User talk:J 1982

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, J 1982!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

East/West Germany[edit]

An welcher Stelle wurde beschlossen, die Mauer in den Kategorien wieder aufzubauen? Könntest du das eine zeitlang stoppen, bis das geklärt wurde? Erfahrungen haben gezeigt, dass es oft sinnvoll ist, nur nach heutigem Gebietsstand zu kategorisieren. Gruß -- Niteshift (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Take it in English. J 1982 (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, J 1982! In Germany categorizing by history would put several little states into life again, which many of us right even cant think of. So it is a practical matter to categorize everything by todays political boarders on all levels, beginning on the municipal level. On the state level borders have changed in the reubification. Parts of former GDR states belong to West Germany now. So categorizing GDR against FRG would not go along with the political correctness as well. So, over all, I too believe, that it would be better to keep the inner German boarder where it is, a part of history, a part of many German states we have had. So, we categorize into the 16 states, then into districts and finally into the last level of the municipalities.--Kresspahl (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not? It's the same with the USSR. Wikipedia follows a neutral point of new, not what's political correct (which changes over time). J 1982 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

XXXX in Sweden[edit]

Hejsan!

Jag håller på att ladda upp biblar och sidor ur bibelöversättningar här.

Jag har sett dig stoppa in kategorier XXXX in Sweden i vissa kategorier som finns på min bevakning.

?Exakt hur har du tänkt med dessa årtalskategoriseringar?

Vissa biblar är ju utgivna ett år, men tryckta ett annat. Detta kan även gälla platsen. Detta är med andra ord inga klockrena självklara händelser att kategorisera... Flera av dessa biblar är inte alls tryckta i Sverige.

Tex en kategori som du kategoriserat som 1883 in Sweden innehåller bibelsidor, tryckta 1891 i Sverige, men också en som tryckts 1911 i USA... Dessutom är den bibel som här är utgiven 1655 (du har inte kategoriserat den ännu), utgiven med bistånd av en massa personer från olika delar av vad som då var Sverige, dvs många från vad som idag är Finland, Baltikum och Tyskland...

(Category:Bibelöversättningarna av år 1536 är dessutom en bok som utgavs 1956 och innehåller bibeltexter från 1536, så jag vet inte om den är rätt kategoriserad.) -- Lavallen (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Kan inget om bibelöversättningar. Trodde det var utgivningsår. J 1982 (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Böcker är knepiga på det viset, de trycks om och det är då svårt att veta vilket man ska kategorisera som. I vissa fall har dessutom ngn varit framme och moderniserat språket eller översatt mm mm mm.
Det vore logiskt att kategorisera efter ursprungligt utgivningsår på svenska. (Orginalet finns ju alltid på ett annat språk.) Frågeställningen kommer dessutom om det verkligen är en Svensk händelse. Det rör sig snarare en svenskspråklig händelse. För svenska talas det inte bara i Sverige. Och svenska är inte det enda språket i Sverige. Finska biblar har utgivits i Sverige och kanske även på andra minoritetsspråk som samiska mfl. Många biblar är tryckta i amerika och förvånadsvärt många i England. Detta berodde förvånandsvärt nog inte bara på att förläggaren lade tryckningen dit. De äldsta svenska bibeltexterna har vi inget exakt utgivningsår för, bara ett århundrade (1400). (Delar av dem finns här.) -- Lavallen (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Ta bort den om du vill. Jag känner till världspespektivet och tycker det är bra, men biblar på svenska gavs nog ändå mest ut för Sverige (1536 var ju Finland en del av Sverige) och svenska har ändå alltid dominerat i Sverige. J 1982 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories falsely categorized[edit]

Hello!

