User talk:Sir Gawain/Archive

hallo

hallo sir gawain und ein verspätetes, aber herzliches willkommen in den commons! ich habe gesehen, dass du hier ziemlich aktiv bist, und multilinguale beschreibungen erstellst. die sehen auch sehr gut aus, wofür ich vorlagen gemacht habe. z.b. diese hier: {{German}}. anstatt den gesamten tag selbst einzugeben, reicht es die vorlagen auf Commons:Vorlagen für Galerien zu benutzen. gruss Schaengel89 @me 13:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Benuter -> Benutzer

Hallo Sir Gawain, ich seh grad, dass deine Copy&Paste Vorlage nen Schreibfehler hat und dieser sich durch mehrere Bildbeschreibungen durchzieht. Wollt dich nur drauf aufmerksam machen, damit du es selbst korrigieren kannst ;-) VG --BLueFiSH 00:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Örgs. Danke für den Hinweis. Habe die Seiten korrigiert. -- Gruß Sir Gawain 15:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

die wollen die vorlagen löschen!

hi gawain. heute hat nach langen jammern die abstimmung begonnen: Commons:Village pump#Vote about blinking kannst du da mal deine stimme abgegeben (ich rechne mit deinem ja) und so viele wie möglich mobilisieren? Schaengel89 @me 15:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lichtenstein.jpg

Gibt es einen bestimmten Grund, das Bild aus der Kategorie "Castles in Germany" herauszunehmen? Andreas Tille 20:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Hallo Andreas! Ich habe es dort heraus genommen, weil es a) in dieser Kategorie jetzt durch/über (wie sagt man das?) den Artikel Schloss Lichtenstein enthalten ist und b) ich hoffe, dass somit "Castles in Germany" immer noch einigermaßen übersichtlich bleibt, was die Anzahl artikelloser Bilder anbelangt. -- Gruß Sir Gawain 12:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, das leuchtet ein. Andererseits ist es immer ganz nett, wenn jedes Bild immer noch eine "echte" (also nicht featured picture oder so) hat. Vielleicht muß man einfach nur Subkategorien für die Castles in Germany einführen. Ich habe aber auch keine richtig gute Idee. Andreas Tille 20:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Durch eine Aktion von Flominator bin ich auf eine Idee gekommen, die dir gefallen könnte. Wie wäre es mit einer Unterkategorie namens Burg Lichtenstein in "Castles in Germany". Dann hätte dein Foto wieder eine "echte" Kat. -- Gruß Sir Gawain 16:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Gefällt mir ausgesprochen gut - ich war schon gestern nahe daran genau das vorzuschlagen. Kümmert Ihr Euch drum oder soll ich's selbst für mien Bild machen? Andreas Tille 20:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Habe mal die Kategorie Schloss Lichtenstein angelegt und dein Bild dort einsortiert. -- Gruß Sir Gawain 12:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Nassau

hallo, Du hast einmal einen Beitrag geleistet zum Artikel Nassau. Es gibt in der en.Wikipedia einen Versuch, Nassau, Bahamas komplett zu Nassau überzusiedeln, obwohl soetwas mit vielen Problemen behaftet sein würde. Wenn Du möchtest, kannst du ja mal einen Blick reinwerfen [1] und vielleicht ein Kommentar dazu abgeben, wäre sehr nett. Vielen Dank und einen schönen noch... 217.184.16.245 15:36, 22. Okt 2005 (CEST)

Image:GreifensteinBrunnen.JPG

Hoi Gwain

Ich hab bemerkt, dass du als Experte für deutsche Schlösser die Kategorie bei den Greifensteiner Schlössern entfernt hast. Liegt dem eine bestimmte Systematik zugrunde? Das Problem ist, dass die Bilder nach einigen Umwegen wieder in Category:Castles gelandet sind. Diese Kategorie möchte ich jedoch möglichst leeren, da sie alle paar Monate wieder überfüllt wird. Gruss --Ikiwaner 12:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Moin! Jou, dann sind wir ja schonmal zwei, die das gleiche Ziel verfolgen :-). Ich hatte damals die Kategorie rausgenommen, weil die Bilder ja nun auch im Artikel Schloss Greifenstein verwendet werde, der durch seine Einordnung unter Category:Castles in Bavaria ja quasi sämtliche Bilder irgendwo unter Category:Castles präsentiert. Ich wäre auch dafür die Castles-Kategorie aus den besagten Greifenstein-Bildern wieder zu entfernen. --Gruß Sir Gawain

Chambord photos

Hello Sir Gawain,

Could you, please, be more careful when uploading images from local Wikipedias? You changed the information about the author and source when uploading these graphics Image:Escalier double helice Chambord.jpg, Image:Salamandre de François Ier.jpg , Image:Escalier double helice Chambord.jpg from Polish Wikipedia, and the author claimed I infringed on his rights.

Regards, Maire 03:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Maire, I'm sorry for that mistake and don't really know how it could happen. I will check twice the information concerning author and source in the future. -- Greetz Sir Gawain 21:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

your message

Hallo Sir Gawain,

Thank you for your message. I would like to point out that in English for example "Schloss Linderhof" is not considered as a classic castle by any stretch of the imagination, but more as a palace. That is contrast to "Schloss Neuschwanstein", which is a more obvious castle, since structurally these things are completely different. Agreeably the translation of "Schloss" into English is difficult, however with structures that are clearly not castles, I think it is safe to leave out that category instead of cross-listing unnecessarily. with kind regards Gryffindor 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Sir Gawain,

jetzt ist er völlig abgedreht und erfindet einen Blödsinn wie Category:Neuschwanstein Castle. Gruß --Herrick (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Zu seiner Ehrenrettung sei angemerkt, dass hier Kategorien in Englisch de facto Usus sind (auch wenn nicht alle User [inkl. mir] mit dieser Konvention einverstanden sind). -- Sir Gawain (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Catherine de' Medici image that you uploaded

