User talk:Foroa/archive 2010

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


Category:Hopkins County Courthouse[edit]

I don't understand. There are no pages or files in this category. Why keep it? -Regards Nv8200p (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I finally read your comment. Sorry about that. -Nv8200p (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


can you help me in creating undercategories for "Thasos"? -- Haubi (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am of course willing to help you, but I see that you managed to create several subcategories (basically, all categories are subcategories, except the root category). So how can I help you ? --Foroa (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Category names[edit]

Dear Mr. Foroa, I would like to ask for an advice. I tried and searched thoroughly, but failed to find any Wikimedia Commons rule that forbids creating categories in the languages other than English. Could you please give me the link to some actual policy clearing this item? I have already read LP, but it is no more than a proposal (the template says it is not a policy). Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AS you can see in COM:CAT, the basic rule is that categories are in English. Commons:Language policy should elaborate on that, more specifically the exceptions, but on that, we still have not a formal agreement for a proposition, so the baseline is English. Maybe you would fancy to maintain your Cyrillic categories, but who could ever maintain such a system with Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Greek, Armenian, Hindu ... fonts in one single category system. --Foroa (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
As the basic rule states that categories «should generally be in English» (nothing in common with «are», only «should»!), it does not states they have to be ONLY in English. The baseline you mention is not a rule that prohibits all other languages. Well, I can see now there's no special rule for this case, thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The rule has been relaxed significantly a month ago by mistake. --Foroa (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Why by mistake? Anyway, even if I see some rule as a mistake, it is a rule.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I could revert the file to this version from a month ago, but I noticed that you read the discussions, so I prefer to leave it as it is now till we find a better evolution. Anyway, thank you for your intervention as it proves that one should be more careful when changing or reformulating the rules. --Foroa (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a new word for me to see that "one" may change the rule. I thought the change must be discussed thoroughly... In case I'm not informated please help me with some helpful link.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Recategorisation completed[edit]

...of the schemes in the category Category:Ηλεκτρισμός, so it can be deleted. Περίεργος (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I woyld like to ask:

  • Is there a way to translate some category names, so that they apear in my language (greek) in my browser?
  • Is there a category about current or elecric flow?
For pure resistive current flow, you might be better of in Category:Resistor circuits and in Category:Electrical circuits; the categories there might need some major reworking.
Since a couple of years, I hear rumours that multi-language categories will soon be available in Commons. I don't really believe it will be there very soon. For dynamic in-line translation (display-only), this would be relatively easy if you are happy with a rough translation (because many category names use a specific word in a well defined way, for example on Commons, streams are in fact creeks). For category entry in several languages, naming rules should be much more rigorous and it would require some sort of a keyword translation database, so this is certainly a very long term item. If you have further category naming/translation questions, don't hesitate to ask. (The redirect would have bot-moved Category:Ηλεκτρισμός anyway after 7 days). --Foroa (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Noindexed pages[edit]

Hello Foroa. I am trying my best to assume good faith here, but after looking at the above pages history it appears you are engaging in a revert war. I ask that you stop reverting against consensus and talk the issue to the talk page. Tiptoety talk 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted twice and it stopped early this morning. I get a bit nervous indeed because I am cleaning a list of 560 self-categorised categories (that are looping back on their own), some of them are isolated since several years. I still don't see the point in accepting there a looping back of the category for what I consider a secundary rule to wikipedia rules to hide a category to external search engines, which can be partly hidden by other means but is never really hidden anyway (why that category does not exist on several other wikipedia's). But I will not further waste energy on that. --Foroa (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Goed bezig[edit]

Volgens mij ben je goed bezig, want hier komt iemand klagen over je ;-) Multichill (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dank je. Er is hier een etterke dat mij minstens eens per week op de klaagmuur probeert te krijgen voor futiliteiten. --Foroa (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Toevallig. Multichill (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Brrr. Multichill (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Regions of Spain[edit]

Could you see my remarks at Category talk:Regions of Spain? I'd like to move forward to fix this mess, and your last remark in the CFD discussion suggested that you might disagree with my suggestion on how to proceed. I don't want to make large changes without consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cat Changes for USG orgs[edit]

Why did you remove my 4 cat moves & list as incorrect entries? The change corrected wrong names used in: Category:Executive Departments of the United States & created consistency across the cats. Thanks. FieldMarine (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed
Rename Category:Department of Labor of the United States (talk) to Category:United States Department of Labor (65 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Department of State of the United States (talk) to Category:United States Department of State (454 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Department of Justice of the United States (talk) to Category:United States Department of Justice (140 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Officials of the Department of Justice of the United States to Category:Officials of the United States Department of Justice (24 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
because those are the correct names according to Commons conventions (and sitting there since many years): "Department of xx of country yyy" is the generic name that one find in several countries. If you want consistency, the others need be renamed. --Foroa (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

They are the wrong names for these agencies. I understand use of naming conventions in cases where there is no official name for something, but not in the case where the naming convention actually names something incorrectly. Even wikipedia names them correctly & there are countless examples in wikicommons where the use of the naming convention is not used tto preserve the correct name of the item. Since I presume this change will be controversal, how do I place these changes up for community comment? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked a number of related wikipedia "United States department of xxx" articles, their related official department logo's and IW's, and it is clear that they are formally called "Department of xxx" (Why these names where used correctly for years on Commons). The "United States" prefix is merely a wikipedia naming convention. If you want to open a debate on that, you can use COM:CFD or put a {{Move}} template on the categories under discussion. --Foroa (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the orgs are called "Department of XXX", but the orgs place United States in front of it as the official name as reflected in wikipedia. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree the commons convention is good to use, but not when there is an official name and the convention changes it. For example, the official name of the USMC is United States Marine Corps, so why should we make it Marine Corps of the United States when the convention changes the name away from it's official one. The naming convention should not change a name away from an official name. FieldMarine (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Category restored[edit]


I have recreated this Category: Category:EBRO vehicles because EBRO did not only produce trucks. I have recategorized this cat Category:Ebro trucks accordingly. --High Contrast (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well, except that Ebro should be in lower case. We (and most wiki's) use only all uppercase for acronyms. --Foroa (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Extinct Birds[edit]

Out of curiosity, why is Category:Extinct Birds not a metacat? It exists to group categories of extinct Aves taxa, that seems to fit the criteria very well from what I understand metacats to do.--Kevmin (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not because you want it to be a meta category that it is a meta category. Many folks (or bots) that categorise an extinct bird without knowing sufficient details (or without bothering about deeper categorisation) will drop their images there, and there is nothing really wrong with that: that is the way Commons categorisation works. Real meta categories can be recognised by the "topic by xxx" structure: there would be no reason to for example drop any image in "extinct birds by taxa" or "extinct birds by region/century": those would be real meta categories. --Foroa (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
By the definition you have given here, Categories by era: is not a metacat because people and bots place images in it, even though it fits the rest of your description and the guidelines. People and bot will place images anywhere and everywhere, that should not be a strict criteria for saying something is not a metacat. Category:Extinct birds meets the criteria given in the metacat description in that it is a category that gathers subcategories of like things (extinct bird taxa) into a larger category. Images that are placed in the cat should be moved to the correct taxon cat page and that page should be included into Cat:Extinct birds if it qualifies.--Kevmin (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't confuse categorisation errors with definitions. I updated the meta category definition with a link to Commons:Naming_categories#Categories_by_CRITERION. The 2800 meta categories all follow that logic. For "would be" meta-categories as yours (I guess that more than 50000 categories on commons qualify for that), use {{Categorise}}. --Foroa (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Some Delinker removals[edit]

Hello Foroa. "Scientific experiments in space" is the going name for instruments," - I have puzzled over this sentence, but not sure what you are trying to say, or what you base this on?

Also, I have placed the other space exploration changes you deleted in the space category scheme to be approved there. Once they presumedly are, they will be moved back on the Delinker, and I would appreciate if you could execute them. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I happen to know some of the space world and its "jargon". In the space world, scientific experiments are basically special instruments/equipment/payloads with which one can do "experiments" during one or more specific missions. The worlds of space launch, satellite travel and control (platform, equipment) and mission (payloads, experiments, observation) are quite separate and not to be confused. I leave the actual transfers for bots that do that more efficiently and because I am a bit fedup by the frequent attacks. --Foroa (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Comarcas of Spain[edit]

Hallo, Foroa! I would say that the word "comarca" is not acceptable in Wikimedia Commons, because it's spanish. The word in english is "region". In the Basque Country, moreover, the word "comarca" is not used in basque, nor in spanish. I think we should change it. Dag.

Another thing: I think I was wrong when I ask for this change: from Category:Álava to Category:Álava-Araba. Maybe it should be Category:Álava / Araba, because both are official, but separately. What do you think about it?--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is a deviation from the English rule and a compromise for which we have no rules. Personally, I don't care how the words are separated as long it is consistent inside the region. In some multi-language regions, they don't accept double names, in some other places they are accepted, for example Category:De Munt/La Monnaie and Category:Vorst-Forest. Anyway, adding spaces in names is asking for troubles. --Foroa (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
OK. I'll leave it as it is right now... Dank U wel.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


Hey- when you're reverting non-vandalism uploads/edits, please try to leave a descriptive summary, or even contact the uploader on their talk page. This particular change seemed perfectly legit- the picture was of the male, and the female remains unidentified. I have been contacted about this particular edit, and so I have uploaded the crop separately. J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody will contest that images should not be be deleted. Reloading of different images over existing ones or altering them significantly can be even more evil as the original uploader don't necessarily pay attention to it. Once an image is in the public domain (and potentially used by hundreds of projects), it should not be altered anymore significantly. In the mentioned upload, the image had been reduced by a third party to 40 % of its original contents while changing from landscape to portrait. I warned the user User_talk:Suede67#Improving_pictures. --Foroa (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It was the original uploader who contacted me upset about your reversion. She is personally not very adept at image editing, and had asked Suede to crop it for her, I believe. In any case, as I say, the cropped woman was nothing to do with the shot, and the usage of the image was only to illustrate the man- the subject of the photo. I can appreciate your sentiments, but machine-like reversion (especially lacking an edit summary) is not really appropriate here. J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ramparts and city walls[edit]

Hello Foroa. Maybe these two categories should be merged: Category:Ramparts and Category:City walls, because I think they are synonymous. Jack ma (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all ramparts are city walls (many free standing castles have ramparts). Not all walls have ramparts. A wall standing on a flat plain has no ramparts. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that many Category:Ramparts in France should be in Category:City walls in France, because they surround cities. In french we only say "remparts", but in English there are "ramparts" and "city walls" right ? I hardly see the difference... Jack ma (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The documentation and interwiki's are not really brilliant. They seem a bit better documented/separated in the French wikipedia (fr:Muraille/city wall and fr:Rempart/castle and real defensive walls). Personally, I would call it a rampart when there is some sort of street on top of the walls, a city wall for the others, although this will conflict with castle walls. Without agreement and clear definition, this type of mix-up and discussions will carry on for ever. --Foroa (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
That's why it seems suitable for me to merge these two categories. It wouldn't be the first time that we deal with categories with same meanings, to avoid confusion... Jack ma (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
After some looking around, I think that a merge is indicated but I am not convinced about "city walls" as destination because many ramparts are related to castles or external fortifications (forts, of areas that are quite different from the cities they belong to). Moreover, we need to find a name for "simple" protective walls, meaning simple walls (murs) on which you cannot walk, such as walls without remparts around "simple" estates. --Foroa (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
If I could just butt in here, whilst I agree with the clear and neccessary distinction between 'ramparts' and 'city walls', I'd like to point out that not all structures of the 'city walls' type are 'city' walls. I recently found the Category:City walls in Wales. It's empty. Why? We don't have "city walls" in Wales, only "town walls". One reason is we only have a handful of cities. The capital city, Cardiff, actually does have some sections of the medieaval wall, but it is called the Cardiff town wall as in the Middle Ages Cardiff was just a small town, not a city. So there are no Welsh city walls. Clearly the 'City walls in Wales' category is a non-starter! If I create a 'Town walls in Wales' category will it make sense to place it in the 'City walls in the UK' cat or should we have a sub-cat for 'Town walls...'? It may sound pedantic but the term is simply just not used if the place is a town (this applies to town walls in England and Scotland as well). Suggestions? Anatiomaros (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
We can distinguish whatever we want. Nonetheway, I think we should not affray the contributor by giving too many categories for roughly the same thing, in which photographs will be sparsed and dispatched, with many "See also...". "City walls" is sometimes abusing, but it is a common word. If "Ramparts" is better, then let's employ it, and only it. Jack ma (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree. In the end, we would have city, village, town, farm, castle, settlement, monastry, fiefdom, ... walls. Personally, I would use ramparts for all, eh ..., ramparts and reserve city walls (you will not be able to kill this one) for all city walls that have no ramparts (or possibly ramparts as specialised subcat). Alternatively, everything becomes the more popular/known city walls. What do you think ? If in Wales, it is called town or settlement walls, that's no major disaster. --Foroa (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Tnx for the feedback. There are actually several *Town walls of... categories but apparently no *Town walls category. I think you'll have to take my word for it that the desciption "City walls" for the walls of those small towns in Wales which have defensive walls sounds very strange indeed, almost bizarre. I agree about the danger of too many sub-cats, many of which seem somewhat random and almost all underpopulated, but I think we could fit *Town walls in Wales quite comfortably into the appropriate parent cats. Unless there's a serious objection I'll get around to doing that over the next few days and redirect *City walls in Wales. Sound ok? It's no big deal for me, by the way, so if the consensus is against that's fine as well. Anatiomaros (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Taken by Canon Digital IXUS categories[edit]