These two categories Category:Andorra in the 1990s and Category:Andorra in the 2000s were in the wrong by-year-category. I fixes that mistake for you. Please check other categories for the same mistake. Thank you in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Årtalskategorier[edit]

Vad är meningen med att gömma undan helt aktuella bilder, naturbilder och dylikt under diverse årtalskategorier? jag tycker att det gränsar till vandalism. Tyvärr har du ju hunnit med så många bilder nu, att det blir jobbigt att återställa. Jag kommer att be någon administratör hjälpa till med detta. --Zejo (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Vissa kanske kan kan läggas under båda. Jag gör som de gjort i en del länder (Storbritannien och Tyskland). J 1982 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Jag tycker som zejo, att det är orimligt att "gömma undan". Tidskategorin bör vara helt parallell, så att bilden han hittas under kommunkategorin, antingen direkt eller under en vanlig underkategori (exempelvis en kyrka e.d). Byt alltså inte ut befintlig kategori - tillägg är däremot OK! Sedan undrar jag dock över nyttan med att kategorisera på årtal för småorter, där det endast finns någon handfull bider totalt. 1990-tal, 2000-tal 2010-tal borde räcka. Det blir ett våldsamt bläddrande om man vill hitta bilder för t.ex Askersund, eller någon annan landsortskommun under -00-talet, med 10 underkategorier med som mest något enstaka objekt i varje. Taxelson (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Samma gäller för personer. Om vi har tre bilder på Bertil Ohlin, så finns ingen anledning att skapa tre olika kategorier med en bild var för olika år. /Ö 19:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Har vi kategorierna skall vi använda dem. Det skapas massor av sådana kategorier här. J 1982 (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Det är ju du själv som skapar dem. Till vilken nytta förstår åtminstone inte alltid jag.--Zejo (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Jag är inte ensam om att skapa sådana kategorier. Jag tänker återställa de jag skapade, det kan dyka upp fler bilder. J 1982 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Jag ställde en fråga på Village Pump för att se vad fler användare tycker. /Ö 13:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Jag tycker att det är lite meningslöst med pyttesmå kategorier som category:1951 in Lund. Kan du inte bidra med att ladda upp bilder istället för att fragmentisera kategorier? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Men du bara fortsätter och fortsätter, fast du tydligen inte orkar bry dig att diskutera i Commons:Village pump#By year categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Vi är flera som har bett dig sluta med den enorma fragmentisering av kategorier du håller på med. Kategorierna du skapar är allt för specifika för att vara meningsfulla. Snart finns det lika många kategorier som bilder på Commons, vilket innebär att det kommer att bli omöjligt att hitta en lämplig bild till ett ändamål genom att titta på miniatyrerna på en kategorisida. Man måste veta EXAKT vad man letar efter, och det gör man ofta inte. Sådana här genomgripande förändringar av kategoristrukturen måste diskuteras igenom innan de genomförs. Var snäll och besinna dig! --Zejo (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonexistent categories[edit]

Please, when you are changing categories: moving something into non-existent categories is not helpful. There is no way to navigate to it down the category hierarchy. If you are introducing a brand new category, you have to tie that category into the tree (by adding supercategories) as well. - Jmabel ! talk 16:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:2004 Summer Paralympics[edit]

In 2004 the new IPC logo was introduced AFTER Athens' games. The previous logo was actual during 2004 Paralympics.
Please, compare with this.
Best regards. Mboro (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Date categories[edit]

Hello. I saw this edit: [1] on an image I uploaded. I'm curious to know what those categories are for. Do you intend to add date categories to every image? Jonathunder (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Discuss at Commons:Village pump#By year categories J 1982 (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Where people are telling you that "by year" categories are not helpful for buildings. Now you are categorizing a photo of a library by date!?! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the discussion; it looks like others have questions that I was going to ask. I don't see support for adding such specific date categories to historic buildings. Perhaps we should discuss this more before adding more. Jonathunder (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you've continued to add year categories to buildings. These may be too specific. For example, I know the Gonda Building had years of construction. Can we discuss this before adding more? Jonathunder (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just added like other people do here. J 1982 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I have not seen anyone else add categories for a particular date to a photo of an old building. Have you seen any? No one else supported doing so in the discussion you pointed me to. Is there support for this elsewhere? Jonathunder (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Basque Country versus Basque Autonomous Community[edit]

when categorising, please take care of the distinction between Basque Autonomous Community and Basque Country, as explained at Category:Basque Country. Thanks, --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Railway stations opened in <year> -> Rail transport in <year>[edit]

