User talk:Zeorymer

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Zeorymer!
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 | Íslenska | 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)‎ | +/−

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, Zeorymer!

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) 10:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Albergaria (Vila do Porto)[edit]

Dear Zeorymer, Congratulations on your great job in the azorean material. Concerning the above captioned category please check your fonts just for the sake of the good order. In my best understanding the correct name of the parish is "Almagreira" and not "Albergaria". Many thanks, Carlos Luis Cruz (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ruben, I'm happy in support your job: take your time, don't worry... Please feel free to ask anything you need about the azorean islands: if it will be in my knowledge i'll be glad in help. Best regards, Carlos Luis Cruz (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
In time: the name of the major urban center in the island of Santa Maria is "Vila do Porto" and the parish have the same name "Vila do Porto". Regards, Carlos Luis Cruz (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I understood: if it's a technical limitation, so let's work with the tool in hands... I'm back in Santa Maria this year (I'm a teacher) and I'm spending my free time updating my research on the island things. Best regards, Carlos Luis Cruz (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Church of Nossa Senhora do Rosário[edit]

[1] - Are you planning to create a new category? I created the old one, but the name is not correct, should be "Igreja de Nossa Senhora do Rosário" and not "Igreja da". I preferably create the cats for those buildings in Portuguese, but if you want to change to English it's ok with me, given that only the building type ("church of") is translated, as you have done. Best regards, --- Darwin Ahoy! 16:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand this cat change here, but I can't see what was the problem with Category:Rosais which you sent to deletion. Is there any other Category:Rosais anywhere besides Velas?--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but in that case please keep the former category in Portuguese as a category redirect (not in this specific case, as it was wrong anyways), it helps a lot.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
As most of the Portuguese files will be uploaded and categorized by Portuguese people (or at least, that can be reasonably expected) it's quite useful to keep the Portuguese names at least as redirects. And since there is no downside on keeping those redirects, I can't see why they should be deleted. It only hardens category search with no gain whatsoever. This is especially true when people use that horrendous "purist" habit of renaming the whole name to English, in many cases the monument's name becomes virtually unrecognisable to native speakers.--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I have dealt with the case of "freguesias" before, and it is indeed the only option if one does not want to engage in original research. Most, if not all, the administrative regions have no direct translation into other languages. Even between countries using the same language this varies. For instance, the word "município" means different things in Portugal and Brazil. The administrative divisions in the various Wikipedias are a huge mess due to the unfortunate habit of trying to compare different countries divisions between themselves, when in most of the cases they are not comparable.
As for cases as Rosais, I would only create the name with the disambiguation in front if there was any need to do so, and in that case the main category, Category:Rosais, should be occupied by a disambiguation to the various categories. My view is that we shouldn't complicate things unless there is a need for that.--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Parishes and freguesias[edit]

Hello Zeorymer, please don't use "parish" as translation for "freguesia", as we also have "paróquias" (ecclesiastic division) that are more properly translated by that word. Cheers, --- Darwin Ahoy! 04:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed that you sent to deletion all the categories relating to "São Jorge Island" I've created. I don't understand why you have done that, the division by Islands is quite much more useful than by "region" (which comprises a lot of islands all in the same boat), and will have to be done sooner or later. It doesn't mean that both divisions couldn't coexist, but the division by island is, at least to me, much more useful. By the way, it would be better to use "municipality" rather than "region", since both designations have different meanings, and the division you've made is indeed by municipality.--- Darwin Ahoy! 05:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey Ruben. I'm also not extremely happy with the use of the Portuguese "freguesia", and I know that it's commonly translated by "parish", but I wouldn't use that translation here since it could be mixed up with the "true" parishes, the paróquias, as I said above. By the way, I'm from Madeira Isl., so if you have any question concerning that archipelago feel free to ask me, and I'll do my best to answer it. :) --- Darwin Ahoy! 12:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Igreja do Orfanato do Beato João Baptista Machado – Solar dos Remédios[edit]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Igreja_do_Orfanato_do_Beato_João_Baptista_Machado_–_Solar_dos_Remédios.jpg já está resolvido. Obrigado pelo contacto. José Luís Ávila Silveira (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 5f598e516661d27f3e1bd3a78aa776e6[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Category names[edit]