Do you have any info on the image of Catherine de' Medici that you uploaded to Wikipedia Commons? I nominated it as a Wikipedia Featured Picture candidate, but the users who have commented want to know who painted it. Any info you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks. Mooveeguy 13:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mooveeguy! I'm sorry, but I can't give no further information on that image. The book, from where I scanned it, doesn't suplly any details on it, neither the author nor the date. -- Greetz Sir Gawain 11:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Bildkategorisierung

Hallo Sir Gawain! Warum hast du eigentlich deine Bilder BurgGudenau.jpg und Gudenau aussen.jpg aus den Kategorien Wachtberg (bei Bonn), Germany und Castles in North Rhine-Westphalia genommen? So sind die beiden Bilder doch so gut wie gar nicht mehr kategorisiert. MfG Stefan Knauf 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stefan! Doch kategorisiert sind sie immer noch; dadurch, dass sie in der Galerie des Artikels Burg Gudenau verwendet werden, der ja wiederum in den Kategorien Castles in North Rhine-Westphalia und Wachtberg (bei Bonn), Germany einsortiert ist. Drei Gründe, weswegen ich die Verwendung von Fotos in Artikeln gegenüber reiner Kategorisierung bevorzuge ist: 1) Artikel werden - im Gegensatz zu Kategorien - bei der Standard-Suche (im linken Menü) berücksichtgt. 2) Niemandem nützt es etwas, wenn eine Kategorie mit Bildern "überfüllt" ist, denn dann geht jedes Bild einfach in der schieren Masse unter. 3) In Galerien kann/sollte man mit der Bildbeschreibung kurz und knackig erklären, was genau auf dem Bild zu sehen ist, während man in einer Kategorie nur den Dateinamen angezeigt bekommt.

Deshalb räume ich einige Kategorien regelmäßig auf, indem ich Galerie-Artikel anlege, um es erst gar nicht zu einer Überfüllung kommen zu lassen und dem Benutzer mehr "Komfort" zu bieten. -- Gruß Sir Gawain 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Sir Gawain! Kategorien werden grauenvoll unübersichtlich, sobald sie mehr als 200 Elemente enthalten, weil auf jeder einzelnen Seite einer Kategorie erst die Unterkategorien, dann die Artikel und dann die Bilder angezeigt werden, die Kategorien insgesamt aber nicht so sortiert sind. So kommt es bei großen Kategorien vor, dass auf jeder Seite erst ein paar Unterkategorien, dann ein paar Artikel und dann ein paar Bilder angezeigt werden. In so einem Fall sollte man meiner Meinung nach die ganzen Elemente in Unterkategorien einräumen, so dass nachher weniger als 200 in der Kategorie übrig bleiben.

Ich habe nichts gegen Galerien (eigentlich finde ich sie sogar sehr gut), aber ich finde es praktisch, wenn die Bilder zusätzlich noch in Kategorien einsortiert sind. Es ist einfacher, nur die Kategorie, in der das gesuchte Bild sein müsste, zu durchsuchen, als zusätzlich noch mögliche Galerien durchsehen zu müssen. Deswegen finde ich, dass die Bilder BurgGudenau.jpg und Gudenau aussen.jpg als Abbildungen einer Burg in Wachtberg in die Kategorien Castles in North Rhine-Westphalia und Wachtberg (bei Bonn), Germany gehören. MfG Stefan Knauf 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Philippe I de France, Duc d'Orleans dit Monsieur

Hallo Sir Gawain,

I would like to have more informations about the pictures described as "Le petit Monsieur à droite, avec sa mère Anne d'Autriche et son frère Louis XIV" that you added on the page about Philippe I de France, Duc d'Orleans dit Monsieur. Could you tell me all the information you have (also the stupid ones) like the date of creation, the conservation place and so on...? Thanks a lot

Leo

Hi Leo! I've added basic information on the image page, but I think the informations from Joconde are more useful for you. -- Greetz Sir Gawain 18:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sir Gawain! Great! You have given me exactly all the informations I needed! You are very kind. I hope you'll let me ask you another thing: have you other images of Philippe I de France, Duc d'Orleans dit Monsieur that are not in Base Joconde or already in Wikipedia? Thanks a lot

Leo

Hi Leo! Sorry, I can't supply any further images of Philippe I. I've searched my books but didn't find any images which might be useful for you. -- Greetz Sir Gawain 07:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Château de Pontchartrain

Alain Janssonne gave specific permission for this image only and wishes to be asked his permission to use other of his pictures. However, he said he would grant it gladly for use on wikipedia. --Justelipse 20:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Schnelllöschantrag Grundriss Burg Schwarzenberg

Hallo Sir Gawain, zu deinem SLA für Image:Burg Schwarzenberg (Plettenberg).jpg:

Laut http://wiki.genealogy.net/wiki/Amt_Plettenberg_(historisch) heisst es für die Skizze: "erstellt 19. Jhdt."

Bist du dir wirklich sicher, dass Krahe die für Friedrich-Wilhelm Krahe: Burgen des deutschen Mittelalters. Grundrisslexikon. selbst gemacht hat?

Siehe auch: "Die Sammlung von Burgen-Grundrissen des Verfassers bildet die Grundlage des Lexikons. Die Hinweise auf Burgen entnahm er zu 90 % aus anderen Veröffentlichungen,[1] ca. 8 % kamen aus einer Umfrage bei Gemeinden und Eigentümern hinzu und ca. 2 % beruhen auf eigenen Erhebungen des Verfassers." ( [2]).