Hi J1982

You obviously have used a bot to create the cats of Transport by year (according to Railway stations by year of establishment). Actually I have created an intermediate cat-tree Rail transport by year, see for example: Category:1902 in rail transport. Can you use again your bot, to add the missing cats there, please? thanx --anro (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't use a bot. But shall we replace all like Category:1982 rail now and use Category:1982 in rail transport. J 1982 (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes this might be a good idea (I'll do it by bot) --anro (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

1994 in Honduras?[edit]

Hallo J 1982, I saw you created Category:1994 in Honduras lately. Now the Category:Honduras in the 1990s was not exactly overfilled and I do not really understand why this Category:1994 in Honduras was necessary. Why separate the few '94 pictures (there are some more than the one which is now in the '94-category) from the even so few '98 and '99 Pictures? Hettie (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, there are some more '94-pictures in this category now. But still... why separate them from the other pictures taken in the ninetees? Category:Honduras in the 1990s would fit on one screen without separating them in different years. Hettie (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
We are separating different years in different countries here, and even towns, federated states, municipalities and districts. There is no reason to to different with Honduras. J 1982 (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I fear that I differ in your observation that we "are" separating different years in different countries. Are we? I'd rather say that we do it sometimes, and sometimes we don't. I never saw this happening in say Category:Ecuador (we don't even split that country up in decades). I see it partly done in Category:Guatemala in the 1990s. I am glad to see that it had not been done in Category:Kenya in the 1990s. But even so, what's the use of doing it in such a small category? It doesn't give any usefull information, apart from the fact that one of our contributers traveled Honduras in 1994. Hettie (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Just because we havent split up those countries yet, there is nothing that prevents us from doing it in the future. J 1982 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Well... there is actually. There is a thing called common sence, which prevents us from doing that. And which should have prevented us from doing it in the past. But undoubtedly there is a substantive reason why we are dividing into separate years. Otherwise we would not be doing it. Unfortunately I do not know the reason and I can not guess it. That's why I asked you in the first place. The reason can hardly be that we do this because we do this, is it? Hettie (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Are we still in touch? Hettie (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't here when this project begun, but it's probably just following Wikipedia in mangy languages. J 1982 (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Like for instance the English do on their Category:Years_by_country? The interwiki's on that category show that some language versions indeed do that, but others don't. In both groups big language versions are represented. Well, I suggest we bring this question up at the Commons:Village_pump. Do you agree? Hettie (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. J 1982 (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Done so. Let's continue there. Hettie (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallo J 1982. Meanwhile the discussion about this topic at the village pump gives me the impression that it would be wiser to stop dividing countries - specially small country-categories - by year. I notice that you did not give your input there. May I invite you to do so? Hettie (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Natural disasters[edit]

Hi, please notify that I have changed recently the template for natural disasters, see Category:1977 natural disasters --anro (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


Category:1994 in Honduras[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:1994 in Honduras 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 | português | русский | +/−

Since there are hardly any convincing argument why these country-by-year cats are necessary, I nominated this one for deletion. It might bring up some arguments which were kept hidden until now. As you notice, I'd like to be convinced. --Hettie (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

File:DBP 1964 416 Hauptstädte Hannover.jpg[edit]

