. Echte specialisten kunnen dat er wel uit retoucheren, maar dat vraagt nogal wat werk. Ik maak mij er niet druk om omdat ooit wel een omzeggens identieke foto zonder het stempeltje zal opduiken. --Foroa (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, btw, Zeisterre zoekt joen ip de vls voer a fotootje van Achiel Van Acker.Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Kloostervenster[edit]

Dag Foroa, wat vind jij van deze foto? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ik hou van dergelijke foto's, maar ik heb wel geen mainstream smaak. Of bedoel je het type venster, een zogenaamd kloostervenster dat nogal op wat kastelen te vinden is ? --Foroa (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Ik liep me gewoon af te vragen of dit een foto is die kan genomineerd worden als POTD. De bouwstijl (vakmanschap), de stille getuige, de kwaliteit van de foto, vandaar mijn vraag. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Waarom niet ? Als alternatief kan je met quality images beginnen. Zo weet je het ook ;). --Foroa (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ik heb het erop gewaagd, eens zien wat er nu staat te gebeuren. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Waar ? Ik vind niets. Foto zou wel enige perspectief correctie verdragen. --Foroa (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Wanneer je de foto oproept staat er naast "Image selected for QI nomination" ook nog een "1". btw, moeten we dit gesprek nu in het Nederlands of in het Engels voeren? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Ik zie niets staan van nominatie, noch enige link (of file usage) naar Qi op File:WLM - Ciao Anita! - The window.jpg. Ik hou gewoonlijk de taal aan van de start van een discussie, tenzij er anderen bij gemengd worden. --Foroa (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Tjah, dan zal het wel niet gelukt zijn.
Laat mij toe van deze gelegenheid gebruik maken om je een fijne Kerst en een voorspoedig 2012 toe te wensen. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Bedankt, en nog veel beter voor jou. --Foroa (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation categories[edit]

Hi! It is interesting what you did for Category:Histria, except that the {{disambig}} template says it is a page. Any category disambig template? Also, how can you prevent users from categorizing into Disambiguation categories. Regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A page can be a gallery or a category, makes no difference. HotCat refuses to cat into a disambiguation category, disambig cats are hidden and in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories you can see the ones that need clean up. In my opinion, the major advantage of a disambiguation page is that it takes up the disambiguation slot, so people don't try to use it for "their" category as some try all the time. --Foroa (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks! That clarifies it. I like what you are saying. I created this disambig category Category:Artefact based on the Histria example for the same reason. People were misusing it all the time. Can you check if I did it correctly? Also, what do we do with the British\American forms and singulars\plurals? You can see mixed uses of Artifact, Artefact, Artifacts and Artefacts all over the place, also many sub-categories with such names. It's kind of messy right now. I would favor the British variant (since I've seen many like Category:Iron Age artefacts). But also Category:Mesoamerican artifacts and not sure what's the best way here. Converting all of them to say Archaeological objects seems too long and too sterile, and people might recreate the categories with the artefact name in it. Thoughts?!--Codrin.B (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I moved Category:Artefact to Category:Artefacts since categories should be plural. There is often a debate about British and other English variants, and often, we harmonise towards the one that is most often used. Artefacts is a rather easy case as it is used 4 times more than artifacts and as one can see in the interwiki's, artefact is the form that is valid in most other languages too. Personally, I would favour the word objects as it is more general and since several years, the meaning of artefacts is shifting towards errors, mistakes, annoying sideeffects. --Foroa (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Dag Foroa, waarom is aan deze file de Category:Artifacts (errors) toegevoegd? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Die file is inderdaad een mooi voorbeeld van de artefacts van te sterke compressie: als je inzoomt op de auto's en de bomen errond zie je vooral strepen en blokjes. Daarentegen is het niet noodzakelijk een type voorbeeld van de Jpeg artefacts die zich meer vertalen in onduidelijke aflijningen zoals File:Jpeg-text-artifacts.gif .
Looks great! Thanks so much!--Codrin.B (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
@, though I do not quite understand what you are meaning, you are very welcome. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)