Grüsse, Simpl

Hi Simplicius! Ja, ich bin mir 100%ig sicher. Die ganz große Mehrheit der Skizzen aus dem Buch stammen aus seiner eigenen Hand, der Rest von ebenfalls noch lebenden Autoren. Nicht ein Grundriss in diesem Buch ist aus einer anderen Veröffentlichung übernommen. Lediglich der Fakt, dass Krahe bei den Burgen häufig Hinweise auf andere Publikationen (z. T. dann auch mit Grundrisssen) gibt, wird von vielen dahingehend falsch interpretiert, dass er die Zeichnungen von dort übernommen habe. Auch die von dir oben zitierte Aussage sagt ja nur, dass Krahe andere Werke genutzt hat, um erstmal festzulegen, welche Burgen überhaupt in sein Lexikon gehören (er wollte seine Liste möglichst vollständig haben). Dass das Bild PD sei, wie es im Gen-Wiki behauptet wird, ist einfach nicht richtig. -- Gruß Sir Gawain 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok akzeptiert. Letztere Aussaage habe ich zu flüchtig gelesen.

Wobei ich noch eins sagen möchte: "aus eigener Hand" etwas abzuzeichnen ist nur eine Vervielfältigung, aber keine Schöpfung und würde vom Urheberrecht nicht geschützt. Wenn der Autor hier nur etwas aus dem 19. Jahrhundert nachgezeichnet hat, dann wäre ein Löschung dumm. -- Simplicius 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jou, schon klar. Kopien der Grundrisse wären wg. fehlender Schöpfungshöhe nicht urheberrechtsgeschützt. Leider haben meine Stichproben, die ich vorgenommen habe (ca. 8 bis 10), gezeigt, dass sich die Krahe-Grundrisse immer - zumeist sogar stark - von möglichen Vorlagen/Vorbildern unterscheiden, und somit die nötige Schöpfungshöhe erreichen. Glaub' mir, niemanden tut es so weh in der Seele, das Bild löschen zulassen, wie mir. Aber wäre ich nur annähernd davon überzeugt, dass Krahes Grundrisse nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt sind, wären die Commons in den vergangenen 18 Monaten von mir mit seinen Grundrissen überschwemmt worden ;-) -- Gruß Sir Gawain 17:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Der Mann ist eigentlich sehr nett/umgänglich. Ich habe z. B. ohne Probleme eine Genehmigung bekommen, seine Grundrisse auf meiner privaten Website zu verwenden. Aber eine Erlaubnis von ihm, die Grundrisse hier unter GFDL zu stellen, könnte ungleich schwieriger werden, weil darin ja die kommerzielle Verwendung erlaubt ist. Trotzdem spiele ich mit dem Gedanken, ihm mal einen netten Brief diesbezüglich zu schreiben. Vielleicht komme ich ja während der Feiertage dazu ...

4.000 Skizzen als erlaubte Datenbank, das wäre toll.

Das Schlimme ist ja, wenn man über solche Autoren einen eigenen Artikel schreibt, damit die jeweilige Quellenangabe auch gleich verlinkbar ist, kommen die Wikipediologen und stellen mal ganz spontan einen Löschantrag im Sinne von "wer ist dat überhaupt".

PS: Iss vielleicht weit wech from home: [3] -- Simplicius 18:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bei Krahe wäre das kein Problem. Der war Prof in Berlin (mittlerweile eremitiert) und daher in de-Wikipedia per se schon mal relevant :-) -- Gruß Sir Gawain

P.S.: Jou, Sauerland ist tatsächlich weit wech from home. Ich spiele allerdings schon länger mit dem Gedanken mal zum Ruhrgebietsstammtisch zu kommen, da ich mich eh alle Nasenlang in Bochum rumtreibe.

Diesmal gehts nach Oberhausen, im Januar. Wikipedia:Ruhrgebiet. Grüsse, Simplicius 18:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please...

...refrain from removing categories on the grounds of images appearing in galleries. The two systems are not mutually exclusive. Removing the category tagging makes it harder to find images and removes information valuable to tools like CatScan! --Dschwen 15:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dschwen! Nein, sorry, es ist einfach nicht mehr möglich, all diese Bilder in einer einzigen Oberkategorie zu sammeln, das ist dann nur noch ein unausgegorenes und vollkommen unübersichtliches Durcheinander hunderte unkommentierter Bilder und Fotos. Da interessiert mich ein externes Tool wie CatScan erstmal reichlich wenig. Man muss die Bilder auch hier mit den üblichen Commons-Mitteln auf einfachem Wege finden können, was übrigens über Galerien wesentlich besser geht. Falls du aber 'ne zündende Idee hast, eine Unterkatgeorie in Category:Castles in North Rhine-Westphalia zu machen, um sie dort einzusortieren, können sie gerne dort (wieder) rein. Ich hab' schonmal an Unterkats für Landkreise gedacht ... -- Gruß Sir Gawain 15:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

CatScan sollte dich aber interessieren, da es genau Dein Problem betrifft. Das Entfernen der Kategorie bietet Null Mehrwert und ist doch eine reine Beschaeftigungstherapie. Sinnvoll waere es in der Tat, wenn statt dessen eine Einordnung in (neu zu erstellende) Unterkategorien stattfindet. So geht nur Information verloren. Und auch wenn Dich CatScan jetzt immernoch nicht interessiert, es gibt genuegend Leute, die es benutzen. --Dschwen 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Da muss ich dir doch glatt nochmal widersprechen ;) Das Entfernen der Kategorie bietet einiges an Mehrwert, und zwar für die Mehrheit der Commons-Nutzer (=0-8-15-Benutzer), die von einem externen Tool noch nie was gehört haben und sich einfach nur die Kategorie aufrufen. Sie werden dann nicht von einer riesigen Menge ungeordneter Fotos erschlagen (wenn die Kat. entsprechend Unterkats oder Galerieseiten auflistet). Mein Problem ist dabei ist nicht, dass ich CatScan nicht zu würdigen weiß (ich nutze es jeden Tag), sondern dass man dieses Übersichtsproblem auch mit den einfachen Mitteln der Wiki-Software bewältigen kann und nicht unbedingt auf externe Tools zurückgreifen muss. BTW: Klar gibt es genügen Leute, die es benutzen, aber es gibt noch viel mehr Leute, die es nicht benutzen (weil sie's nicht kennen). -- Gruß Sir Gawain 15:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ja, aber wo ist der Mehrwert? Der 0-8-15 User der die Kategorie Castles in North Rhine-Westphalia aufruft erwartet doch genau das zu sehen. Wieso ist es besser fuer den User, wenn er nur eine lueckenhafte Liste bekommt? --Dschwen 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Split walloon and Flemish regio

Hallo,

I noticed that you started splitting the castles in Belgium across the Flemish and walloon regio (I guess).