Can you please show me, why added these 2 cats (category:29 April and category:April 1964) to this stamp? There is no annually at all and for the month/year there is also no reasonable point to this stamp. Don't forget, for the hole Germany and its former states from 1850 until now there are about 7.000 stamps on commons and more to come additionally thousands of stamps from other countries. Every single stamp is (or should be) categorized in a similar way of category:1964 Deutsche Bundespost stamps which is a subcat of category:1964 stamps of Germany and so later also a subcat of 1964 as well. I think I'll remove the overcat of this stamp because it isn't useful and out of scope for a stamp (except such stamps which may have a very dedicated reason, theme, for a more exact date). NobbiP talk 21:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Remove it. Maybe it will be split into months like category:April 1964 Deutsche Bundespost stamps when more stamps aeppear in the future, but that's not now. J 1982 (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
ok, done. NobbiP talk 21:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:1891_stamps_of_the_Falkland_Islands[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:1891_stamps_of_the_Falkland_Islands 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 | português | русский | +/−

Year templates[edit]

Hi! Thanks for creating templates such as {{Helsinkiyear}}. But please not, that parameters 3 and 4 are completely useless and even harmful because they can be easily misspelled. The same functionally can be achieved by {{#expr:{{{1<noinclude>|0</noinclude>}}}-1}}9 and {{#expr:{{{1<noinclude>|0</noinclude>}}}+1}}0 type expression. In addition, an endash (–) should be used as a delimiter between the years instead of a common dash (-). ––Apalsola tc 12:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean what it is called in different languages? J 1982 (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
What you mean by different languages? I mean that you should create the templates so that no parameters 3 and 4 are needed. For example, {{Helsinkiyear|201|1}} should be enough instead of {{Helsinkiyear|201|1|2009|2020}}. Anyway, I created a new template, {{Decade years navbox}} which can be used to clean up these templates. See {{Helsinkiyear}} and {{FinArc}} for usage examples. ––Apalsola tc 15:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
OK. J 1982 (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:1949 in Chicago[edit]

Hello. Thanks for your excellent work! When I create new year/place categories I look at nearby years to see if there is a short template version I can copy and when I find it I use that, but I don't always see one. I notice you've replaced the long form with a short template after me in some later cases, thanks. However on Category:1949 in Chicago, it looks like you accidentally put in the Illinois (state) template rather than the Chicago (city) one, so I reverted you. I just wanted to explain my reverts. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Chicago has its own template. J 1982 (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I see it now. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobelmallar[edit]

Hej! Tack för hjälpen med NobelYear. Vill du ta en titt på {{NobelDecade}} också? Av någon anledningen hamnar inte category:Nobel Prize in the 1900s i huvudmappen. Allt gott, /Urbourbo (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Vet inte hur man gör. J 1982 (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
OK. /Urbourbo (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User problem[edit]

Your by-year categories are irritating, see COM:AN/U#User:J_1982 and his by year categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, J_1982. Pieter's discourteous comment aside, it would be great if you contributed to this discussion. We would benefit from your input. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete requests[edit]

Hejsan! Du verkar ha föreslagit ett antal (felstavade) kategorier för radering. Men Commons använder inte mallen {{delete}} på samma satt som vi på sv.wikipedia använder Radera-mallen. För okontroversiella snabbraderingar används här {{speedy delete}}. När delete-mallen används skall det skapas undersida till Commons:Deletion requests med mera, lite som "vår" SFFR-process. Här på commons kan man klicka på på "Nominate for deletion" som finns i vänstermarginalen. Då görs ett antal saker för att göra en komplett anmälan.

Men, som sagt, för felskrivningar och sådant räcker det med en enkel {{speedy delete|motivering med hänvisning till korrekt stavad kategori}}. Så har iaf jag uppfattat rutinen här. Vänligen --MagnusA (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories not correct[edit]

Pleas realise that {{SwedenArc|198|3}} means Buildings !! Not ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no point to exclude ships. Just change "buildings" to something other. J 1982 (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
See the category-structure. No ship-line involved. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The Stunteltje's comment was adding this page to Category:Built in Sweden in 1983 etc., so I added <nowiki> to it. ––Apalsola tc 10:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Year–month categories[edit]