Please, keep the category titles in one language, so for instance either Santuário do Bom Jesus do Monte (Braga) or Sanctuary of Good Jesus of the Mount, instead of Sanctuary of Bom Jesus do Monte (Braga) or analogically theoretically for example Sanctuary of פרנסיסקו חאווייר. The mixed names are not just ugly, they can cause serious problems for non-speakers of the languages, as they cannot translate it even with a vocabulary or automatic translator – not knowing which part is written in which language. Thanks, --Petrus Adamus (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am really absolutely shocked, seeing the inane titles like Chapel of the Aparicões (Ourém), comprehensible neither for English nor for Portuguese speaking visitors, useful for nobody. Try to perceive that not everybody understands both the languages like probably you do. Are you really convinced that categories like Church of Proměnění Páně help the visitors? --Petrus Adamus (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Castle of Estremoz[edit]

Viva Zeorymer, tem a certeza do que está a fazer? Renomear o "Castelo de Estremoz" para "Castle of Estremoz", incluído numa categoria que tem cerca de 100 "Castelo de ...", e agora três "Castles of..." estará correcto? Tenho as minhas dúvidas. Vai renomear os 100 castelos? Creio que antes de o fazer, deveria colocar a o assunto na página de discussão ou noutro local qualquer.

Chamo a atenção que muitas categorias de outros países não têm os títulos traduzidos para inglês. Ver por exemplo: Category:Castles of the Loire, em que os castelos são "Château d'..." e não "Castle of...", e muitos mais exemplos poderia dar.

O mesmo se esta a passar com as Igrejas, Capelas, e possivelmente com os cerca de 5 000 monumentos, muitos criados recentemente com o título do IGESPAR ou do SIPA. Vai renomea-los todos???

Creio que seria bom obter um consenso neste assunto antes de prosseguir, afinal isto é uma enciclopédia mantida e dirigida a uma comunidade de alguns milhões de pessoas.

(Se não estiver de acordo com esta discussão em portugues, avise-me que tentarei traduzir para inglês). Cumps. --JotaCartas (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Viva de novo, Creio que consegue perceber o que escrevo em português, (para mim é mais fácil), e por outro lado eu percebo perfeitamente o inglês (mais difícil é escrever), portanto proponho que continuemos a discussão em bi-língua.
Percebo perfeitamente as explicações que deu, e com mais tempo irei ver todas as discussões anteriores, assim como as políticas da Commons. No entanto, como explica o exemplo que eu dei: Category:Castles of the Loire, e muitos outros noutros países (se for à Alemanha, os castelos são "Burg" e não "Castles" ... e ai por diante). Creio que as normas de nomes da Commons estão a ser mal interpretadas. A questão aqui é nomear monumentos com um "nome próprio" e não deveriam ser traduzidos como a página de "Fernado Pessoa" não é traduzida para "Ferdinand Person". A "Torre de Belém" é um monumento com os eu nome próprio, e não uma qualquer torre em Belém, que nesse caso deveria ser traduzido para "tower in Belém". E o "Mosteiro dos Jerónimos" será renomeado para "Hieronymites Monastery" ???? (e nenhum português o vai mais encontrar).
Na minha opinião, as categorias que representam uma pessoa, um monumento uma cidade etc, (i.e. com nomes próprios) não deveriam ser traduzidos, embora incluídos em categorias com nomes em ingês, como "Castles in Portugal", "Writers from Portugal", "Cities in Portugal" etc.
E "Vila da Feira", uma cidade em Portugal, vai ser traduzida para "town of the fair" ??? Não creio que faça qualquer sentido.
E "Castelo do Queijo" ??? , passara a ser "Castle of the cheese", "Castle of Queijo". O castelo do queijo não é um castelo feito de queijo, nem pertence a um queijo nem a alguém chamado Queijo", nem o local se chama Queijo; é um monumento cujo nome próprio é "Castelo do Queijo" e como tal não deverá ser traduzido.
E a "Casa do Infante", também não é uma casa qualquer de um infante qualquer, caso em que poderia ser traduzida para "house of the infant" ou "infant house")
Como já uma discussão anterior refere, também não parece muito bem usar "mixed names"
Mas ... pelos vistos eu é que estou errado, e mais um milhares de franceses, alemães espanhóis e outros que chamam aos seus castelos "Châteaux", "Burgs", "Castillos", etc., e não vou continuar esta discussão (conversa). Aceito a decisão que parece ter sido tomada (com o meu voto de vencido), e a não ser que uma discussão mais alargada seja decidida, ou me documente melhor, não o voltarei a incomodar com este assunto. Cumps. --JotaCartas (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