Till now, most building related categories (churches, rectories, mills, town halls, ...) in Belgium are developed at two levels: cities (communes) and Belgian level. If one splits one category, you have to split all the others too.

I think that this organisation satisfies most users. Anyway, personally I am against further splitting without the consensus of the Belgian user community and a decision how we split it: Flemish, Wallooon, German speaking, Brussels regions. So, please stop further splitting before there is a consensus of the user community; we have already sufficient community problems in Belgium, so don't lets create new ones if that can be avoided ;).

--Foroa 13:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I Completely agree with Foroa. Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And I completely disagree!

Sorry, but I don't understand at all, why splitting up the castles into the three official Belgian regions should be problematic in any way. I strongly oppose your opinion that the current organisation/situation satisfies most users. It may satisfy most Belgian contributors/users but please notice that they are a minority in commons. It doesn't matter that a splitting up was not yet done for other buildings, when it's necessary (because the number of entries is too big and the category is absolutely confusing and unstructured) someone has to do it. And please notice: the Belgian castle category has to be split up in smaller subcategories, because it's much to big and not helpfull at all! -- Greezt Sir Gawain 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC) (a non-Belgian user ;-)

We are preparing for restructuring and better organisation. Moreover, the Brussels and German speaking community is missing in your organisation. And after all, the basic information and footwork is done by Belgians, so it looks normal that we can at least speak for ourselves.

As I am explaining in a document that I am writing concerning all sorts of commons problems, one of the problems is overstructuring and overcategorisation. When you visit a country, you generally know only the city and the country. When a non-Belgian wants to visit a place, the best way is a Belgian level and city/town level because that's the basic adress information of any place in the world. If a visitor has to first study the Belgian country organisation, to find out that the town he is looking for is making part of the german community, that is part of the province of Liège, that is part of the french speaking community which is mapped to Wallonia, then your reorganisation will not really help I think.

And again, we Belgian contributors try to live with a consensual model, not somebody that imposes decisions that impact us all. --Foroa 14:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Foroa, but you're exaggerating. I do not impose anything on anyone (and I don't want it neither). I just classify Belgian castles in a geographical way that is official Belgian law. So to say: others than me imposed this division of Belgium on you. If you have a suggestion to split up the Belgian castles category in a manner that is more politically correct for the Belgian users, please tell me and I will do so. But notice: a split up of the category is inevitable, because its actual state isn't of use for anyone. And sooner or later all other categories of Belgian buildings will suffer frome the same symptom, because the approach to categories that you develop in your post above is just one possible usage of Commons categories. What about all these users who just know that are going to stay in eastern Belgium for example (that's just one other possible approach).

Please don't get me wrong, because I know quite well of the community problems in Belgium as you called them. I have lived long enough as a non-Belgian in the german speaking community ... -- Greetz Sir Gawain 14:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Are you going to post the document, you're writing, anywhere here on Commons?

Eh, guys. I think it is time that you take this issue to COM:CFD. I see categorisation on Belgium popping up every on my watch list and it is about time that a broad consensus is reached. Please make a proposal and discuss it at a prominent and adequate forum. Cheers! Siebrand 14:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Siebrand! Thx for the link (I did not know the page until your post).

@Foroa & Jean Pol: Would it be ok for you to discuss this matter there? And (especially @Foroa) might it be useful to wait until your above mentioned document is completed? -- Greetz Sir Gawain 14:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir Gawain, if you look in the prominent and adequate discussion forum COM:CFD#Category:Bruges_and_subcategories where there is not a lot of life (besides some sort of soft background edit war), you will see pointers to a document I try to write. My estimation is that it will take another 60 to 80 hours of hard work to complete. And of course, I am not writing such a document to put it under my pillow or just for the pleasure of writing things. The intention of the document is to start a more overall discussion forum on many aspects of the commons, in stead of stumbling all the time over isolated small problems and (non existing or not agreed) rules and procedures. So I hope that, with you, we will have an additional forum participant with relevant experience and sensitivity.

Besides this, a lot of the categories (chateau ...) are not really according to the commons naming rules, one of the problems of the commons I hope to adress.

Concerning your comment on polical correctness, personally I don't care. What I care about is that any Belgian or international visitor finds his way to the town he wants in the most efficient way with a minimal knowledge of the Belgian politics and structures. So, to me, it is unfair if the Brussels or German speaking community is not at the same level of the Walloon or Flemish level. --Foroa 15:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Foroa!