Please, stop creating year–month categories for Finland for the 1990s (e.g. Category:June 1997 in Finland). There are so few images from that time on Commons that there are absolutely no need to sort them by month. ––Apalsola tc 01:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think all Nordic states should start in January 1990. I'm not going to go backwards before that date until we get more images. The images are not so few (not all are probably already categorized by year in at all). J 1982 (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. I started a formal discussion. See the link below. ––Apalsola tc 01:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


Category:September 1990 in Finland[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:September 1990 in Finland 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 | português | русский | +/−

––Apalsola tc 01:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Help in a category[edit]

Can you help me, in a category? I created this category: Category:Christmas 2011 in Brazil. It has a wrong thing there. Eduardo P (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, fixed. J 1982 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Eduardo P (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Year categories[edit]

Hi mate, just so you know, there should preferably be categories for "year in the London Borough of X" for London images. I think most boroughs have a "history of the London Borough of X" category created, eg Category:History of the London Borough of Camden has 28 subcats currently. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in them. I know nothing about London Boroughs. J 1982 (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
....thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Canada[edit]

Hello. There is absolutely no need to further subdivide pre-2000 Canadian images by month - there is not enough content to make it meaningful or useful. In any event, the vast majority of recent images are not even categorized by month (post 2000), so there is very little need at the moment to go creating month categories for 1970s, 1980s, 1990s-era Canadian images. I don't mean to be critical of how much work you've done generally, which is impressive, but there should always be a reasonable need for month/year/decade categories before they are created. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rugbyunionyear[edit]

Hello,

The Category:Years in rugby union is redundant : the categories XXXX in rugby union are sorted twice in Category:Years in rugby union because they are contained in the categories Rugby union in the XXXXs which are already in Category:Years in rugby union. Udufruduhu (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Most topics have this sorting. Categoriesl ike Category:Rugby union in the 1880s shall be in a Category:Rugby union by decade (for images from that decade where we don't know specific years). Category:Years in rugby union is used to easally find just the years. J 1982 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no point of separating chronology into two subcategories. The categories Rugby union in the XXXXs can contain both subcategories XXXX in rugby union and files whose specific year is not known. And finding a given year in Category:Years in rugby union is even easier when sorted by decade, because there is thus less categories at the first level. Udufruduhu (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, J 1982!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Estoniaeventyear[edit]

Please look at the two cats using this template. 1) There is an error in source text, 2) Estonia is not in Russia. - A.Savin 11:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to make it look like Template:Estoniayear. J 1982 (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Again: Estonia is not a part of Russia. Could you please correct the template, otherwise I must delete it since I have no idea how to correct this. - A.Savin 12:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with A.Savin. What the template intends to do is to put a cat. to Russia if the year is before 1917. But the template does not work. If you are not able to fix it immediately it should be removed (and the categories categorized correctly by hand). It is very unacceptable to categorize Estonia (or any former Soviet republics) post 1991 as Russia, as you should not categorize Karlskrona as Denmark.... Taxelson (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

video games by year, date , gaming in 1980 and 1980s[edit]

Is all this neccessary? Category:Video games by date is completely redundant. Category:Video games by year. And many links are red, but containing subcats like Category:Video games of the 1980s. I will fill them with text, so someone can navigate through them. --Kungfuman (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's better to put the games in one category, and events and other releated stuff in another. J 1982 (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

For instance: "West Germany in the 1980s" and "German Democratic Republic in the 1980s"[edit]

Hello!