Hi! You might want to comment on this proposal. (We discussed that issue briefly on my talk page about a year ago.) --Apalsola tc 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories by country by alphabet versus Categories by country[edit]

Dag Foroa. Bij het zoeken van een onderwerp gebruik ik heel veel "Categories by country by alphabet". Omdat wat ik zocht er niet bij stond ben ik verder gaan zoeken en vond het bij "Categories by country". Is deze laatste categorie niet overbodig en kan alles beter bij "Categories by country by alphabet" staan? Er zal vast wel eens een discussie over zijn geweest, maar mogelijk kan jij me een kort antwoord geven. Alvast bedankt, Wouter (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dag Wouter. Inderdaad, het gevolg van een (van de vele) oeverloze discussies in Template talk:By country category. Die "categories by country" is inderdaad redundant geworden, maar blijkbaar duurde het een tijdje voor onze vriend het begreep. De "categories by countries" is een normale category terwijl "Categories by country by alphabet" (en meta-cat) in principe automatisch door de {{By country category}} gegenereerd wordt. Ik vind die "by alphabet" extensie compleet overbodig, maar we kunnen niet blijven zagen. --Foroa (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Assembly halls by country[edit]

Hi Foroa,

You added the category Category:Industry buildings by country to Category:Assembly halls by country, which would be correct if "assembly" in this context would mean "manufacturing" or "assembly of parts". However, what I had in mind when creating this category, was "assembly" synonymous to "meeting". I understand now that there is a risk of confusion here, so I'm thinking of requesting a rename of the category to Category:Meeting halls by country. Do you think this is a good idea? --Zejo (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem with the current naming but I am not sure what you mean with your meeting centres. Are you meaning relatively small meeting centres for playing lottery, Red Cross meetings, training, ... ? In sweden, there might be separate buildings for that, but I am under the impression that in other countries, this is provided by category:hotels, category:Conference centers, category:Convention centers, category:Cultural buildings, category:Entertainment venues and Category:Community centres. At first sight, the latter seems suitable for you, including en:Medborgarhuset. Several scandinavian "Folkets Hus" are classified under convention centres, but I guess those are the more large scale ones. What do you think ? --Foroa (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I have considered all the other categories you mention, but I don't find any of them apprpriate to describe this kind of buildings, that are so common in Sweden. They can be used for virtually any kind of arrangement, and they are not run by the local authorities, but by different local associations. Many of them are, so to speak, small conference centers, convention centers, cultural buildings and entertainment venues, all under one roof. In larger cities, many of them have specialized in being only convention centers, probably because the other functions are provided anyway in a big town.--Zejo (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Category:Community centres is a good choice for this kind of buildings. I think the definition at English Wikipedia "public locations where members of a community may gather for group activities, social support, public information, and other purposes" is a reasonable definition for "bygdegårdar" and "Folket hus". It also agrees with the interwiki from sv:bygdegård. And the English Wikipedia definition of en:Folkets hus is "proletarian community centres located in almost all cities". /Ö 23:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree. I think that one associates "community" too much with the state, government and communes. There can be other communities, such as religious, ideological (Maison du peuple, volkshuis, Volksheim, Arbeiterheim or Volkshaus from the socialism movements), political, social ... Församlinghus is documented in Category:Community centres in Sweden, and Församlinghus corresponds probably with what you intend and is a more correct name than assembly halls or meeting halls. So it would probably be not easy to find another name (that can be applied worldwide) that is clear and is clearly distinguished from Community centres. --Foroa (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Församlingshus or församlingshem are mainly in Category:Parish halls in Sweden. Maybe I have misinterpreted the word "community centre" in they way Foroa refers to above. It would be interesting to know how a native English speaker understands the word. I don't suppose any of us are? --Zejo (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Foroa; see also Category:Community halls in France; these are halls, or polyvalent centers, located in villages or towns, for any social event (village feasts, exhibitions, meetings, etc...). These are halls because they are small and do not have necessarilly inside walls; and they are often empty and locked except on some week-ends. Examples through Google (e.g. [1]). We have many ones in France; important for villages life... Anyway, Assembly rooms do exist, but they are maybe specific, or or these words are synonymous, maybe. Jack ma (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I did not know about "assembly rooms", but I have been in many "assembly halls" for industrial assembly. Just like youth movements evolved from almost military movements to more open organisations, higher age community life used to be promoted by "ideological forces" as in religious communities and fr:Patronage (existed in Belgium till +- 1960, different from en:Patronage). As ideology becomes less and less a driving community force, the building of more cold, sometimes factory like, community/polyvalent centres try indeed to provide infrastructure for local social community life. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
To avoid confusion, maybe Category:Assembly halls in Sweden should be renamed to Category:Community halls in Sweden and categorized accordingly? --Zejo (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
That would be alright provided that it is properly documented and one can make easily a distinction between Category:Community centres in Sweden and Category:Community halls in Sweden, especially since in your case, they are leaning more to centres than to halls. It is up to you: I suggest to create whatever is needed and insert the needed {{move|Destination}} template. --Foroa (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Veranderingen in een Categorie bekijken[edit]

Foroa, ik zou graag van enkele categoriën willen nagaan of er plaatjes bijkomen. Analoog als bij een disambiguation categorie om te zien dat daar niets bij komt. Is daar een volgmogelijkheid voor anders dan af en toe bij de categorie zelf te gaan kijken? Alvast bedankt. Wouter (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ik begrijp de analogie niet met de disambiguation category (tenzij de non-empty cat die maar half werkt). Zie "related changes" op de linker menu onder toolbox, vb Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Women_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo. Niet echt betrouwbaar, vooral niet voor plaatjes die verdwijnen, maar zo te zien wel voor de nieuwkomers (technisch eenvoudiger om de connected items te scannen op datum). Ik denk dat er ooit ergens tools bestaan hebben om een speciale category volglijst te maken maar het zag er bijzonder complex uit en ik weet niet of het nog gebruikt wordt. --Foroa (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Military decorations of the United States[edit]

Rename Category:Military decorations of the United States (talk) to Category:Decorations of the United States National Guard (54 entries moved, 58 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Above: Please only move files in the Category:Military decorations of the United States. Please do not move any subcats. All the files left in this cat are awards of the national guard & should be moved out of this upper level cat.

I think you might need someone to write a script for that as I don't think there's a way to process it through Delinker without processing all of a category. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove the above request…is it because it is controversial? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I thought that it was clear from the documentation of the COM:DL delinker tool and the comments of Deadstar: the bot moves everything in the category. If you want special custom bot operations, you can try COM:BR. --Foroa (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Closed Cfd[edit]

Please when you are closing some Cfd discussion, don't forget to insert a link to the discussion into the category talk page. --ŠJů (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

May be you should ask the person that closed the cfd discussion without archiving and cleaning up. I cleaned up partially because it seems that it used the semi-oustanding cfd's as excuse to execute unsupported massive category renames such as Category:Ships by alphabet and Category:Airlines by alphabet. --Foroa (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
That might have been me as I close Cfds the same way I close deletion requests. - Apologies for extra work created. I'll be more careful. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
No it was not Deadstar. But anyways, archive links are hard to place before the cfd is archived I think. --Foroa (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I can see, the proposed renames (unification of category names of this type from "by alphabet" to the prevalent form "by name") have quite considerable assent although several people including you are opposed. Inasmuch as the Cfd conclusion is unclear, the discussion should be linked from discussion page of every category which is concerned. I surmised that this link at the discussion page should be inserted together with removing of the Cfd template from the category page. --ŠJů (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent cat moves[edit]

Thanks for your help with the cat moves. FieldMarine (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Foroa (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Template MANN[edit]

Hi Foroa! How are you? Best wishes in this 2010! I began this new year with a big work: since 3 weeks I am working at the transformation in a Catalogue of the Gallery of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale of Naples. I made it similar at those which Giovanni Dall'Orto realised for the most important black and white fotographs; but I don't made it strickly by numbers, but first by Museum Collections, and then by inventory numbers. Anyway, my work is finish for the catalogue, not yet for the languages (like you can see). Now, for each picture I want to give the correct and (if it is possible) the complete informations. Luigi Chiesa helped me, he made a Template for my Museum; it is like the Template of the archaeological museums in Rome (e.g. Musei Vaticani, or Musei Capitolini). Now, this Template is very nice, but it's not perfect. I wishes to change the place of the Location and of the Accession number, and then it's necessary the Date for the object like it's given in the Template Paintings (like here). Of course, for an archaeological museum it must be possible not only a year, but a century too. Luigi Chiesa told me that there are some problems to change this Template, because then it's necessary to change all Museums Template in the same way. Short, I wishes that the Template of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale of Naples looks like this: 1)Location; 2)Accession number; 3)Artist (with rose background); 4)Description (with rose background); 5)Date/Year (with rose background); 6)Dimensions; 7)Credit line; 8)References; 9)Source; 10)Other versions. I think that this order is better. First: Where is this object? In the Museo Archeologico Nazionale of Naples (frame); in the Farnese Collection, Room 123 (location); with this inventory number (accession number). Second: The object: who made it? (artist); what represent it? (description); when was it made? (date); how big is it? (dimensions); Third: The history of the object: where was it found?, or from which collection it comes? (credit line); who speaks of it? (references); who made this picture? (source); where do you have other similar pictures? (other versions). Do you think that it's possible to give this order? Or it is really impossible or to much difficult? Can you help me to realise this? I will be very greatfull to you! Thank You so much for your answer! Saluti, --DenghiùComm (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes too. I am not really in templates and your template is based on {{Meta information museum}} that seems to be translated in many languages and has many uses. You could make a clone of it if really needed, but you might prefer to try to find a consensus with the authors that tend to be very cooperative. Changing the order should be easy, adding fields too, only the date that can be years or centuries seems a bit more problematic. --Foroa (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank You for your answer. I will try to write to Kanonkas. If I remember, he understand more of Templates. Different way I will begin a discussion in the Template Meta Information Museum. Saluti, --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Accusing people of abuse[edit]

Please respond to my comment at User talk:Docu. -- User:Docu at 06:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That is no response. I will revert the moves. --Foroa (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this a new step in what some call Foroa's "solo attempt"? Keep in mind that "vehemently oppose" isn't a rational and wont get us anywhere. If you disagree with the closure of a cfd, you should ask for review rather than just force things your way. -- User:Docu at 07:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
How to hide and avoid answering --Foroa (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi Foroa, I see you came across category:Bolahaul and redirected it to the Carmarthen category. No big deal, but as I explained here, on en, Bolahaul is a dwelling - a farmhouse, I think, - so nobody is going to look for or use this category. I'm not an admin here, but it seems that delete is the tidiest option as it is pointless even as a redirect. Anyway, it's up to you! Regards, Anatiomaros (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

PS There are a fair number of dubious categories in the 'Towns and villages in...' Welsh cats. These may include other "Bolahauls" and certainly include duplicates. Not a few places are in the wrong county as well. I'll try to work through some of them when I have time but I'm pretty much tied up on cy most of the time. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your input. Well, there are two opposite lines of thinking related to the chicken and the egg problem.
  1. As an heritage of wikipedia's, only when there is a substantial amount of material or articles, something becomes "notable" and worth a category. The result is that all categories are continuously expanding and reorganised, which is error prone and tedious.
  2. As a general server, we don't know what's notable but we know that there is an overall world organisation that is pretty much stable and that sooner or later, this organisation will be greatly filled up with some media, which on its turn will result in improved and better documented articles.
The fact that you are stating "Bolahaul is a dwelling - a farmhouse, I think, - so nobody is going to look for or use " and "There are a fair number of dubious categories" is rather tendentious. If it has a name, it means that it has a history and maybe some interesting "objects", such as a milestone, special cross, an old building, road, bridge, ... The fact alone that someone created an article on it or a category means that it has some significance.
Anyway, once such a category is created, it stays in the system forever, even when deleting. So replacing it with a redirect does not consume additional resources while the day that someone happens to search or bring media for it, he will find it easily (and will be able to restore it easily as a proper category without much knowledge of Commons). Note that the categories have been created by a bot in anticipation of a massive download (hundreds of thousands of images) of images from a British archive, so deleting those categories might create problems anyway when downloading.
What means cy in "tied up on cy most of the time" ? --Foroa (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
See Commons:Batch_uploading#Geograph for the coming 1.5 million file batch. --Foroa (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Foroa. I understand your reasoning and accept the argument that a deleted cat stays in the system anyway; guess I'm just over-tidy in these matters. Regarding Bolahaul and similar "non-settlements" which may have categories here, most were created in good faith by over-zealous editors on 'en' trying to fill the red links in the very long list of 'Settlements in the UK'. Being Wikipedia, some of the so-called settlements on that list either did not exist, were the same place with two different spellings, or are merely a dwelling such as a farmhouse or some minor topographical feature which does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements and probably never will. So when you say "if it has a name, it means that it has a history and maybe some interesting "objects", such as a milestone, special cross, an old building, road, bridge, ... The fact alone that someone created an article on it or a category means that it has some significance", that clearly does not apply in the case of articles that ended up on Wikipedia by mistake. And we should be careful about taking the "it exists, therefore..." argument too far; I live on a street which is on the map and has a history of a hundred years or so: if I create an article about it on 'en' or elsewhere, would it stay? Of course not. But if we did accept it, would it deserve its own category and would we than create articles about every other street in my small town, each with their seperate cats with the town cat a parent cat? Perhaps not! That's an extreme case, I know, but valid, I think; where does one draw the limit, that's the problem. By "duplicate categories" I mean the same village having two or more categories because of alternative spellings of its name - I haven't been through all the county categories to check but have already noticed a few: I'll redirect them when I find them.
By the way, in answer to your question, I'm "tied up on cy most of the time" as I'm a sysop and bureaucrat at Wicipedia Cymraeg - you'll find me @cy:Defnyddiwr:Anatiomaros. Best wishes, Anatiomaros (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
PS I see what you mean about the Geograph batch uploads - GeographBot has been very efficient, but then that's what we'd expect from a bot created by Multichill. Amazing, as are some of the other batch uploads: please don't let my quibbling about the categories let you overlook just how much this is appreciated on the Wikipedia language editions. I've already used a number of the geograph images on 'cy' and look forward to more. Keep up the good work! Anatiomaros (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