SATA HQ[edit]

Thank you very much for posting the photos of the SATA HQ! :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Clube Naval de Santa Maria[edit]

Prezado Zeorymer, É possivel, se e quando puder, a gentileza da abertura de uma categoria "Clube Naval de Santa Maria" na categoria "Vila do Porto"? Recentemente foram postadas diversas imagens que podem ser agrupadas na nova categoria (inclusive uma, de uma medalha, duplicada, e que penso necessite ser apagada por essa razão). Forte abraço, Carlos Luis Cruz (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Mais uma vez, muito grato. Bem haja! Carlos Luis Cruz (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Locator map[edit]

Hi my friend, would it be possible for you to indicate on the locator map file:Locator map AZO SMA Vila do Porto.svg that the Formigas are part of that freguesia, thanks.--Ratzer (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it would be wrong to show the Formigas as an administrative unit of the civil parish of Vila do Porto (the locator map you indicated), since the Formigas are not considered a constituent part of that civil parish. If anything, although I have not seen it written anywhere recently, the Formigas fall within the "administration" of the municipality of Vila do Porto, an entity that governs the island of Santa Maria in its totality. I have seen some maps that group the Formigas with Santa Maria. But, still, the Regional Government of the Azores has final authority over these islands, and not the local authority. If you could provide some supporting documentation, I would be happy to revise the design. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I'm afraid I can't provide supporting documentation, as I obviously misinterpreted the phrase Administrativamente encontram-se na área de jurisdição da Capitania dos Portos de Vila do Porto in the Portuguese Article. Do you know of any other Portuguese piece of land (island) that is not part of a Civil Parish (Freguesia)?--Ratzer (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello! The information is from the people in Capitania dos Portos at Vila do Porto: I'll be requesting the legal support to the local team of the Marinha Portuguesa (as they do the regular patrol missions and the lighthouse maintenance), and will be back asap. 83.240.154.123 17:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Chapel of Nossa Senhora da Nazaré (Cascais)[edit]

Hello! Please note that in the above captioned category, the name of the listed church is wrong, as it is the Church of Nossa Senhora de Assunção, the parochial church of Cascais. Please confirm asap (Google will be usefull in this matter) and, if possible, when you can, provide the requested correction. Regards, 83.240.154.123 17:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

User Tm[edit]

Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Tm (talk · contribs) starts edit-warring again. Badzil (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Zeorymer. You have new messages at Darwinius's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Farol de Santa Clara[edit]

Viva, Notei que reverteu as minhas edições recentes neste farol. Se foi distraído, agradeço que reponha. Se foi deliberado, agradeço que o discuta comigo. Abraço --JotaCartas (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ora vamos a isto! Antes de mais desculpe pela demora, mas é que preferi responder a frio ao contrario do que fiz quando reverteu as minha edições -- (sou de opinião que se deve deixar passar dois ou três dias antes de responder , para evitar respostas menos cordiais). Quanto à questão em causa, discordo do seu argumento de que o farol de Santa Clara nada tem a ver com o antigo farol da torre de Belém (1865-1940). Fontes afirmam que na década de 40 a lanterna do farol foi transferida para os Açores. Apesar disto, aceito que não haja necessidade explicitar essa relação aqui no Commons colocando "See also" em cada uma das categorias. Assim estou de acordo que todo se mantenha conforme está actualmente. Abraço --JotaCartas (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Ver lanterna na Torre de Belém (1912) [2] --JotaCartas (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:SMG LAG Lagoa hotelCalouraResort 03.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:SMG LAG Lagoa hotelCalouraResort 03.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

Steinsplitter (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:SMG LAG Lagoa hotelCalouraResort 02.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:SMG LAG Lagoa hotelCalouraResort 02.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

Steinsplitter (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:SMG LAG Lagoa hotelCalouraResort 01.JPG[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:SMG LAG Lagoa hotelCalouraResort 01.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

Steinsplitter (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)