You have created a two different categories about the two German states in the 1980s (only an example by year; applies for any other decade of the 40 years of division). This superfluous categorisation is redundant and in some parts not correct. While a deeper categorisation of East-Germany-topics do make sense, a seperate categorisation of "West-Germany" is superfluous, redundant with "Germany" and in some parts simply incorrect. The status now is that you have left behind a unfinished or better an unfinishable inconsistent category monster. Your East and West differentiation is incomplete, as you can see you can se e.g. in Category:Germany in the 1980s: a division of the categories "198X in Germany‎", "Cities in Germany in the 1980s‎", ... and so on would also be necessary (of course for all decades in question). Do you plan to to this, too? Or don't you want to continue? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry to intrude, but I have to agree with High Contrast. This issue has come up several times before, and the consensus is almost always to stick to current country/place names for year and decade categories. Otherwise, the category structure becomes unmanageable. Think of how difficult the category structure would be to manage or use if we created separate year categories for any jurisdiction that existed within the area now known as Germany. The categories would be useless unless one had an in-depth knowledge of German history. Therefore, when we have a category such as Category:1981 in Germany it means that it contains media from 1981 pertaining to what is today Germany, and there is no need to subdivide it into the states that existed in 1981. Similarly, a category like Category:1770 in the United States does not mean that the United States as a nation existed in 1770, but rather that it contains media pertaining to 1770 in what is today the USA. Any other approach invites great difficulties. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1962_in_Milan[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:1962_in_Milan 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 | português | русский | +/−

Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:1965_in_Milan[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:1965_in_Milan 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 | português | русский | +/−

Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Categorisation of Template:Brnoyear[edit]

Hi, Brno is not in Bohemia, but in Moravia. Bohemia is not synonymous with the Czech Republic. --Uacs451 (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing date categories[edit]

Hi, if you are running out of inspiration, there are quite some red categories waiting for you. Keep up the good work. --Foroa (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary date categories[edit]

Please do not create categories such as Category:1986 in transport in Finland. There are so few pre-2000 pictures of Finland in the Commons that fine-categorizing them does more harm than good. BR, ––Apalsola tc 10:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I added some more images. J 1982 (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, we have six images for 1986. However, this kind of categorization must be consistent, so we should have images for every year, not only one or two per decade. ––Apalsola tc 10:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Remember that not all articles are categorized. I think you can check out images from airports, and like "Vanta in the ... (decade)" to find several aeroplanes. J 1982 (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I opened a formal discussion on these categories. ––Apalsola tc 10:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


Category:Transport in Finland by year[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Transport in Finland by year 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 | português | русский | +/−

--Apalsola tc 10:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Year categorization[edit]

Regarding this, that type of detailed year categorization has been critizized a lot, see for example your own talk page above. Please do not restore them. --MagnusA (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A lot of users do it all the time without any problem. J 1982 (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Här lades det in ett par kategorier om broar och transport, trots att brof-n bara kan anas i bakgrunden. Ta gärna en titt på bilderna först! -- Lavallen 07:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Problems with some year and month categories[edit]

Hello. You see to be receiving a lot of criticism about all of the year and month categories. While I think year categories are often very useful (I don't see much value in month categories, although I acknowledge that they are unavoidable it seems for contemporary images), the problem is that you seem to create them indiscriminately without any regard to need or future maintenance. Up above, you stated "A lot of users do it all the time without any problem", but I have never seen another Commons contributor create as many year and month categories that do not necessarily always seem warranted. You are like a machine creating and categorizing by year and month - while I admire your work ethic and dedication to the project, at a certain point this continual creation of year and month categories on just about any subject is not necessarily helpful for the project. Some category trees in particular, Category:Churches by year of photographing, seem absolutely pointless (while I can see some value in something like Category:Buses by year of photographing as vehicle models rapidly change, and Category:Churches by year of completion allows users to follow historic and architectural trends, but Category:Churches by year of photographing is of questionable use - what is there to say about churches based on how some of them looked in, say, 2003, which by the way is not much different than how those churches looked in other years).

I hate to criticize, because you clearly work hard here at the Commons. But the problem here is twofold. First, you create these multiple year categories, seemingly without regard to whether they are needed or not (just because we have Category:2001 in transport in the United States does not mean that we have enough content overall to create a transport by year category tree for, say, Finland). You populate these categories to some extent, and then you move on to category creation elsewhere, leaving the maintenance of these category trees to others. Second, at a certain point, these year categories become a bit like category-spam - it becomes difficult getting contributors to even bother categorizing images in a basic category like Category:1944 in France, when they are faced with a confusing and unwieldy passel of year and month categories, including spam like category:Rocks photographed in Provence in 1944 (ok, ok, I exagerate with that last one).