"Category:Global view of the International Space Station" as "Category:Views of Earth from the International Space Station"

Hi Foroa - what exactly troubles you about this request? The existing name certainly is wrong. How about "Photographs of the International Space Station", with a subset category like "Photographs of the International Space Station and Earth"? Ingolfson (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That is much more clear indeed. Alternative names could be "Views from space of the International Space Station" and "Views from space of Earth and the International Space Station". (I don't like photograps in catnames, there could be video, drawings, mockups, ...). Alternatively, as in Category:Earth from space, you could use "International Space Station (and Earth) from space" but that is not really following Commons naming conventions (topic is views). You decide. --Foroa (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hope the third alternative I have proposed with "Views of the International Space Station" works for you. Ingolfson (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Uhmm, Foroa - you seem to have accidentially put the very same move request on the Delinker that you objected to. Rather than any of the alternates I had suggested, or the modified one I had placed on the Delinker talk page... Ingolfson (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Oops. solved by now I hope. --Foroa (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you do this for me?[edit]

I prepared at User:Havang(nl)/List a list for Lower Navarre similar to lists at the Category:Labourd and Category:Soule pages. Can you put for me this list on the protected page Category:Lower Navarre? Thanks, --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected by now. List is a bit big, should be fold out. --Foroa (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; how to "fold out"? Also : can you change at protected Category:Northern Basque Country Category: Regions of France into Category: Pyrénées-Atlantiques, the Northern Basque country is not one of the administrative regions of France. Greetings, --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I have little time now, but you could play with {{Navbox}} or {{Navbox with columns}}. Note that it should not be very complicated to make the tables sortable on French and on Basque names. I will unprotect Northern Basque Country, but there is a problem with "regions in France": they are documented as administrative regions while there are all sorts of regions (euroregions, Norther Basque Country, Catalunia, Occitans ...) in France that don't map perfectly on administrative regions and need to find a place somewhere. --Foroa (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I 'll study those NAvbox. **The word region is a very common one; but Regions in France are well-defined by the template. I have put the three provinces Labourd, Soule, Lower Navarre already in provinces of France, which is more of an historical category. I prefer putting Northern Basque Country just into Pyrénées-Atlantiques, parallel to Basque Country, that will do for the geographical cat-tree.--Havang(nl) (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Category:Chemin de fer de la Rhune and Category:La Rhune (crémaillère) have to be one category, some kind of fusion is needed. Can you take care of this. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Plural of cul-de-sac[edit]

Hi Foroa - I saw you reverted this change. However, the plural of Category:Cul-de-sac can sometimes be "cul-de-sacs" (see second link below), and is actually Category:Culs-de-sac. See Dictionary here (Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010) and here (Webster's New World College Dictionary). Can we change it to the correct form? I don't think that the argument that it is rarely used applies on Commons - it's a simple case of singular or plural, and standard is use of plural, especially for physical subjects like this. Ingolfson (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As I stated on the category: plural in French and English is "Culs-de-sac", "cul-de-sacs" is rarely used, only in English and a manifest error in French. I seem to remember that I rejected already such a move on the delinker. Problem is indeed that it is for me such an obvious error but not at all for English speaking persons. So the question is how will we make the category access easier for people that predominantly (I guess) don't have the faintest idea about the word culs-de-sac ? Why I did not move to it. Maybe we should use the word Dead-end street or so, no idea in what the common word usage is in English. --Foroa (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It is actually en:Cul-de-sac, and in the article, the plural culs-de-sac is used. Greetings --Havang(nl) (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Another reason to change: en:Cul-de-sac (disambiguation) --Foroa (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Since several dictionaries agree that the correct plural is "culs-de-sac", I do not quite understand what the issue is. Simply place a "seecat" on "cul-de-sac" and "cul-de-sacs" and be done with. Commons does not need to teach people the difference, we only need to make sure that it ends up in the correctly named category. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Fine with me. --Foroa (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Regions of France[edit]

You are discussion somewhere else (where?) Regions of France catnames. There are at least three distinct cats already: Category:Regions of France, Category:Natural regions of France and Category:Provinces of France. If you want to change the first one, I should because of hotcat prefer Regions of France (administrative) over Administrative Regions of France. Greetings, --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was Category:Locator maps of natural regions of France, but I remembered it as Category:Natural regions of France, which might be a usefull cat.--Havang(nl) (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been drinking too much in the Bistro. Names of administrative regions cat: not really important: they are carved in stone and should not change the coming 20 years, nor its content. I have no plans to further discuss this: the problem is understood (to some extent) now and the discussion started. --Foroa (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Maybe this year, administrative regions in France are planned to be discussed and remodeled by the French government (their present sizes are too small)... Also, there are artificial regions with sometimes no common history nor affinities inside. Jack ma (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course; this an economic way of making clear that the government is doing something, but at least, they document new structures formally. You will be surprised how many regions and types of regions exist in France. You have seen nothing yet. --Foroa (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)



Dankje om mij te helpen met een van mijn eerste categories die ik heb gemaakt! Hybirdd (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Met plezier. --Foroa (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Ik wilde op Commons weer iets terugdraaien wat jij hebt gedaan, maar het lijkt mij nuttig het eerst maar even aan te kaarten. Desnoods gooien we het in de groep. Vissers varen met elk soort schepen. Van prauw tot fabrieksschip. Het blijft altijd lastig op het oog verschil te maken tussen een vissersschip en een vissersboot.

Jij hebt indertijd de Category:Fishing boats een redirect gegeven naar Category:Fishing ships. Ik wil dat eigenlijk terugdraaien, omdat er toch al categorieën onder liggen. Category:Fishing boats by country. Ik heb weer net een nieuwe category in het leven geroepen, die best wel weer groot kan worden Category:Fishing ships and boats by letter-number combination. Misschien is het zelfs beter hem een niveau hoger onder te schuiven bij Category:Commercial fishing, omdat het evidente beroepsschepen zijn. Vraag 1 is dus: probleem als ik het terugdraai?

Vraag 2 is: Is er een logischer naam voor "Fishing ships and boats by letter-number combination", iets als het Nederlandse "Visserijnummer"? --Stunteltje (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We hebben indertijd boten en ships gefusioneerd omdat het een warboel was omdat weinig mensen het verschil kennen tussen een boot en een schip. Indien je denkt dat je ze kan splitten, het voldoende gedocumenteerd en beheersbaar houden, dan doe je maar gerust.
Ik vind dat je met je IMO's een bijzonder grote toegevoegde waarde voor Commons gecreëerd hebt, dus zal ik ieder initiatief in die richting steunen. De categorienaam Category:Fishing ships and boats by letter-number combination vind ik bijzonder vreemd, bestaat er geen soort van internationale officiele naam zoals Code name, registration nr, license name. "Fishing vessels by license number" zou vb de naam ook eenvoudiger maken. Bestaat er een internationale standaard voor visserijnummers ? --Foroa (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Ik vond het vreemd dat er wel visserboten per land zijn, evenals vissersschepen per land, maar alleen de schepen overkoepelend. Je hebt volstrekt gelijk dat het verschil lastig is en zal blijven. Het mag van mij ook rustig zo blijven, als het maar ergens bij elkaar komt. Dat dacht ik te kunnen doen via het op het op het schip aangebrachte nummer. Dat maakt geen onderscheid tussen groot of klein. Het staat er op omdat nagenoeg elke geciviliseerde overheid ze in de smiezen wil houden. Omdat vissers van nature elke wet ontduiken en op die manier toch ook per vliegtuig in de gaten kunnen worden gehouden. De Nederlandse Uitvoeringsregeling visserij heeft het over Inschrijvingsletter en nummer vaartuig met daarbij Roepnaam vaartuig. Die Category:Fishing vessels by license number is dus de naam waar ik naar zocht. Kijken of het op te lossen is door ze samen onder Category:Commercial fishing te brengen en die weer samen met category:Angling onder Category:Fishing. Ik heb nog een lijst met de letters en hun Nederlandse visserijplaatsen, ik denk ook de Engelse, maar ik denk dat ik die beter op de Nederlandse Wikipedia kan zetten. Ik hebde bestanden verplaatst en een Frans scheepje erbij gezet om commentaar uit te lokken. Voorlopig laat ik het even betijën. Geen commentaar, dan kunnen alle vissersvaartuigen onder hun naam naar Category:Ships by name en onder hun registratie naar Category:Fishing vessels by license number.

Overigens, om over onderstaande Static line iets te zeggen: Ik denk dat heel veel ronde koepels nog met static line werkten. Ik haalde m'n brevet in 1967 ook eerst met static line en TU-7 parachutes, hoewel de Double L mij later beter beviel in de vrije val. Een static line zit met een breekkoordje vast aan de pilot chute en met een haak aan het vliegtuig. Altijd eerst controleren voor je instapt. Als je uit de kist stapt trekt de static line de chute uit het pak en breekt los. Als je al te hard gaat wil de pilot niet uit het vacuum achter je komen en moet je op je rug draaien en hem even een zetje geven. Meestal gaat ie al bij het draaien. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


Foroa, wat is het template internationaliseringstemplate dat die lange lijst internationale beschrijvingen genereert zoals bij Northern Basque Country? En is er misschien een template dat de categoriebeschrijving doet verschijnen in de taal van je keuze? Groeten. --Havang(nl) (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dit is een mix van {{Collapsed}} en data van Sum it up. Nogal tricky om the integreren soms. Wij hebben aan de auteur van sumitup gevraagd of hij er geen switch kon bijvoegen om er een {{mld}} bij te integreren omdat die nog veel meer integratiewerk vraagt. Idealiter zou {{mld}} de engelse versie van de item moeten tonen (vb Category:Sculptures), een versie in de user taal (indien geen Engels) en optioneel een of meerdere "lokale" talen. Maar dat vermoedelijk een beetje te veel gevraagd op dit ogenblik vrees ik. --Foroa (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


hi dear, please archive your talk :o .Sane'i is wrong [2]because his personal site write saanei--Surena (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

For such names, we tend to follow the English Wikipedia as you can see now in Category:Yousef Saanei. But the English wikipedia is not always very coherent in names as can be seen in en::Yousef Sane'i. Thank you for your contributions. --Foroa (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Static line[edit]

How was Category:Static line incorrectly named? Rklawton (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been moved to Category:Static line parachuting because that was more precise and "Static line" can mean anything in a multi-language context.