So, to me, it is unfair if the Brussels or German speaking community is not at the same level of the Walloon or Flemish level. My approach to split the castles category was to split it by "neutral" geographical aspects, so to speak the three existing (geographical) regions of Belgium, not more or less. You mentioned the German speaking community, but as far I know, it is a "cultural division" of Belgium, not a geographical one. Because I knew the possible cultural problems concerning Belgium I took the geographical splitting approach, which offers - as far as I know - three possible subcategories: The Flemish Region, the Walloon Region and the Brussels-Capital Region; not more and not less. The reason why there is not already a category Castles in the Brussels-Capital Region is, that no castle of that region "crossed my way" until now. But if so, I will create the category. -- Sir Gawain 15:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the split into Flemish and Walloon region is a bit redundant, though not necessarily wrong. Moreover, great take must be taken about Brussels and the German speaking community. Moreover, is it merely a superficial split between what is +/- the flanders and wallonia; or do you really want to take great care of the Communities and the Regions. In that latter case, the Flemish Community and Region are almost the same, except for the Community which is also relevant for Brussels; but the French-Speaking Community and the Walloon Region aren't quite the same. The German area could be in the Walloon Region, but not in the French Community. (e.g.: how would you categorize a school ? A french speaking school in brussels would be relevant for the french speaking community. A german speaking school in the eastern part of wallonia has nothing to do with french speaking community). Note that I'm NOT saying people should take care of those subtle differences, on the contrary. Those details are information for Wikipedia, not for commons. I'm only trying to point out where problems might arise in the future.

Another thing I'm think of: I wouldn't really move individual images to Region categories. A category: "... in Belgium" is great. A split up is not really needed, but if people really want to, maybe provinces are a useful next level. (a split in 10 categories will be more usefull than a split in 2). Though this might also be redundant. Personally, I would not split up individual image, though I don't object e.g. Province categories being categorized double, both as subcategory of Belgian , and of the region, as the regions ARE indeed existing geographicals areas yes.

Moreover, I would certainly not use Flemish Region or Walloon Regions or something like that. Those are purely political names, and you will indeed risk categorizing things that are actually the responsibility of the Communities, or of the federal level. A term like Flanders and Wallonia is more vague, but more useful in that respect. --LimoWreck 17:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to put this discussion and changes temporarily on hold, for several reasons.

1. I feel that the german community should feel at home here and there is no technical problem to give them direct access to their towns
2. Splitting the categories as you do starts a discussion about communities, regions and their overlappings. This is not the place to do that and it can be easily avoided
3. We have to find a trade-off between pure categorisation work and providing easy access. Category:Cities and villages in Belgium is a nice example (and very useful) of how you can reach any place in Belgium without knowing its structure or organisation (personally I got all sorts of troubles finding some places in Germany and France because I did not know the länder or départements)
4. If you split the castles category as you do, it decreases the problem only temporarily. I estimate that we have only 15 % of the Belgian castles, so within 6 to 9 months, the problem is back again. Even if you split in provinces, eventually the problem will be back in a couple of years (we are having the same problem, but worse in Category:Churches in Belgium). Anyway, I feel that commons should allow for a dynamic of category contents of at least two, preferably three magnitudes (one to say 1000), otherwise we keep busy recatting. (in the cats display, there is the need of the removal of count and sort bugs)
5. We have to rework the naming convention. Frankly, if you look in Category:Castles in Belgium and expand the category tree in the right hand corner, it is easy to see that there is something wrong there with the names. And the list is still missing the castles with official names containing kasteel, burcht, citadel, fort, sloss (sp ?), ...
6. There is another naming dispute (war) going on about the names of the Limburg and Walloon provinces that we should solve first.

Thank you for your understanding. --Foroa 07:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:AnnaofAustria09.jpg

French Queen Consort Anne of Austria didn't become a "widow" until 1643 when Louis XIII died. You show her as being a widow in 1629. Based on how old she looks, I'd think 1643 or later would be a more accurate date for this portrait.

Hi! Feel free to edit the date. -- Greetz Sir Gawain 07:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Colmars

Hello. I want to talk about [4]. Please understand its NOT the same city : fr:Colmar, fr:Colmars with thousen of kilometers between. Please next time send a message, its the second time i revert your change. Thank. ~ bayo or talk 13:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

categories are in English

hi there Sir Gawain,

I had to revert your edits for Category:Castles of Augustusburg and Falkenlust at Brühl. Please be aware that according to Commons:Language policy articles may be kept in native language, but categories are in English. thanks Gryffindor 13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gryffindor! Thanks for the link. I didn't know the policy. -- Greetz Sir Gawain 13:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Orts- und Uploa-Infos

Hallo Sir Gawain!

Warum hast Du aus dem Image:Almeria Zinnen der Alcazaba fcm.jpg die Infos

• Place: Almería, Spain
• Uploaded by: Frank C. Müller

entfernt?

Fotograf und Uploader sind nicht immer identisch, Ort und Objekt des Bildes ebensowenig! Ich bin bis jetzt davon ausgegangen, dass diese Infos erwünscht sind.

--Frank C. Müller 06:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frank! Ich hab die "Place-Infos" nur in die Beschreibung übertragen (dort steht jetzt "Zinnen der Alcazaba in Almería, Spanien"). Und der Uploader wird ja immer durch die Informationen unter dem Kapitel "Dateiversionen" ausgewiesen, braucht also nicht noch einmal explizit handish erwähnt zu werden. Sollte ich im Eifer des Gefechts jetzt Informationen vernichtet haben, tut's mir leid, das lag nicht in meiner Absicht. Ich wollte nur sämtliche Infos "kompakt" zusammenfassen. -- Gruß Sir Gawain 17:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

removal of categories

hi there Sir Gawain,

I need to ask you a couple of questions about your latest edits regarding removal of "House of Rohan" from "Palais Rohan" [5] and "Nobility of France" from "House of Bernadotte" [6]. What seems to be the idea here? Gryffindor (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! The idea is, that "House of Rohan" is a subcategory of "Nobility of France" and a Palais isn't neither a nobleman nor a noble woman or a noble family. And these three groups of people and coats of arms were the only "things" that were categorized there (so far).

Regarding the Bernadottes: the french members of the Bernadotte family were bourgeois not noble. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if that is the case with Bernadotte, then good thinking from your part. However with the buildings, it doesn't really matter IMO. It has to be made clear somehow that the building is connected with the House of Rohan. Either some solution has to be come up with or I have to revert and readd that category. Gryffindor (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2008

(UTC)

It has to be made clear somehow that the building is connected with the House of Rohan. Either some solution has to be come up with or I have to revert and readd that category.