There is so much categorization work to be done here on Commons - even making sure that images are appropriately categorized in existing, basic year categories. It admittedly awfully subjective as to whether additional year categories are warranted or not, and I am sure that many users would disagree with some of the ones I have created in the past. But, the issue is that you never seem to slow down and discuss these issues when concerns are raised. You keep ploughing ahead without discussion. Last time I tried to discuss this issue with you, about two years ago, it was like talking to a wall. I really wish you would be more open to the comments of others. Thanks! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Skeezix1000. Problem is indeed that the lowest level categories are created first and filled up with one or two samples. People tend to jump in on each new category as they believe that, because they are there, they must be used and expanded.
The by "year photographed" is completely useless as agreed by several people and it takes a lot of energy away from the basic categorisation process while creating plenty of maintenance work.
I spent a majority of my time on cleaning up Special:WantedCategories in an attempt to trap novice uploaders, but the majority of the work is taken by all sorts of by by template generated date categories that keep flooding the list.
Where I disagree is that, once you decide to go for a category tree, that you go for it completely with all structures at all levels and create a reasonable time span. --Foroa (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Finland has so few pre 2000 images (yet), that we don't split up that much before 2000. J 1982 (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Is that all you took away from this discussion? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Even though I have done (and still do) some year categorizing work myself, I agree with Skeezix1000. Too extensive time based categorization does more harm than good. There is one additional problem with the pre-digital camera era year month categories: Very often the exact date of an old image is not known at all (quite often event the decade is unknown), so even if we had MONTH YEAR categories, we could only add few images to them. ––Apalsola tc 09:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Thanksgiving_by_year[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Thanksgiving_by_year 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 | português | русский | +/−

Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Kategorierna[edit]

Hej! Jag håller på och hjälper till med kategorierna här på commons och har en fråga. Mall {{År}} (exempelvis {{2013}}) används ju för att skapa kategorierna. Går det att ordna så att varje månad för varje land skapas automatiskt genom denna mall? Obelix (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

För det första finns ju inte mallen. Sedan bör man inte skapa tomma kategorier, utan se till att det finns något att stoppa där också. Försök gärna hitta minst en artikel per kategori först, gärna fler. J 1982 (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Personligen tycker jag inte tomma kategorier på commons är något problem. Bara bra att de finns när folk letar efter lämpliga kategorier när de laddar upp bilder. Men konsensus på commons tycker kanske inte det? Obelix (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Finns inget förbud vad jag vet, men risken för radering är ändå stor. J 1982 (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Okej, märkligt. De gånger jag laddar upp bilder så kollar jag bland de kategorier som redan finns. Finns inte en kategori då så struntar jag i den. Obelix (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Men du kan ju skapa en ny kategori när du laddat upp bilden. Att skapa kategorier fungerar likadant här som till exempel på svwp eller enwp. 18:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)J 1982 (talk)

Salzburg - Salzburg state[edit]

Hi, you recently categorized a church in the village of Bürmoos as "2009 in Salzburg". Please note: "Salzburg" refers to the city of Salzburg only, the Austrian state of Salzburg is labelled as "Salzburg (state)". (Yes, there are still some older subcategories of Austria left which only have "Salzburg" in their names and refer to the state of Salzburg. This will be changend step by step.) Greetings from Salzburg state, --Eweht (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Snowglobe Barcelona.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Snowglobe Barcelona.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Libraries_in_the_United_States_photographed_in_2012[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Libraries_in_the_United_States_photographed_in_2012 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 | português | русский | +/−

Szilas (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Bremgarten-Dietikon-Bahn 1902.jpg[edit]

On 21 October 2011, you added File:Bremgarten-Dietikon-Bahn 1902.jpg into Category:1902 in Berlin. I cannot see any Berlin connection and the caption does not indicate one. Can you remember why you did this?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)