Infrared fluorescent protein[edit]

Hallo, Foroa, de galerie Infrared fluorescent protein is een replica van de File:IFP.jpg zonder toegevoegde waarde en zonder gebruik. Zou het niet beter zijn, de file te hernoemen tot File:Infrared fluorescent protein.jpg en de galerie te deleten? PS. Similar for : Fluorescent Proteins --Havang(nl) (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ach, alle galleries beginnen klein en we moeten ze de kans geven zich te ontwikkelen. Ik vermijd het hernoemen van afbeeldingen omdat dit de gebruikers van die bestanden in nesten brengt, veel werk vraagt (delinker en zo) en zonder dat die files daarom echt beter vindbaar worden. --Foroa (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
In dit geval is er slechts een user, die twee foto's plaatste, maar eerst twee galeries maakte maakte voordat hij/zij de foto's plaatste en die verder met de galleriepagina's niets heeft gedaan, vandaar dat ik het vroeg. Groeten --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote on my RfCU[edit]

I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my request for checkuser rights. I hope one more CU will make a difference, at least for the other CUs' workload! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

It is a little late but, thank you very much for your support on my RfA, I should said that many times ago, but I thought it is kind of spamming, writing to everybody who voted for me, so I decided to just write a thank you note on my own talk page, but when I saw what Eusebius did, I realized that it is ok, anyway, I apologize for being late, thanks and best regards Face-smile.svg   ■ MMXX  talk  23:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Category:Inga (Fabaceae): The next attempt to get rid of the disambiguation term as with Category:Sylvia and several others. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


Hello Foroa, can you make cat-a-lot for the remaining 28 files in Category:Town halls in Pyrénées-Atlantiques to Category:Town halls in Béarn. Greetings --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I never managed to have cat-a-lot working, so back to SieBot that seems to get stuck on some transfers. --Foroa (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Reason: these some transfers were of recently added cat's. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't know. It created the categories and transfered some images, and suddenly stops. --Foroa (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Two more services:

Category:Olympic Garden, Hong Kong[edit]

Yes, please. Thanks.--Dolympatim (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

All in one[edit]

Category:Films by country contains Films of, Films from and more. I wish you a wise decision :-). Regards Mutter Erde 20:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, not to forget French films from Switzerland, Dutch films from Belgium, German films from Italy, British films over India, American films on Vietnam, ... #Russian_Bloggers_to_Bloggers_from_Russia gives already a beginning of a simplified starting solution. A challenge indeed, but I don't really need it right now; the problem will not run away anyway. In my 18 months of intensive service here and after nearly 20000 category moves, we never really got stuck when there was a minimum of goodwill and common sense. --Foroa (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
mh, yes, that's difficult. But you may give me a hint, which version I should use in future. I tried it an hour ago with Category:Films of Germany - according to the USA - but it's red. I can live with a red cat :-). Regards 22:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thasos subcategories[edit]

Why did you delete "Kastri (Thasos)" and "Limenaria shiploading in the 1950th"? I'am not prepared to do everything twice! Please set it back!-- Haubi (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand the problem. I created several categories for you in Category:Thasos and all mentioned categories are still there. --Foroa (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation categories[edit]

Foroa, graag jouw mening over de benaming van disambiguation categories. Recent heb ik de disambiguation category "San Fernando (disambiguation)" gemaakt. Nu heeft iemand dat veranderd in de disambiguation category "San Fernando" zie [3]. Ik vind zelf een nadeel als er geen "disambiguation" in de naam zit er makkelijker bestanden in de category gedaan worden. Bijvoorbeeld wanneer je met HotCat "San Fernando" wil toevoegen zie je direct dat die bestaat en je kan klakkeloos het toevoegen. Wanneer disambiguation in de naam zit is dat een zekere waarschuwing om even verder te kijken. Omdat ik de laatste tijd vaker disambiguation categorieen maak zou ik graag jouw mening horen over de te verkiezen benaming. Groeten, Wouter (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ik ben een beetje moe om dit in een of andere richting te duwen, vooral als je getourmenteerde discussies ziet zoals bvb in COM:UNDEL#Category:Vals. Met een dergelijke mentaliteit geraken we natuurlijk niet veel verder.
Een belangrijk probleem is dat hier omzeggens iedereen voor zijn eigen problemen werkt en dat disambiguation cats zelden of nooit bijgewerkt worden of uitgekuist. Kijk maar even in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories: gewoon een willekeurig cat nemen, efkens klikken op een van de fields onderaan in de disambiguation message box en je ziet vrij snel wat er ontbreekt en dat omzeggen niemand de moeite neemt om dat bij te werken. Natuurlijk, als een dergelijke cat met HotCat aangeklikt wordt kun je alleen maar kiezen tussen die cats die in de disambiguation lijst staan, dus die oplossing werkt enkel goed met perfect onderhouden disambiguation cats. Als je ziet dat er hier ongeveen 1200 categories per dag bijgemaakt worden, dan kan het niet anders dat die disambiguation categories nooit up to date zijn.
Betreffende die San Fernando, daar botsen wij op een derde probleem. Volgens mij is de beste oplossing dat de disambiguation slots leeg (niet bestaand zijn) zodat we de nieuwe gelogd krijgen en kunnen aanpassen. Maar velen hier vinden dat disambiguation hier enkel nodig is in geval er een conflict is en dat de "meest" belangrijke item het hoofdslot inneemt. Een leeg slot is dus uit de boze. Vermits San Fernando leeg kwam hebben ze er dus maar de disambiguation ingeschoven. Vermoeiend, maar weinig aan te doen denk ik. Sorry dat ik geen prositiever antwoord kon bedenken. --Foroa (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Bedankt voor de uitgebreide informatie. Wouter (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Efcharistò para-polì ![edit]


Efcharistò para-polì (=Thank You very much) dear Foroa for the best solution about the maps of the prefectures of Greece! I was really afraid by all these duplicate and by the choise of the correct form of the category! Cari saluti, --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. It is always a pleasure to work in a positive community. --Foroa (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Move requests[edit]

Dag Foroa, de categorieën betreffende Basque Country heb ik enige tijd geleden allemaal al gemarkeerd met het move template voordat ik ze geplaatst heb op User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Misschien is dat dubbel-op, maar men stuurde mij naar de delinker/commands pagina voor deze moves. Kun je in de gaten houden dat het goed gaat. Bij voorbaat dank. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute with a user[edit]

A user in this thread has accused me of arrogance, contrivedness and a few other things when I moved a category/category contents. Could you please weigh in to provide a bit of balance and comment? Ingolfson (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


Can You please tell me why this format "Category:Images uploaded by User:Mlpearc" is better than the way it was ?

  • Strike last messsage, I guess my page loaded wrong, I thought you changed the formatt (layout) of the page and I could not figure why anybody would do that, My (computer's Bad) Thanks Mlpearc (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


FYI Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Foroa. -- User:Docu at 12:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Again[edit]

Hey if you have a minute, could you see why my thumb file is not working on my user page ? on "pedia" it should be showing up. Thanks, and of course if you need anything that I can help you with, please don't hesitate. Mlpearc MESSAGE 14:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess because en:File:Myself2004.jpg is on the wikipedia, not on commons. --Foroa (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

{{move cat|Tipper lorries|Dump truck}} [edit]

Hi Foroa - you refused this change saying "no reason to deviate from Commons naming conventions".

Seeing that the parent categories are both "trucks", and seeing that it is also the Commons naming convention to go with the English Wikipedia article name unless there's a specific reason not to (see en:Dump truck and en:Tipper lorry, I am totally confused by that comment. I could put a move tab on the category, but I thought this one was pretty straightforward.

Regards, Ingolfson (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no time right now to investigate further, but as a minimum, it should be "Dump trucks" in plural. --Foroa (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
That's correct, sorry. I'll get back to you in a few days, no worries. Ingolfson (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi Foroa, pretty ugly categorization. Looks like the entire category description was pasted into the file description: File:Hastelloy_Ball_valve.jpg. -- User:Docu at 07:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a distributor of valves is porting his catalogue on Commons, but many pictures seem used on several wiki's. There was a lot cut and pasted, but this {{Commons category|Valves}} and the many redundant Interwiki's should be removed from the pictures, which you have probably done already. --Foroa (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The pictures are great to have. I haven't checked if the licensing is correct though.
I edited just one image, as I haven't found a way to do the iws efficiently. Eventually it should be doable. We could just edit the template that it doesn't display in file namespace ;) -- User:Docu at 08:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
If we have to patch each template to protect against bad use, we will never have finished (which is the case anyway ...). An interim solution would be to tag them in a "category:template abuses" or so. There are hundreds of badly used templates, so we need a way to get rid of them. I am pretty sure that there are still hundreds of files that categorise as follows: {{Category:xyz}} or nested constructs like [[category:camera[[category:taken with xyz]]]]. With the latter, Russbot seems to have found a way to move some of them, SieBot has still problems with that I guess. --Foroa (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


Why this name of page (excuse my poor english) ; User:Louis-garden/Gallery is more efficient because I am not a subject but only a contributor ! -- Louis-garden (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Vous avez tout à fait raison. J'avais enlevé votre galerie qui se trouvait dans Category:Louis-garden et déplacé dans une galerie Louis-garden parce qu'une catégorie ne peut pas contenir dans sa définition des images ou textes, structures, ... Je n'étais pas sure que Louis-garden était votre nom d'utilisateur ou nom d'artiste (subject), donc j'avais gardé le même nom. De toute façon, une galerie est facile à renommer. Bon amusement. --Foroa (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware of interwiki links when renaming/deleting categories[edit]

Good day. I notice in your recent renaming and deleting some categories, that you deleted Category:Post Katrina refrigerators, moving the content to Category:Fridges damaged by Hurricane Katrina. I don't object to the rename, but noticed that the article w:Katrina refrigerator which linked to Category:Post Katrina refrigerators now had a link to a blank empty page. I took care of this one by putting in the new category name in the en:Wikipedia article. When renaming categories I suggest you be aware that other Wikimedia projects may link to the existing name. I suggest you check for and if possible fix links in other projects before deleting categories on Commons used by other Wikimedia projects. If in doubt, I suggest leaving a category redirect at the old name. Thank you for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There are several hundreds of known Commons (wikimedia) clients, I don't know how many unknown clients. I move roughly 1000 categories per month so it is not realistic to try to track external commons category references. I think that a far better long term solution is that wikipedia's should only refer to commons galleries with the same name as in the concerned wikipedia. Those commons galleries on their turn can redirect (hard redirects that work) to categories. That way, commons can serve as a pretty stable translation entity for all wikipedia's in several languages while allowing for flexible internal category reorganisation. I guess that move bots could be adapted to correct links in commons when moving categories.
I try to be very selective with redirects, as Commons:Category redirects suck, it clutters HotCat (on some cat ranges, it becomes hardly usable) and above all, makes bad user training (try adding with HotCat the category:Politicians from the United States). See User_talk:Foroa/archive_2008#cat_suppression_and_cat_redirects.
For most category moves, I try to insert the destination category in the edit summary as in Category:Post Katrina refrigerators. Basically, there is not much difference in clicking on the category in the deletion edit summary as clicking on a redirected category as in for example category:PKK. --Foroa (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. Well, the fact that interwiki links can be destroyed and non-expert Wikimedia users probably have no idea where to find all the images that were supposed to be a click away is a good example of why category redirects don't always suck. That is my opinion anyway :-) Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Over and above the sibling projects that may have links to commons categories, may I suggest there are other strong reasons why you should leave category redirects behind when you decide a category needs a new name? Renamings impose a cognitive burden on other commons contributors. I have uploaded several hundred images that I initially put in the Category:2001-present war in Afghanistan. Another contributor did a lot of work re-organizing those images, and other images uploaded by other contributors, into what seemed to me to be a sensible hierarchy of subcategories.
Replacing established categories, with other categories, leaving no category redirects, imposes a very large cognitive burden on commons volunteers, like myself, who have no reliable way to find the corresponding new category, when they go to add the appropriate categories to newly uploaded images. It is an easily avoidable cognitive burden, one I personally consider unnecessary. As a courtesy to me, and other image uploaders like myself, for whom your replacement of category names with new categories names imposes great difficulty, I request you consider creating category redirections.
Can't image uploaders like myself perform the extra steps of (1) looking up the old name in the deletion log; (2) looking up the corresponding replacement name in deletion log; and (3) typing in the names of the replacement categories instead?
Short answer -- no we cannot. Hot-cat has name completion built in. I don't have to memorize the exact name of every category I use. I have uploaded thousands of images. There are hundreds of categories I have used, and might re-use. I've come to rely on name completion support, so I don't have to memorize the whole name, only just enough to satisfy the name completion. So I generally can't look up the old name in the deletion log -- therefore I can't look up the replacement name in the deletion log. Even for those cases where we can remember the old category's full name, is it really fair to expect us to perform that name look up multiple times, until we start to remember the new name, when it really requires a relatively small effort for you to create the category redirects when you retire the categories?
Therefore, as a courtesy to other image uploaders like myself, in order to avoid imposing an avoidable cognitive burden, I request you consider creating category redirections when you replace one category with one with a name you prefer? Geo Swan (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for using the Category:2001-present war in Afghanistan example that demonstrates that we try to keep redirects on "root" categories, but try to get rid of rather recent category names that are not often used, that generate no bad training (try to hotcat into "category:politicians from the United States") or that become useless once one uses hotcat autocomplete. But of course, this equilibrum is not really objective and might be perceived differently from one person to another. --Foroa (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted categories[edit]

Hi. Please respect rules and don't delete old categories which should be kept as category redirects. The second principal need is to not delete category until all links and interwikis are corrected. For example, you are deleted the category Category:Rail vehicle components even thought it was linked from two other categories. --ŠJů (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See discussion above. As discussed before, correcting links is the responsability of the requester. There is no way to manage "delayed" deletions. This link corrections (in gallery and category namespace) would be a welcome improvement of the move bots. --Foroa (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Common sense should also suggest that category redirect should remain categorized under the new (target) category until all content of the old category is moved to the new category. Recently I noted at least two cases that you violated this succession. --ŠJů (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to manage temporary exceptions to the category redirect basic rules. If this is a problem, use {{Move}}. This too might be a welcome improvement of RussBot: removing of categories when the cool down period is expired. --Foroa (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Minehead turntable[edit]