Says who resp. what kind of commons presetting? Sorry, but I'm absolutely not the opinion, that it is necessary (per category) to point out, that this building is (by what way ever) connected with the House of Rohan. So, a collaborative solution has to come up ... or otherwise I will revert your reverts. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep versus Bergfried

Hallo Sir Gawain,

Da einige Bergfriede als "Keeps" Kategorisiert sind, die v.a. Dein Bilder sind, möchte ich Dich darauf hinweisen, daß ich sie grundsätzlich aus dieser Kategorie wieder herausnehme, mit der Ausnahme von tatsächlichen "Keeps" wie z.B. Nideggen oder Trifels. Vielleicht sollte man eine extra Kategorie für Bergfriede aufmachen, aber dort nur ein paar exemplarische Stücke verteilen, sonnst würde die Kategorie schnell platzen. Die meisten Höhenburgen in Deutschland (+ Schweiz, Österreich, Elsass usw.) haben bekanntlich Bergfriede...

Gruss, --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Von mir aus gibt's damit keine Probleme, aber ich garantiere dir, die Bilder werden über kurz oder lang wieder dort einsortiert, denn keep bedeutet nunmal auch Bergfried. Die englische Sprache kennt da die feine Unterscheidung aus dem Deutschen nicht (gleiches Problem mit Bergfried vs. Donjon im Französischen). -- Gruß Sir Gawain (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Category talk:Vincent van Gogh

Hi,
da Du Dich mit Kategorisierung und Dateibeschreibungen offensichtlich sehr gut auskennst, möchte ich Dich auf ein von mir unlängst gestartetes "für-eine-Person-Monsterprojekt" aufmerksam machen.

Jegliches Feedback bez. Dateiname, -beschreibung, -kategorisierung wäre höchst willkommen. Es geht dabei weniger um EINEN bedeutenden Künstler (Fachkenntnisse demgemäß 100% erlässlich) als um's Prinzipielle. lg, +besten Dank, --Wolfgang H.W. (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Uploads

Hallo. Bitte ändere bei den von dir auf die Commons verschobenen Dateien mit der Endung JPG diese in jpg (Kleinschreibung). Besonders bei nicht eingebundenen Dateien kein Problem. Case-sensitive Suchallgorithmen finden diese Dateien dann eher. Cäsium137 (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

your message

hi there,

I know it may look confusing or "silly" as you said. However what I am trying to do is to streamline and clean up some images in categories. What is the point in having versions of the same painting with totally different filenames? When looking at a category, either one misses the other versions or sometimes does not even recognise that they actually show the same thing. Please take a look here at these categories that I was able to clean up Category:Paintings by Albrecht Dürer in the Kunsthistorisches Museum and Category:Paintings by Albrecht Dürer in the Prado Museum. Doesn't it make more sense now? Gryffindor (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not complaing about your effords to streamline some categories but your choice of unsuitable file names while doing it. Please choose names that depict the motif not the author; e. g. do not ask for renaming MariadeMedici.jpg to Image:Peter Paul Rubens 095c.jpg but ask for renaming Image:Peter Paul Rubens 095c.jpg to something like MariadeMedici-c.jpg. -- Sir Gawain (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you have a point. But I do not rename all images that I find. For example the images I have here Category:Paintings by Giuseppe Arcimboldo in the Kunsthistorisches Museum you can see that the images of fire, summer, etc. I did not rename because they are clustered together as one series and that is totally fine. In the case of Maria de Medici, the Yorck file already existed before the other. Gryffindor (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The higher age of a file with an unsuitanble name should be the reason for renaming younger files with suitables names? All Yorck Project files should be renamed to sensible file names, and not vice versa. -- Sir Gawain (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the original Yorck files however is not a good idea. That would really create a big mess. Gryffindor (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It would not create any mess. Renaming the Yorck files is the only way, to give these files a meaningful and suitable name. Please refrain from renaming/deleting files that dont follow this unsuitable naming scheme. I can't believe that you're going on with this, although several users told you to stop. -- Sir Gawain (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Castles by owner

Dazu passt natürlich auch Category:Castles and Residences of German nobility Gruss --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Stimmt, das passt ja wie Faust auf's Auge ;) Haben wir hier auf den Commons sowas auch schon für "andere Staaten"? -- Gruß Sir Gawain (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ich habe selber gerade erst die Kategorie Piasten-Schlösser angelegt, als ich die Kategorie Castles in Poland aufgeräumt habe. Mir fiel dann auch noch die Kategorie Royal residences in the United Kingdom ein ... --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh Mann, ich werd' alt ;) Die Category:Royal residences in France hab' ich sogar selbst gefüllt ... Ich hab' jetzt mal die gesamte Category:Royal residences in "Castles by owner" aufgenommen. -- Sir Gawain (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard II

I tagged them so because they're all of the same painting, and are similar. Some are poor quality too. How do you turn this on (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you used the {{duplicate}}-template which is only for _exact_ duplicates or scaled down versions of the same picture, but not for details or similar images. Nevertheless, similarity and low quality are no reasons for deletion. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are. If the image is a low-resolution of the same work, why would you need it? Gryffindor (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not, because it's not up to you, to decide wether the low resolution details are useful or not. -- Sir Gawain (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

headlines

Hi. It is non-constructive and may irritate contributors when you remove headlines. They don't hurt anyone so please let them as they are. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. Useless hedalines are nothing worth at all but confusing (especially non-english speaking users), so they hurt imho. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing good headlines. Well organized description pages are essential, that's why all upload forms add those !! --LimoWreck (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at this! Nobody could harm by this simple descripton-template. @Limo Wreck: only headlines won't organize description pages at all. Please calm down. --Herrick (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests and votes