A few minutes ago I created a Category:Minehead turntable yet before I had uploaded the set of images for this catalogue it had been deleted and replaced by Category:Minehead turntables. As there is only one turntable at Minehead railway station, could you please explain this name change? Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, a bad interpretation of minehead. Corrected by now. --Foroa (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


Dear user

All logos of universities in Iran are copy righted. You can not put them in Wikipedia. Please do no change TAG of File:Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services Official Logo.gif

پوویا (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I see, but that is no reason to enter invalid dates or remove categories; please insert {{Fair use}} and they will be deleted eventually . --Foroa (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

Hello. I uploaded this image with a misspelled brand name in the title. I wonder if you could move it for me? It should be Velveeta. Jonathunder (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much. Now I can add it to an article. Jonathunder (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/[edit]

Please see both my, and another CheckUsers comments at the above case. Thank you, Tiptoety talk 17:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I concluded already that it makes no sense in reporting suspected IP's via CU. --Foroa (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing category redirects[edit]

Hi Foroa! Following your reverts today, I'm wondering: what's wrong with categorizing category redirects? In this case, considering this person is known under several pseudonyms (as a writer and as a painter) it seemed logical to me to categorize those pseudonyms. Is there anything wrong I am missing? Is there any guideline on the matter of pseudonyms? — Xavier, 19:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xavier, as you can read in Commons:Rename a category, it is stipulated since 6 months that redirected categories should be empty and not refer to other categories. This had to be enforced because there was too much abuse and confusion (and permanent recreation of categories in redirects). I do agree, particularly in this case, it would be useful, but it does not mean that something that works perfectly with hard redirects in galleries, that it works with the soft redirects from the categories. If you have time, you can read the discussion in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_11#Foroa_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contributions.29. In the mean time, I would suggest to solve this problem with redirected galleries (having their own categories) as it is solved on some other wikipedia's. This seems not to be allowed on the French wikipedia neither but I guess that could be a reasonable compromise here. --Foroa (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, Foroa. I took the time to read that discussion and I'm still not quite satisfied. First because there seems to be legitimate uses of cat-redirect categorization, like in this case or in the one that was the cause of that discussion. Second, because I fail to see any problem as long as cat-redirect categories do not include categories themselves (as this would lead to parallel category trees and we do not want anything like this). On a side note, I'm also a bit concerned that this addition to the guidelines was yours only, with no explicit consensus on the talk page. That said, I'm inclined to trust you when you say that this has lead to abuses in the past and I certainly don't want to open a Pandora box by challenging this addition for this case alone. As for the redirected galleries, I'm not fond of this solutions as they would not be categorized at the same level as categories. The search tool will be enough, I guess. PS: judging by your contributions on the Bistro, you may want to raise your level in French as your French is certainly not fr-2 ;-) — Xavier, 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Concerning my language levels, I guess we all have different judgments and standards. Concerning the main subject, I am further investigating and will come back on it in a couple of days. --Foroa (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
First, Commons:Category redirects suck.
There are tens of thousands places that have several names in 2 and even up to 5 languages (most countries have language borders so multiple names for locations), so it it is not realistic to claim that the place in Prague was a legitimate use. Commons has only place for one single category name in the operational database. Redirects are outside and as such have no language use limitations.
I do not agree that "this addition to the guidelines was yours only ...": this is the standard practise used by some bots and most people. Besides the referenced discussion (that showed no consensual disagreement with the redirect discussion), There was never significant protest against the formalisation of that practise.
I searched many hours on other wikipedias and I could not find clear rules for categorisation of redirects and no categorised redirects neither. On the nl:Wikipedia, category redirects are simply deleted. What I learned is that most wikipedias try to minimise the use of categories for redirected articles. On some wikipedias, it seems to be only allowed for maintenance redirect classes (pseudonyms, spelling variants, accents, ...).
I guess that we could be more flexible for categories of redirected galleries, but on categories, this will not work. After all, redirected galleries do work instantaneously, for categories it can take a day or more. Because, we accept here cross-name space redirects (gallery to category), that seems to be an acceptable compromise. --Foroa (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


あなたがCategory:ねこをCategory:Unidentified catsにあると編集しましたが、Category:ねこの写真が無くなってますのでやらないでください。--おれ (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am afraid that I am not capable of reading Japanese. Anyway, category names on Commons have to be in English. --Foroa (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Meta categories[edit]

re Category:Magnetos, {{MetaCat}} and Commons:Naming_categories#Categories_by_CRITERION

As I read the guideline, that's referring to a group of "categories by criterion", for which there must be a defining criterion from some independent vocabulary (e.g. by colour, by country etc.) and this criterion is encouraged to be selected from a short list of pre-existing properties (e.g. colour, country ...). This category split isn't (we agree) one of those - the criterion is no more than "sub-categories of <foo>", which isn't independent of <foo> (i.e. not having an external existence, such as "colour").

However {{MetaCat}} doesn't indicate that this is a "category by criterion", it merely indicates that it's a meta-category, a category of categories alone. Now whilst all "categories by criterion" are meta-categories, not all meta-categories are required to be "categories by criterion" as well. There are valid uses of the "meta category" concept that are simply sub-categories excluding direct membership (i.e. enforced diffusion), even when they're not split by the independent criteria required for "categories by criterion".

If the policy definition of meta-categories (as the current link suggests) has been taken to mean "all meta categories are categories sub-categorized by a single independent criterion", then that's needlessly restrictive and simply wrong. Linking to convenient explanations is no substitute for a correct explanation, even if the broader template was created to support that narrower definition.

As an aside, I'm not a fan of rigid enforcement of this no direct membership policy anyway. A single image per sub-category, if chosen carefully, can provide a useful visual navigation that the names alone don't achieve, e.g. Category:Steam engines by type of valvegear. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Andy, I agree with most of what you are saying and documentation is clearly not our forte, although you are a notable exception on that. As you can see in #Extinct_Birds, many people love to have their cats called meta-cats as to force people to subcategorise. They often add {{diffuse}}, {{Categorise}} and/or {{OverPopCat}} in the hope that people will categorise deeper. Basically, most people want their intermediate categories, a hundred thousand (I guesstimate), to be a meta cat. As you want your Category:Magnetos to be a meta cat. The day however that some one brings along images concerning magneto field measurements, general magneto rotor designs, magneto gap width/rotation speed versus generated tension (or voltage nowadays), magneto magnet/rotor constructions, magnetos in medical or lawn mower use, your meta cat might suddenly be no metacat anymore. I think that we will all agree that the fact that the heading of a cat contains the magic meta-cat word doesn't change a lot on the human side.
Anyway, I believe that the meta cats have been introduced to help the transfer and categorisation bots (and CommonSense) and to tell the bots NOT to categorise in those cats. So if the bots, don't find for example "inventors from/of Absurdistan", then they have to search higher up above the "inventors by country" meta-cat; Inventors and Absurdistan. In your case, a meta-cat should give the signal to categorisation bots to either categorise in the lower categories (if they can guess it) or in the higher category "Electrical generators".
So, contrary to most people, I want a minimum of meta-cats as to not deteriorate the work of the bots. --Foroa (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

to be reorganised[edit]

Hello, I had problems with a new category: Category:Gorbea, I have put a temporary texte there, can you have a look ‎and reorganise a bit. Thanks, --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Should be better now. Not sure about the mountain name. --Foroa (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't sure either. It seems acceptable as it is now. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[edit]

Why did you request moving this cat? -- 11:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the term w:Tokio can mean a lot in a multi-language and historical context, Tokio is used for Tokyo in many languages, there existed (or still exist) "Hotel Tokio" and "Café Tokio" and a category name must state what it means. The move request has been uncontested during 3 weeks. --Foroa (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thx 4 info, I always wanted to know what Tokio means (a lot) and if there is or was some "Hotel Tokio" or "Café Tokio". But back to topic: Since in multi-language and historical context "Tokio Hotel" solely means this specific german band, I guess you should just move this cat back to Category:Tokio Hotel. thx & greetings, 23:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
As stated, the move was done for a good reason and as stated in the intro of COM:CAT: "The category name would be enough to guess the subject". Tokio Hotel might be obvious for teenagers indeed. --Foroa (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
What else means Tokio Hotel? For non-teenagers? -- 00:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It is difficult to search because google is overwhelmed by the Tokio Hotel hype. I did not find back the hotel which caused me to trigger the move (I do not move for the fun of it). But anyways, there is a Tokio Hotel in Sydney, Rome, Ravenna and Jesolo. Tokio hotel is often mixed up with Tokio Hostel, which should be equally disambiguated anyway. --Foroa (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, right. Because there's some Tokio Hotel in wherever, you thought some people who search through Category:Musical groups from Germany might think the cat Category:Tokio Hotel stands for some hotel in Jesolo and then - gosh! - it's not. Thats why you created for example Category:Painters from Cuba (country) instead of Category:Painters from Cuba, because otherwise someone could think these are painters from other places named Cuba; that's why you created Category:Glands (endocrine system) instead of Category:Glands, because it could be en:Gland (engineering); that's why you created Category:Gaskets (technology) instead of Category:Gasket, because someone could search there pictures of en:Gasket (sailing).
Of course someone could argue that if there's a topic with high importance/significance + many pictures of it in Wikimedia; and there are probably some homonymous objects without any importance/significance, hardly an encyclopedic topic, with no pictures in Wikimedia and a completely different parent category - the former should get a cat without brackets. But probably this rule wouldn't apply anyway if it's about some annoying teenieband ... -- 05:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Community of Valencia[edit]

Hi, first of all sorry for my English, I was just writing you a message here when I have seen yours. By creating those categories I was trying to rename only categories sorted 'by community' from Land of Valencia to Valencian Community, not all the categories named as Land of Valencia. I was doing this because the official name of the community is Comunidad Valenciana in Spanish (Comunitat Valenciana in Catalan, Valencian Community in English, but not Comunidad de Valencia / Community of Valencia) altough the region is named also as País Valenciano (Land of Valencia) or others. According to this, naming categories of Spain by community as "... from the Land of Valencia" is clearly incorrect... Anyway, I understand your point. Lobo Huella lobo.svg (howl?) 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding and your good work here. There is really nothing wrong with your English. I think that Comunidad Valenciana can be translated either as Valencian Community or as Community of Valencia: that's a discussion about splitting hairs (as in País Valenciano --> Land of Valencia). Long ago, I took a harder position on that because there where many categories created such as Valencian people, Valencian symbols, Venetian painters, Roman people, Catalan people, Asturian art, Sevillian painters, ... But anyway, I spend a lot of time to keep peace in Spain (Land of Valencia, Basque country), and after each change, I got edit wars for months (as on en:Valencian Community) . --Foroa (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Basque art / art of the Basque Country[edit]

Hello, Foroa, For the moment Category:Art of the Basque Country redirects to Category:Basque art, that's why Category:Art in Biscay is a subsubcat of Category:Basque art. Your action possibly shows that you too have feelings about having two distinct categories: one for art localised in the Basque provinces (statues, paintings, architecture)etc) and the other one for typical basque art. One could also distinguish as follows: Cat:Basque art in Spain , cat:Basque art in France. What is your opinion here?--Havang(nl) (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is an illusion that you can split real cultural Basque items (art, music(ians), culture, folklore, writers ...) in geographical subcats. Culture, by definition, does not follow (changing) political borders. And I guess that the motivation for creating Basque categories is to show that there is one Basque country that crosses two countries. --Foroa (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
For the latter, I share the motivation that the category Basque Country (Baskenland) accentuates the unity of the basque community across two states. For the former I want to know if someone or something in Baskenland is from Spain or from France (or from one or another of the basque provinces). Categorisation must satisfy the cattrees of the Basque Country and of Spain and of France, not just one cattree disregarding the other cattrees. I follow the well-done categorytalk Basque Country, placing as much as possible items in Navarre, Basque Aut.Comm., and Northern Basque Country, which are the preferred entries into the Spanish and French cattrees. As I see other people joining in along this line, I feel confident that the big lines of that categorytalk are OKE (only one protest has arisen: that Navarre case you may remember; and in fact Navarre is more difficult for me to handle). Still stands that for cultural items it is more difficult to take properly care of the three cattrees (partly because of my lack of knowledge Face-smile.svg, I do my best). --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Krásné pole, radnice, duben 2009.jpg[edit]

You really think, that this is photo of Police of the Czech republic? --Ragimiri (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I just moved it from category:Municipal Police of Ostrava (with a capitalisation error) to the category:Police of Ostrava. --Foroa (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
"Police of Ostrava" is what? I know no organization or force with such name. --ŠJů (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, like you will not know the post office, the administration, the town hall and the market square of Ostrova. But maybe you will know the Post Office, the Administration, the Town Hall and the Market Square of Ostrova. --Foroa (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Creuse river et Barrage d'éguzon[edit]

Bonsoir, j'ai vu que vous avez supprimer encore ma contribution. Il est inutile a mon avis de mettre en lien des mots alors que l'article wikipédia est clair, de plus est t'il vraiment nécessaire de mettre le tableau des langues.

cordialement --Parisdreux (d) 15:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bonsoir, j'ai uniquement remis les textes (Outil Sum-it-up) et les interwiki's que j'avais ajoutés aux categories Category:Creuse river et category:Barrage d'Éguzon et que vous avez supprimés.
Concernant les liens dans les textes, c'est vrai c'est discutable, surtout pour les visiteurs Français qui connaissent la région.
Par contre, il y a une bonne partie des chargements et travaux en France qui est fait par (et pour) des non-Français. Les gens, travaillant dans un des centaines de wikipedias, qui cherchent des média pour faire un article sur la France ou par exemple sur "Claude Monet" ou "hydroelectric dam", seront bien content de pouvoir sauter facilement vers un wikipedia afin d'apprendre plus rapidement certains mots ou contextes.
Donc, pour moi, le minimum doit être la présence des interwiki's, ainsi des bots pourraient aussi mettre en terme tous les liens possibles entre tous les wikipedia et Commons.
Comme les interwiki's ne sont pas indexés par l'engin de recherche, les textes supplémentaires en plusieurs langages facilitent la recherche. Le jour ou vous voulez rechercher sur les "barrages hydroélectriques " ou "poids curviligne", vous seriez content de trouver la traduction en Anglais et des catégories qui en font référence. Moi, je travaille pour un projet multi-culturel.
Cordialement. --Foroa (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi Foroa (aka Mr. cat), would a cat for people in a wheelchair be Category:People in wheelchair or Category:People in wheelchairs? --Túrelio (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a question for a native English speaker. I seem to remember that many people prefer to put plural everywhere, but often, that sounds not right to me: to me, people is the topic and should be plural (exception here, bad example), the qualifier should not. In the past, I tried to find some rules but did not succeed. I think that category:Nude women with bow tie is correct (there is only one tie per women), such as "houses with garden", "men in working dress", "kids in swimming pool", "women on telephone", ...
I guess that if you want to be pedantic in English, you should use Category:People in a wheelchair and that Category:People in wheelchairs would be a second choice. But that's only me. Advice welcome. --Foroa (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right that the English is nonsensical in this case (English is nonsensical in a lot of cases really). "People in wheelchairs" would be the best - in my opinion anyway. It is multiple people in multiple wheelchairs. "People in a wheelchair" sounds like multiple people in one wheelchair. "People in wheelchair" - without the "a" - is very wrong. "Nude women with bow tie" would also be wrong - it would be "Nude women with bow ties". Multiple nude women and multiple bow ties. If you had multiple bow ties per nude woman - you could start a fun new club ---- but you would call the category something like "Nude women with multiple bow ties". "Houses with garden", "kids in swimming pool", "women on telephone" all sound wrong. "Men in working dress" sounds okay because "dress" is a particularly strange word. "in working dress" is multi-faceted, while "in a work tie" is more singular - just one tie. Wknight94 talk 18:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Category:People in wheelchairs would be the most colloquial English. - Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll move the content of the initially created Category:People in wheelchair to Category:People in wheelchairs. --Túrelio (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Bedankt voor correctie[edit]

Bij de categorie van de dam had ik kennelijk per ongeluk de franse tekst gekopieerd. Ik was benieuwd of P. in deze vorm de engelse tekst en link ook zou terugdraaien. Wouter (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ben ook benieuwd. Dat is wat ze teamwerk noemen, bijna zoals in B-H-V. Opvallend toch hoeveel mensen enkel vanuit hun kotteke denken. --Foroa (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
En zinn frank is gevallen .... --Foroa (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi Foroa, I saw the change that you made in the Category: Nesher school. Could you do the same in "Category:Meggido"? The name of the category should be Category:Megiddo. Thanks Hanay (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I issued a {{Move|Tel Meggido}} because several en:Megiddo do exist. --Foroa (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The only Meggiddo that exist in En is a Redirect page from Meggido to Megiddo. all others are spelt Megiddo as it should be Hanay (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no rejection to my request. Can you make the change? Thanks Hanay (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Hanay (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


File:Harelbeke_stadspark_-11.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)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Tryphon 11:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


Pay attention to copyright
File:Harelbeke_stadspark_-19.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Tryphon 11:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


Hoi Foroa, heb je op Category:Acorns niet per ongeluk de interwiki's van nl:Eik, en:Oak, fr:Chêne, de:Eichen of iets dergelijks gepakt? Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dag. De interwiki's komen van Sum-it-up tab aan de linkerkant van je scherm. Het is een beetje normaal dat de eikels eerst aan de bomen groeien in de verschillende talen, voor ze afzakken naar hun eigen artikels en later hun eigen IW plaatsje krijgen. Ik ben soms verwonderd dat er relatief zo weinig fouten inzitten met een dergelijk simpel basis mechanisme. Geen idee echter hoe sum-it-up echt werkt. --Foroa (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Ik heb die gadget niet gekozen in Special:Preferences en heb die tab dan ook niet. Ik verwacht dat het net andersom is: plaatjes van eikels worden ook in artikelen over eiken gebruikt, in dit geval geeft de tool (veel) te ruime interwiki's. Een ander punt is dat volgens mij een categorie niet overeenkomt met een artikel, dat is de reden waarom ik template:On Wikipedia gebruikte in plaats van interwiki's. Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Foroa, can you adapt the homology cat Category:Arteaga. Thanks. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

TAM Airlines[edit]

Hi! I found: Category_talk:TAM_Linhas_Aéreas

Foroa, do you have a source stating this? I notice the "TAM Airlines" logo with the name spelled as such being used on all country websites from the main site. I'll show examples:

The Brazil site has the plain "TAM" logo

If I do not have proof that "TAM Airlines" is only appropriately used to refer to any US subsidiaries (I doubt any such subsidiaries exist - I am not referring to US offices of the company - I am referring to a wholly owned subsidiary with that name), I will re-start the move request. If the airline has such a subsidiary, it would be reflected on its financial reports and its documentation would explain some things.

BTW the English title "TAM Airlines" is justified. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  • TAM's Companies does not mention a US subsidiary with the name "TAM Airlines" - The name "TAM Airlines" is used by the airline in the English language. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It took me quite some time to check that before taking a position, but I can't find the company structure back right now. Don't confuse commercial logo's with company names. For now, Just look here. --Foroa (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
On Wikipedia when we name an article on a company, we use the operating name, not necessarily the name of the company, and this should be reflected on the Commons too. For instance the actual company name of Brussels Airlines is "Delta Air Transport S.A./N.V." - but we use Brussels Airlines. I am aware that TAM S.A. is the actual parent company name (TAM Linhas Aereas SA and Transportes Aereos del Mercosur SA are the company names of the airlines), but the company brands itself as TAM Airlines in non-Portuguese countries. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not en:wikipedia, Commons has to work in an international context and most interwiki links refer to the parent company name (from at least previous year). You might have a point however, especially since the company did some effort to change/improve its branding. I will investigate that later. --Foroa (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If you find anything else interesting, please let me know. If you want I can post something about this in the village pump - I am thinking about doing that. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

TAM joined Star Alliance today - Compare the English, French, and Portuguese versions:

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Katedrála Božského Spasitele[edit]

Hallo. I think, it isn't a good idea to move a category if consensus isn't reached. You can know that translation of proper names of individual places and objects is a very disputable matter and you shouldn't enforce your own extreme preferences despite of opinions of others and without a consensual complex policy. --ŠJů (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See here. It has been renamed according to the Commons naming rule and the name used on the English Wikipedia (which rules you seem to prefer I understand). --Foroa (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


Hoi Foroa, met deze wijziging is de note weggevallen die op de pagina stond. Was dat ook je bedoeling? Akoopal (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wel, ik geloof niet al te veel in dergelijke notas en {{Catdiffuse}}, {{Crowded}} en {{Categorise}}etc. Tenslotte is dit het geval by de meeste tussencategories en een must in alle classificatiesystemen, en dat stukje text zal de bots of downloaders niet op betere gedachten brengen. Als je vindt dat het hoeft, dan beter een standaard template gebruiken zou ik zo zeggen. --Foroa (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Ik vind het geen must hoor, ik twijfel ook wel over het nut. Standaard template heeft iig als voordeel dat je het multilanguage kan maken. Ik denk er even rustig over. Akoopal (talk)

Your opinion please[edit]

Hello Foroa, see Category talk:People of Guipúzcoa. I prefer uniform naming in the whole set of subcats, and I prefer the official name Gipuzkoa. I like to have your opinion at that cat-talk page . --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I discover the Guipuscoa discussion about municipalities versus Cities and villages cats. At the moment I check Biscay municipalities starting at wikipedia lists. I fill in the two categories side-by-side, checking for completeness and consistency, and I find much partially categorised items, especially maps, flags and coats. Most wikipedias tend to refer to the municipalities categories, but the Spanish wikipedia has a mixed cat for municipalities and localities not being municipality. At commons, the few cats of localities not being munic at the corresponding municipality-cat. I feel that at the end cat-municiplities and cat-cities and villages may be fused, but what should be preferred as final category? --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Cities/villages versus municipalities is another Spanish battle I encountered. The opinion of each language group (along with structure per province or regio) was different. I gave up because most most of the discussions where in Spanish. You should ask user talk:Cookie about the current status and rules, if any. I would not be surprised to see that they use one for provinces, the other for regions, in short, potentially an almost Belgian situation ;). --Foroa (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. All interwiks are towards cat:municipalities, so that one has to be kept. I think boths cats may coexist here without trouble, once they have been made. I made also a crossreference on both catpages. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Godwin's law[edit]

We zijn er bijna ;-) Multichill (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Een van de zeldzame gevallen waar het echt evident is. Weet niet meteen wat gedaan (zonder alles te herhalen) om dat te laten overhellen. Een paar andere stemmen zouden toelaten om de zaak af te sluiten. --Foroa (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Table of replaced BSicon-files/Row[edit]

Hello. This page, deleted by you, is used as template on the "upward-page" Table of replaced BSicon-files. Please repair Table of replaced BSicon-files by undeleting the template Table of replaced BSicon-files/Row.Thank you. Antonsusi (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Templates must be in the template name space, not in the gallery name space. I changed it for you. --Foroa (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
That's correct, but I think, that a administrator shoudt also look for inclusions before deleting, especially in case of a subpage. Two errors, but no longer important. Thank you for restoring this important page. Antonsusi (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Categorization and naming[edit]

Hi Foroa. Maybe some time, if you're bored (ah ah), you may want to have a look at Cathedrals in Italy. I've been pointed at this cat as an example of how to categorize cathedrals. The least I can say is that it did not seem very nice. It's just a pointer, not a request of any kind. --Eusebius (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If you take abstraction of the word Duomo (existing and former cathedrals), Cathedrals in Italy is better organised and more uniform than most Cathedrals by country. Moreover, they are certainly easier to find than in other countries. It need indeed some further harmonisation, but since categorisation work in Italy is better progressing than in most other countries, I am sure that in a not so distant future, it will be harmonised. I will gladly help the Italians, but I try to avoid to take the initiative where there is a good categorisation force and some possible local sensitivities. --Foroa (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. About categorization: I'm afraid you looked at this category after I made some edits. This category was pointed to me as an example of categorization in the sense that all cathedrals should be accessible both from the top-level cat and from the subcats (geographic subcats for instance, but there was only one here). To make it short, it was used as an argument for overcategorization.
About naming: I remember you asking me, about other topics, to stick to some simple syntactic forms like "X of Y" instead of "Y X" inversion, things like that. It was partly with that in mind that I thought that the use of the parentheses was not right here. They're usually used to point out a kind of subscope, right? By reading the cat names, it seems that "(Ferrara)" is just a precision about "Cathedral", where I would have said something like "Cathedral of Ferrara" or "Cathedral X of Ferrara".
Side note: I'm not sure there's such thing as a former cathedral. From what I've read, a cathedral remains a cathedral even when there's no bishop anymore: there can be cathedrals of former dioceses. But I'm not a specialist and I can be wrong of course.
About your last sentence: I know what you mean, I totally understand/agree, I know some of the people there.
Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The current naming style is indeed the most simple form and should avoid many translation/non-English problems. The paranthesis way of indicating places "Cathedral (xxx)" is an heritage of the 243000 edits from G-dallorto, so difficult to come back to a more general "Cathedral, xxx" or "Cathedral in/of xxx" notation. See en:Duomo but I guess that one needs to be Italian to understand if and how it could be harmonised. --Foroa (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Armenian Kingdom[edit]

You recently deleted the Category:Maps of the Armenian Kingdom and justified it with "Moved to Category:Maps of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia".
As most of these maps are about the Kingdom of Armenia and not about the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, I think I will recreate the deleted category. Any objection?
Sardur (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it is a bit normal that Ingolfson requested to align the category name to the root category name. As there is only one category about the Armenian Kingdoms, Category:Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, it is normal that they get mixed up. So I would suggest to create first the necessary base categories matching en:Kingdom of Armenia before creating Category:Maps of the Kingdom of Armenia with a corresponding name (and not Category:Maps of the Armenian Kingdom). Suggestion to add hatnotes to refer to the "alternate" Armenian kingdoms in all related categories. --Foroa (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I see. I started it, but I still have some work (in particular on the kings), but that will be for later on today.
That was still a strange move though (on the historical level).
Thanks for your answer! Sardur (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Streets in Toronto[edit]

Hello. I ought not to have referred to your edit last week as pedantic -- sorry about that. I don't agree with your point of view, but I could have handled it better. Perhaps the solution/compromise is to create a new metacat, Toronto by street, as a subcat to Streets in Toronto? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the text in Category:Meta categories is not clear enough. I was intended to improve the documentation, mainly following the many discussions as the one above in #Meta_categories. The basic goal of the meta categories is to forbid the bots to categorise in those meta cats, and to categorise in the higher parent categories. In your case, category:streets in Toronto, that would mean that if a bot that want to categorise in streets of Toronto, it has to categorise either in Category:Toronto, Category:Road transport in Toronto or Toronto. Obviously, if the meta-cat category is filled up with such "would be" meta categories, then the bot people will not folllow that logic and will continue to categorise in "people by country", "streets by country", "streets by city" .... I don't believe that many users, and even less bots, will read your hatnote "Where the street or area is unknown, categorize files in Category:Unidentified locations in Toronto".
And I hope that you will agree, you can add tens of meta-cat flags, {{OverPopCat}}, {{Catdiffuse}}, {{Crowded}}, ... this is not going to change the behaviour of people or bots. Most people categorise only to a certain depth and don't have the time to investigate the deeper category levels.
I think that Toronto by street (streets in Toronto by name" is more of an emerging standard) is indeed a real meta cat, while streets in Toronto allows for a first rough categorisation. --Foroa (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Question to the above however is if you really win something by adding intermediate categories and complexity. --Foroa (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding.