Hi, so, das Verfahren ist gestartet. Unter Votes harren wir dann der Dinge. Gruß --Herrick (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Kommt mal langsam auf die Hufe, bevor die Anglos meinen, nur weil wir es hier unterzeichnet hätten, wäre es auf Commons ungültig, obwohl ich denen die Versionshistory auf dem güldenen Teller präsentiert habe. --Herrick (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ich eile, ich eile :) -- Sir Gawain (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Merci! --Herrick (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please link images

---

Hello Sir Gawain/Archive!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichillT (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Image:ReneedeRieuxClouet1555.jpg is uncategorized since 5 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Image:GerhardMercator.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Vaux-neige-pimousse-vaux2.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Chenonceau01.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Fontainebleau with gardens.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:MarksburgSilhouette.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Ew-weisweilerburg.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Chambord02.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

re:Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Gryffindor (de-adminship)

I think that you have overplayed you hand with regards this deadmin. Personally I think the evidence against Gryffindor was enough rope for him to hang without what has been seen as canvassing. The only thing that the garnering of support on de:wiki has done is to force the other admins to close ranks around Gryffindor and to vote Keep whatever their actual feelings of the rights and wrongs of Gryffindor's actions. As it says at the top of the page the discussion is not a majority vote, from the looks of things the 15 weighted keeps of the regulars on the forum will probably be enough to save Gryffindor. The deadmin will probably fail however many more de:wiki users vote Remove so in order to remove the appearance of a Witch hunt it would be best that no more de:wiki users vote yes. As a final tactic the best thing to do would be to convince all de:wiki users to strike out their remove votes, so that those who have voted keep are left either defending Gryffindor's indefensible actions or to change their vote; at least two of the Keep votes appear to be unhappy with Gryffindor's actions but are voting keep out of dislike of canvassing.KTo288 (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Pierre Mignard

Hi, I'm just advising that I have corrected the data about this painting here [7]. You had classified it as a Copy of a portrait of Philippe de France, duc d'Anjou, aka Philip V of Spain which is on Musée national du château et des Trianons.

Well, this picture is not exactly a copy of Philippe de France's portrait. It is a portrait of Mademoiselle Léomenie Brienne, future Marquise de Roualt Gamache, inspired by that portrait, but the model is a whole different person. I also resinsert the information about the museum location. I would like to ask you to keep this way. Thanks, Dornicke (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Dorothy of the Palatinate

Dear sir: I am very confused about the message you left me regarding the portrait of the above person (as I know it) on my talk page. You can reply here if you like, or even better on the image's talk page again. The reference link given (from earlier) on the the image page identifies the portrait as that of Dorothy, not Christina. - ??? - I do not see that you have given any source info to the contrary. Until you do so I am exercising my rather natural right to revert your edit again (sorry!) and ask you kindly not to accuse me of not discussing or of not providing sources - both of which I did on the talk page above your rather accusatory message. It would be nice to see something from you to clearly substantiate your claim that the painting is of Christina, so that one does not get the impression that you just want it that way. I cannot find anything. Until then, please respect the sources I have given that it is of Dorothy. I hope you perceive a very confused, rather than a belligerent tone in this note to you. Regards. EmilEikS (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Louise de Lorraine-Vaudémont

Hallo Sir Gawain, ich habe mich gewundert warum du deine eigenen Änderungen in der Kategorie oben rückgängig gemacht hast? Ich habe sie jetzt wieder eingefügt. Außerdem habe ich Queens of France zu Queen consorts of France wieder geändert, weil sie bloß Gemahlin des Königs war. Bist du damit einverstanden? Du kannst gerne wieder ändern, wenn du ein Grund dafür angibst. Nillerdk (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nillerdk! Es existiert bisher keine Kategorie namens "Queen consorts of France". Sie ist zwar korrekter als nur "Queens of France", aber eben (noch) nicht vorhanden. Bitte nur Kategorien benutzen, die auch schon existent sind. Die Interwikis werde ich auch gleich wieder entfernen, denn sie zeigen ja allesamt auf Artikel und nicht auf Kategorien. Interwikis von Commons-Kategorien auf Wikipedia-Artikel sollten nur behelfsweise gesetzt werden, wenn auf den Commons noch kein Artikel resp. keine Galerieseite existiert. Im Fall von Louise de Lorraine-Vaudemont gibt es diese Galerieseite aber, und dort sind korrekterweise auch die Interwiki-Links zu finden. -- Gruß Sir Gawain (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

P. S.: Ich werde gleich einmal eine Kategorie Queen consorts of France anlegen und dann mit und mit die Kategorien und Galerien französischen Königinnen dorthin verschieben. Falls du mich dabei unterstützen würdest, wäre das toll.

Morgen! Achso, ich habe nicht gewusst, dass die Interwikis genau so funktionieren. Weißt du wo ich mehr darüber lesen kann? Bezüglich "queen" und "queen consort" bin ich mir nicht sicher wie falsch es im Englischen ist, die Louise de Lorraine-Vaudémont "queen" zu nennen. In meiner Muttersprache wäre es aber ganz-ganz falsch sie "queen" zu nennen! - Im Deutsch aber eher nicht? Grüße Nillerdk (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nillerdk! Bezüglich "queen" und "queen consort" hattest du 100%ig Recht. Im Englischen ist es vollkommen falsch, eine queen consort als queen zu bezeichnen. Im Französischen gibt es die (äquivalenten) Unterschiede von "reine" und "reine regnante". Nur die deutsche Sprache hat keine Fachbegriffe zur Unterscheidung entwickelt. Man könnte die unterschiedlichen Positionen allenfalls durch "Königin" und "regierende Königin" unterscheiden, aber das ist im Deutschen nicht üblich.

Bzgl. deiner Frage zur Handhabung von Interwiki-Links kann ich dir im Moment leider keinen hilfreichen Link bieten. Alles, was ich darüber weiß, resultiert aus der Erfahrung durch meine Arbeiten und die Interaktion mit anderen Usern hier auf den Commons. -- Gruß Sir Gawain (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sychrov and Rohans

Hallo, I don't understand why You removed category House of Rohan from cat. Castle Sychrov (unfortunately You haven't filed any explication). --marv1N (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi marv1N! The category House of Rohan is for assembling natural person not topics that might be thematically related to the house of Rohan. Otherwise Castle Sychrov would be a sub-subcategory of Nobility of France. And that's completely wrong. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I see... But – I believe You; on the other hand I think it is a nonsense – where is it written that this kind of categories are suppoused to be assembled only by natural person. --marv1N (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: What is the problem with sub-subcat about (If You see this problem, You are also suppoused to fix it by adding category:Nobility of Bohemia )? Or how You want to resolve this problem? --marv1N (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Château de Villiers-le-Mahieu → Château de Launay

Hallo Sir Gawain

Just FYI: Ich habe die Bilder dieses Schlosses in die Kategorie Château de Launay, weil das der eigentliche Name des Schlosses ist und nicht der Ortsname. Ich schau gleich mal nach, wie der Name in der Liste lautet und korrigiere das dort ggf. nach. Gruss, --anro (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Das Schloss habe ich jetzt hier auf der Liste ergänzt --anro (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fichier:ChenonceauGrundrissLogis.png

Hello Sir Gawain,

I used your plan of the château de Chenonceau to create an international SVG version. I was wondering why there was an -s at "Diane", "César" and "Gabrielle" ? – I'm not good enough in German to know if this is correct, but it seems weird. Anyway, thank you for creating this map – and do not hesitate to submit such plans in SVG. --Pethrus (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pethrus! Thank you for your work! Yes, the German "s"s are weird :-) but they are correct, so I added them in the legend of you svg-file. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My bad then – thanks ! --Pethrus (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Baltasarcarlosspain.jpg

File:Baltasarcarlosspain.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Schau mal, ob du damit einverstanden bist; sonst stimm halt dagegen, dann wird es wohl bleiben. --Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Die andere Version ist zumindest größer, wenn auch nicht ganz so "farbecht". Da aber auch die kleine Version nicht "naturgetreu" ist, kann die durchaus gelöscht werden. Mein Herz hängt nicht daran :) -- Gruß Sir Gawain (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Please do not remove categories of husbands from royal women. It is comfortable to have direct link between spouses. --Shakko (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

you've destroed a hell of work of wiki-users!--Shakko (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I dind't destroy anything, but corrected mistakes! Categories are not for genealogical purposes. If you put a woman's category in her husband's category you also categorize her indirectly under a man's category. That's wrong! Please stop reverting my corrections. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

let's stop it all and go to Commons:Village pump‎ or something. You're wrong. This is not comfortable.--Shakko (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of wiki is not divide all to men and women categories. People should be linked. You destroy the link. --Shakko (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

STOP!--Shakko (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of commons categories is to bundle similar objects in groups, but a Austrian princess is not similar to a French king :) Ok, do you initiate the task on Commons:Village pump‎? -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump#Wifes. --Shakko (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Sir Gawain (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If they were married and lived 30 years together and made 10 children, I belive they become a little similar and shared a lot of things, isn't it?--Shakko (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

They were getting familiar but not similar, I think. And that makes the difference. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

but family is important part of life, isn't it? And commons is not genealogy site, I agree, this is why in Category:Alexander II of Russia aren't all his 11 children, only 2 wives. --Shakko (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Château de Bellegarde

Bonjour Sir Gawain. Comme tu es le créateur de la Category:Château de Bellegarde, je te signale avoir proposé son renommage vers Category:Château de Bellegarde (Loiret) sur cette page. Merci d'y déposer ton accord ou désaccord à ce sujet. Cordialement. Père Igor (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Père Igor! Bien sûr je suis d'accord avec le renommage. -- Cordialement Sir Gawain (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Johann Tilly.jpg

File:Johann Tilly.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

--DieBuche (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Anne Geneviève de Lévis par Nicolas de Largillière.jpg

Hello, I saw that you had removed the frame from the File:Orleans, Louise Diane.jpg picture. I was wondering would you be able to do the same to File:Anne Geneviève de Lévis par Nicolas de Largillière.jpg. The painting is ruined because of it and I don't know how to remove it :( !! Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi LouisPhilippeCharles! I uploaded a new frameless version of the portrait. Furthermore it has bigger dimensions. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hii, Just saw you had sorted out Anne Geneviève! Thank you! Look's great Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

File mover

The functionality of the template {{Rename}} has recently changed. You might need to clear your cache to see the changes. If successful you should then be able to use the new "Quick adding" link in the template to instruct CommonsDelinker to replace the old name with the new name in all wikis. Please use that every time you rename a file. If further questions arise, feel free to write on my talk page --DieBuche (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Schloss Horst Kaminfries.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 11:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Projet Monuments Historiques français

Dear Commons user, We noticed you adopted {{Mérimée}}. Thanks for your work in the field of Monuments Historiques français ! In case you did not know about it, we invite you to take a look at the Projet Monuments Historiques français. We hope to see you soon ! — Jean-Fred (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cropping

Hey, I was wondering if you would be able to crop the File:Victor Amadeus of Savoy, Prince of Piedmont (1699-1715).jpg like you did for his mother? Tbharding (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the frame ... but please, just edit and upload with one single user (name). Sockpuppets aren't very funny. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, it looked awful I thought. Also I was wondering, how do you do it?! By the way, the reason I used the other account was this one was not working for some reason, I do not appreciate being called a puppeteer lol. Monsieur le Duc (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I use GIMP and its "oval selection" tool for it. Use it for selecting the area that you want to keep (= area inside the frame). Then copy the selection and paste it into a new image. Done :) -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)