Personally, I believe that "Streets" categories are a bit useless unless subcategorized into specific streets, because much of the content (usually added by bots) does not show or pertain to streets per se, but got added merely because the word "street" appears in the description field (usually simply to identify the location) - so you end up with images of building interiors, facades, etc... So, the use of the tag was to keep bots from adding less-than-helpful content. Many of these images would have a better chance of getting properly categorized if they ended up in Category:Toronto or something similar. However, I appreciate the concerns you have raised about the "bot people" and overuse of meta tags -- that makes a lot of sense. I may create "Streets in Toronto by name", thus allowing for first rough categorisation in "Streets of Toronto" - I do hear your concern about intermediate categories and complexity, but I think it's the lesser of two evils (compared to a streets category containg irrelevant images). Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

April 27[edit]

How is April 27 "out of project scope?" I think the page may have been vandalized and you didn't look at the history ...

Please restore the page. Evrik (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Been too quick. Restored. --Foroa (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Evrik (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI (Category moves)[edit]

Hi Foroa ! Your category moves cause lots of entries in our QS-lists. Just for the moment we will ignore [4] [5] this. I hope things will be corrected. Regards --Gruß Tom (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Several categories on your list did never exist, a common problem on many wikipedia's. On commons, there is a new category every minute, 40000 per month, half a million per year, so the categories are permanently extended and restructured. We move/rename only 1000 to 2000 categories per month and leave a soft category redirect or in the deletion summary the new destination link. When linking from wikipedia's to common categories, you know you are facing a maintenance problem. Referring to a commons gallery that uses a hard redirect to the relevant commons category might be more stable and slightly easier on maintenance. --Foroa (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Resignation Request[edit]

As per Jimbo Wales' statement advocating "removing adminship in case of wheel warring on this issue" I request your resignation as a sysop on Commons. Respectfully, Stillwaterising (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

See User_talk:Stillwaterising#Your_comment_to_TheDJ_was_not_appropriate and subsquent sections such as User_talk:Stillwaterising#Calmness.2C_please.21.21 and User_talk:Stillwaterising#Please_do_not_spread_disinformation. --Foroa (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with User:TheRealHuldra[edit]

Hi Foroa, I have Got problems with the User:TheRealHuldra. Unfortunately, he keeps changing my edits to fit his political agenda and ignores the truth if it does not fit him. I do not want to waste my time arguing with him all the time about the edits on the other hand I upload the pictures, and he should respect my edits. If he keeps doing it, I will stop upload pictures of Arab villages in Commons , I will upload to Hebrew Wikipedia Can you help? See User talk:Hanay#False information - THis is the correct information, User talk:Hanay# Hi, and File talk:Entrance Sheikh cemetery.jpg Thanks Hanay (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a typical problem in a multi-cultural cooperative environment. But the main Commons aim is to collect media: the texts and explanations are for the wikipedia. So far, I could not find a fundamental problem (all info remains in history and talk pages), although I am certainly not an expert and I can't read Hebrew. Thank you for your good work. --Foroa (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories: Gender - Females - Women - Males - Men[edit]

Hello Foroa, I don't want to start a cfd, but I hope you are able to clearify the following. The description of Category:Society say human society. Category:Gender is missing a description, but gender may be the gender of animals or plants and Category:Animals by gender is a subcategory of Category:Gender. Category:Females and Category:Males are subcategories of Category:Gender Females and males may be animales (or plants?) and Category:Females contains Category:Female animals and Category:Males contains Category:Male animals. (Please see also the questions resulting of the missing of descriptions: Category talk:Females and Category talk:Women) --Diwas (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No time right now. I try to look into it by the end of the week. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
In the mean time, in Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/05/Category:Young women a related discussion started. For your information, there used to be categories such as "woman writers", "Woman photographers", ... which we moved to a more politically correct "female xxx". But you are right that a big part of the problems are generated by a lack of documentation. --Foroa (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons Delinker[edit]

Hi Foroa! Can you tell me, is there a problem that Commons Delinker doesn't work since days, perhaps weeks? Tanti saluti, --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi DenghiùComm. It seems to work. Problem is that Commons is not always a very motivating environment, too much work and too little time with too few people. Moving categories is quite time consuming too. --Foroa (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

category:HAPAG-Lloyd-Gebäude, category:Bahndienstfahrzeuge (DB): our edits crossed (I removed HAPAG from the talk page before you added it at to the command queue; I removed Bahndienstfahrzeuge after you added it). I am rather sure about Bahndienstfahrzeuge, however. Please see de:Bahndienstfahrzeug. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Horned melons[edit]

An explanation would be nice. ZooFari 04:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't merge species with common names (Apples, potatoes, pears, dogs, horses, melons, flax) into their species without any sort of agreement. The reverse has unfortunately to be done frequently. --Foroa (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I merged the common name with the species, not vice versa. Common names are an ambiguity, that's why the taxonomy system was made. Unless I'm missing something, I think it's common sense why Cucumis metuliferus should be used only and not have a parallel category. ZooFari 05:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Common names are a fact of life and tend to have their own articles and category trees. We don't merge species with common names (Apples, potatoes, snails, pears, dogs, horses, melons, flax, most category:fruits, ...) into their species without any sort of agreement. They coexist and many of them have to be split afterwards again (or still te be split such as cats, tomatoes, ...) which causes a lot of energy.
To be honest, I don't quite understand your argument. Is there any reason why there needs to be some sort of agreement? I'm not sure if you are scientifically speaking regarding taxonomy or the way Commons categorizes species. ZooFari 05:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
To put it othyerwise: why you don't integrate first apples, potatoes, snails, pears, dogs, horses, melons, flax, most category:fruits categories into their species names ?
Commons always has categories that need to be cleaned up. Of course, if there's someone reverting you, it won't get you far. I'm not sure why apples, potatoes, snails, pears, dogs, horses, melons, flax need to be merged first. ZooFari 05:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Mar#Dueling_category_structures_for_foods. Experience shows that sooner or later, there will be categories as "Production of horned melons", "fields of horned melons", "horned melons in art", "Processing of horned melons", as you have with all species that are consumed/used by humans such as melons, apples, potatoes, snails, pears, dogs, horses, pigs, flax, cotton, Category:Animals by common named groups, Category:Fruit, Category:Legumes ... --Foroa (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link even though I disagree in some aspects. Anyways, ignore this, for now. ZooFari 06:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not always easy to marry both worlds, and horned melons is a bit of a border case (as it has a great nutrition potential in development countries, I preferred to keep it open). I tend to use as separation all what is purely the plant as such is for the species, what the plant is "producing" belongs to the 'common naming" world. --Foroa (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Chaos in Rivers of the Czech Republic by region[edit]

Hi. Why you made such chaos in Category:Rivers of the Czech Republic by region? You deleted yesterday between 7:11 and 7:30 (UTC) 11 categories of rivers by region and

  • you didn't keep those categories as category redirects, although they are linked from Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia categories
  • you didn't notice links to the replacing category into the edit summary
  • you didn't categorize the new categories, so that they are orphan categories and the Category:Rivers of the Czech Republic by region is empty
  • you didn't move interwikis, descriptions and categories from the deleted categories to the new categories
  • you didn't take out "seecat" templates from the kept (new) categories

What effect can have such negligent effort, without any discussion, without any consensus, in despite of all rules about deleting or moving of categories? --ŠJů (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I just executed the move as requested by Mircea; [6]. Those wrongly named categories have been named by people from the Czech Republic (bot renamings instructed by Mircea too) with naming that are against the Commons naming rules. I avoided wasting my time in adding redirects in yet another rename of those categories. As I told you already, we are responsible for the move, that's all.
I did a mistake in that I did not remove the old redirects from one of the previous renaming rounds and I apologize for that. It was probably caused by the major backlog we had on the delinker.

--Foroa (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

mixed language categories[edit]

Hi Foroa, you just moved the German/English named categories of churches in Vienna to plain English named ones. I'd delete the old mixes language cats instead of making them "soft redirects". To help German visitors there could a soft redirect "Category:Jesuitenkirche, Wien" (i.e. only German!). What do you think? axpdeHello! 07:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As we having one million of categories (and 500000 new ones per year), I am trying to avoid unnecessary redirects (Commons: Category redirects suck and makes bad user training/education). In the cases you mention, I made a redirect because they where old but busy categories. I don't think that in the cases of churches, it makes sense to try to make a "correct" redirect: for example for category:Michaelerkirche, Vienna, the name could be [Saint/Sankt/St./st/][-/ ][Michaelerkirche/Michael Church|Michael's church/Michael's Church][, Vienna/, Wien/ (Vienna)/, (Wien)/in Vienna/in Wien]. You are better of with a gallery with the right name that possibly redirects (correctly) to the right category. I am careful for redirects which are really translations of the basic words (Wien, Jesuitenkirche, kirche, ...). --Foroa (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Then ... why don't we use the original name?!? axpdeHello! 18:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Local names: an eternal debate; more tolerated when language is closer to basic English (Germanic languages and some acceptance of romance languages), getting more problematic with languages in western and Eastern Europe languages and Latin character sets, even more problematic with Finnish and Vietnamese (Latin character sets) and impossible with non-Latin character sets. Personally, I get less tolerant if the category name needs some international, multi-cultural connections such as names of saints, notable persons, famous artists, historic events ... --Foroa (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...[edit]

Could you please explain why you deleted Category:2001-present war in Afghanistan? Was there a discussion over whether the category should be deleted? Geo Swan (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it simply renamed Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)? IMHO, the new name is much better. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
As you can see in the edit summary, it has been renamed. There is a major renaming going in the war areas (See COM:DL by user:FieldMarine - category qualifiers should be at the end of the name). As Category:2001-present war in Afghanistan is a top level cat, I restored a redirect as this is quicker than discussing it. --Foroa (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Bundu people"?[edit]

Bundu is a dance society of Mende people in Sierra Leone.

Is "The Royal Danish Ballet" a people or a dance society?haabet 17:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not find information on Bundu. But what I could find was en:Bundu and de:Bundu, which shows that we cannot use Bundu. Any suggestions ? Category:Bundu dance society or Category:Bundu (Mende) ?
google: Bundu Mende= 11.000 pages
google: Bundu dance society= 3.130 pages

Customs of the World[edit]

The "Customs of the World" from 2008 is in four volumes. Not in two volumes (1912)

Historical computers[edit]

Omdat ik "historical" een vaag begrip vind, probeer ik bij "historical categorieën" een getal te plakken. Computers zijn al heel gauw oud vandaar dat ik "more than 10 years old" noemde. Het nadeel van een vast getal is dat het over 5 jaar weer aangepast moet worden. Een template (zoals bij de wikipedia) die dat automatisch doet zou mooi zijn. Weet jij of zoiets bestaat? Groeten, Wouter (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Een relatief getal betekent dat de categorie omzeggens permanent moet geherstructureerd worden, op termijn moet er misschien per decade (vb in the 1990s of in het slechtse geval per jaar) gecategoriseerd worden. Heb je ergens een voorbeeld ? Beste groet. --Foroa (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Bij en:Albert II of Belgium staat bij "Born 6 June 1934 (age 75)" waarbij gebruikt wordt gemaakt van date of birth= {{birth date and age|1934|6|6|df=y}}. Voor historical zou iets dergelijks maar dan omgekeerd gedaan moeten worden.Wouter (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Bicycle road signs, Category:End of bikeway signs[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Bicycle road signs, Category:End of bikeway signs have been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which they should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

--ŠJů (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


The {{delete}} tag is NOT used for speedy delete. THis is for speedy delete {{speedydelete}}. Yes its confusing as WIkipedia use w:Template:delete for speedy. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Foroa, ik kreeg gisteren deze mededeling op mijn OP n.a.v. mijn categorisatie van het werk van een ned. beeldhouwer:


Sculptures by Henk Visch[edit]

Thanks for your note. There was a consensus discussion sometime ago that categories pertaining to artists and categories pertaining to their works should be kept separate - thus we have Category:Buildings by architect, Category:Sculptures by sculptor, Category:Paintings by painter, etc. It'f fine if you do not want to participate in that categorization, but you shouldn't undo the work of others, especially when it is so subjective as to which method is simpler. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Unquote

Ik werk hier nu drie jaar uitsluitend aan beeldhouwers/beeldhouwwerk en weet van niets. Een mooi voorbeeld is Category:Ruth Abernethy. 1 afbeelding gecategoriseerd als Sculpture by Ruth Abernethy gelinked aan Sculptures by sculptors. Dus tweemaal gecategoriseerd. Wat is hier de bedoeling van? Er zijn nu 55 beeldhouwers zo bewerkt. Nog 5000 te gaan denk ik in eerste instantie, maar het stoort nu al. Sculptors by (name artist) en Sculptures in (name country), die scheiding ken ik, maar waarom de "works" van een artist gescheiden houden van zijn cat.? Het is me een raadsel. Was jij betrokken bij die discussie? Vertel me waarom ik het (al jaren) fout zie. Groetend,--Gerardus (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Gerardus, je doet hier inderdaad heel goed werk en niets echt fout. De hele opzet was dat, wanneer er meer en meer materiaal van een bepaalde artist beschikbaar komt, dat er diepere categorieën aangemaakt worden. Dat is vooral het geval voor heel beroemde (met veel persoonlijke foto's) en multi-disciplinaire artisten die bijvoorbeeld architect, beeldhouwer, schilder en fotograaf zijn. Om nu meteen voor iedere artist zoals Category:Ruth Abernethy met een paar werken de volledige structuur te gaan creëren lijkt mij over de top, maar Commons gaat er ook niet van omvallen. Het is een beetje een probleem om sculptures te moeten opzoeken bij de sculptors en "sculptures by ...". De laatste categorie heeft wel het voordeel dat je niet hoeft te weten waar de beeldhouwer vandaan komt. Dus ik zou zeggen, doe gerust verder zoals je best vindt. Indien er iemand vindt dat er diepere structuren bijmoeten, dan doen ze maar ... Beste groet. --Foroa (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ik zal je er niet langer mee lastigvallen, maar waarom zoekt het makkelijker bij Sculptures by X dan bij X?? In beide gevallen zul je toch eerst de naam moeten weten. In een lijst sculptures by zoekt het op den duur ook niet zo eenvoudig. Het ging me bovendien om de "consensus discussion". Groet,--Gerardus (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Geen probleem. De consensus (en de manier van categories aanmaken) is gewoon gegroeid over tijd, vooral bij de architecten die nogal dikwijls verschillende disciplines kenden, maar ik denk niet dat er een consensus is om het systematisch overal zo te (over?)structureren. Als je ervan uit gaat dat je de preciese naam kent van een beeldhouwer, dan maakt het inderdaad niet uit indien je hem via "Sculptures by X" dan wel bij X vindt. Als je de preciese naam, afkomst of schrijfwijze niet kent, is "Sculptures by X" wel een heel stuk handiger. Dit is ook een beetje een tegenreactie: hoe dieper je items categoriseert per land/streek, hoe meer je behoefte hebt aan complete lijsten waar de kennis van plaats/afkomst niet nodig is. --Foroa (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Nou ik dit allemaal lees: dan zijn er voor wie wil nog catverfijningen te doen aan de sculptures in deze Category:Sculptures in Wijchen die ik vorige week maakte. Groeten --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ik had ze al gezien en op mijn lijstje gezet. Maar zijn dit geen tijdelijke opstellingen, het ziet er allemaal zo expo-achtig uit? En dan is al dit moois niet gedekt door Freedom of Panorama. Laat me het eens weten. Groetend,--Gerardus (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Verbs and gerunds[edit]

The category Category:Verbs is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it can be applied to all category names, simply because they use the gerund. Category:Centring and Category:Shoring aren't related to the verb form. The word can be used as a verb, but these are a homonym that describes a static wooden structure to carry out the same task. Should they still be regarded as verbs? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Category:Verbs is indeed an interesting idea for illustration of dictionaries.
I am often impressed how focused you do proceed. Your current interpretation of Category:Centring and Category:Shoring is that indeed, it is not a real verb. Especially, the current definition of centring is a real noun, but in a not so distant future, you might find in that category items around centring methods, tools, mathematics, screws, ... For Category:Shoring, it is less clear: whenever someone adds a movie about the shoring process, it will be a verb again ... For category:Scaffolding, I did not add the verbs category... Life can be complicated. --Foroa (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Engel[edit]

Hi. Why did you move and delete Category:Engel to Category:Engel (roleplaying game) ? Greets --Sargoth (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There are several reasons:
1. The main naming rule in COM:CAT states: The category name would be enough to guess the subject. This is obviously not the case with category:Engel
2. As you can see in de:Engel (Begriffsklärung), en:Engel, es:Engel (desambiguación), fr:Engel, nds:Engel, nl:Engel (doorverwijspagina), pt:Engel (desambiguação) and ru:Engel: Engel can have many different meanings, so many Engel articles are disambiguation pages and none of them concerns directly the Engel game.
3. When looking at the interwiki's from Category:Engel (roleplaying game), none of them refer to Engel without qualifier. --Foroa (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
So you should make this disambigation category, otherwise links go to nowhere. But I already corrected the link in enwiki and dewiki; only for next time. And why not role-playing game but roleplaying game? --Sargoth (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Corrected to Category:Engel (role playing game)
Moved categories show in general the destination cat in the edit summary. Disambiguation categories don't really help and cause a major maintenance problem (update and items hanging for months in it as can be seen in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories). --Foroa (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
There will never be any other category named Engel. Commons is in english, Engel ist german for angel.--Sargoth (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
You will be surprised: now we have only this, very English indeed, but in a year time, we will have 5 to 10 more "Engel" items. Engel beer, Engel bands, Engel group, Engel song, Engel freezers, Engel Brauerei, Engel bikes, Engel restaurants, Engel whine, Engel SA Engel, Engel International, Engel consulting, Engel UK, or here ... Www.engel.xx works in most countries. Engel is Angel in 5 or 6 languages. --Foroa (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
We'll see. The future is unwritten. ;) --Sargoth (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ceramic, ceramics, manufactoring factories[edit]

Hello Foroa. I'm a bit confused about this new category : Category:Ceramic manufacturing factories of France. If you can read french, see this small discussion User talk:Jack ma#Category:Ceramic manufacturing factories of France - Remove request. In summary: ceramic or ceramics ? and "manufactoring factory" doesn't sound correct. Also see en:Category:Ceramics manufacturers. Regards, Jack ma (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Posteriority of merge steps[edit]

Hi. Please try to understand that when two categories are merging, the step seqeunce have its logic. If a need of merging is unquestionable, the first step has to be to insert the {{seecat}} template (and to made the old category a subcategory of the new category temporarily), the second one is that a bot moves the content to the new category and only the third step is to blank remained category from the old (redirected) page. It's possible to make all three steps at once but it is unacceptably that the third step is made hours or days before the time of the second step. Your practice causes that tens of photos disappear for days from the category system unnecessarily. --ŠJů (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We discussed that already in #Deleted categories. If that bothers you, execute the move first, then redirect. --Foroa (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
"Seecat" template is a good tool to call in a bot to move the content. But bots need to be managed be judicious people who understand what explained above. Your practice causes that tens of photos disappear for days from the category system unnecessarily. --ŠJů (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
category redirects that are not emptied immediatly remain too long time. Use move request in stead if that is bothering you. --Foroa (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Specular images[edit]

Hi Foroa. Please, can You tell me if there is a template like "move cat" or "bad name" which I can use to ask to change some pictures which are load in a specular manner [sorry, my so bad english!!!]. For example this file or this other, or this other. I can't find it! I will be very greatfull to you. Saluti cari --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean as the images in Category:Images to be flopped back ? To flip them, you might find some help on COM:GVP. --Foroa (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Jes, it's this! Thank you very much, Foroa! I will try to do something... Saluti, --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...[edit]

Could you please explain why you moved Category:Kandahar Province in the Afghan War (2001-present) to Category:Kandahar in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present)?

You didn't leave a {{category redirect}}. Is there a reason why you didn't do so? Geo Swan (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the move, see #Could_you_please_explain... above and Commons talk:Category scheme military forces and people involved in wars
Concerning redirects, see #Please_be_aware_of_interwiki_links_when_renaming.2Fdeleting_categories above. --Foroa (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
WRT leaving {{category redirect}}s -- I responded here. Geo Swan (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories about Italian municipalities[edit]

Hi! I noticed you reverted the edits I made about Category:Sant'Agapito and Category:Sant'Agapito, Isernia ([7], [8], [9], [10]). At a first glance you may think that I moved a category from a more unambiguous name (Sant'Agapito, Isernia) to a more ambiguous one (Sant'Agapito). But there's a reason for this. There's a government proposal about abolishing provinces in Italy (like the province of Isernia, in this case), so leaving the province name would become useless and would hamper further searches. Moreover, there's no risk that the name "Sant'Agapito" could be ambiguous because there are no other municipalities with this name, neither in Italy nor in the rest of the world, as I know. Finally, I am the creator of both categories an the creator and uploader of the three maps belonging to them, so the edits I made were only for better categorizing and for coherence's sake with other naming conventions. :-) If you think, however, that Category:Sant'Agapito is still too much ambiguous, I could name it Category:Sant'Agapito (Italy), but not Category:Sant'Agapito, Isernia at all. Thank you! -- Vonvikken (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As you can see here, a couple of hours after its initial creation, it was moved with the summary stating: "Incorrectly named: Many Sant'Agapito' : see it:Sant'Agapito)". So it makes no sense to move it back again. We have already a cathedral dedicated to "Sant'Agapito di Palestrina", there might be a "Sant'Agapito, Roma or Ravenna" parish. Experience shows that on Commons, much more city/villages/parish/hamlet names appear than on the various wikipedia's, so disambiguation needs do always increase.
A problem with disambiguation in Italy is that some city/villages/parish/hamlet names are several times present in Italy, sometimes even in the same province. So the (Italy) disambiguation term might not be the best, (municipality) might be better. --Foroa (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You're right, but I checked out this name, there are no other places in Italy with this name. In the disambiguation page on it.wikipedia you can see that the other names are all about persons, so using the (Italy) disambiguation would make no sense for them (better would be Sant'Agapito (pope) and so on). What do you think? :-) --Vonvikken (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not worrying about saints, they use their extensions or conventions such as Category:Agapetus I and Category:Agapetus II. I am more worrying about Parrocchia Sant'Agapito in Roma, the Sant'Agapito library, Sant'Agapito in Lucera, ... and others that will pop up over time. --Foroa (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Mmmm... Ok! I'll put another disambiguation! -- Vonvikken (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"People of" and Faculty cats[edit]

Hi Foroa, why is that wrong? Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eusebius. In contrast with the US, a faculty is in general a division of a university that contains more than people; it can have buildings, documents, labs, ... Moreover, it does not mean that someone works in a faculty of one of the 4 or 5 Brussels universities (only 32 km2) that they are "people of Brussels". --Foroa (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
About the first part: I have never assumed that "Faculty" here meant "Faculté". It didn't even crossed my mind, and I'm French. But I'm biased of course, because I've created several Faculty cats. Don't you think a "Faculty" cat about an anglo-saxon university should have the same meaning that a "Faculty" cat about a university in a country where a similar word has another meaning? We should find some kind of harmonized (and if possible unambiguous) way to name those cats. Besides, "Université XX Faculty" or "Faculty of uni X" doesn't mean anything if you want to consider the French word "Faculté". It is only used with a given field, like "Faculty of Engineering". Used alone, "Faculté" does mean "people in academia" (or even the abstraction of "academic authority", or sometimes only medical "academic authorities"), but it is a pretty old-fashioned saying I think.
About your last sentence, I still don't get it. Why do people working in a university of town X cannot be categorized under "People of X"? I must ask, because I've made a lot of edits with this assumption and I might do more (I have a list of "Faculty" cats to be renamed on my personal TODO list, following your own advice about desirable naming conventions). --Eusebius (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Faculty is inspired by the Sorbonne model and means always a faculté/division. Mainly in the US and Canada, it means equally the academic staff and the organisation around (professors offices, cafetaria, infrastructure, ...). So a solution could be to call it faculty members or academic staff.
If you add people of a "faculty" to a city, then you have two problems:
In many cases, academic staff has nothing to do with the university city as they live in a more rural/quiet area or are just passing by for one or two years.
The professors that are really living in the city are only via de faculty cat in the people/city cat, so no longer visible between the other folks of the city (overcat monster). --Foroa (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


why did you do that ?

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

  • 15:27, 10 June 2010 Foroa (talk | contribs) deleted "David Charvet" ‎ (Empty gallery: content was: '<gallery> File:Extrait David Charvet.jpg|Extrait de naissance </gallery> de:David Charvet en:David Charvet fr:David Charvet it:David Charvet nl:Dav...' (and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contri)

??? Kernitou (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The gallery contained only one single image and was not categorised. I created now the Category:David Charvet in stead. --Foroa (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

German caricatures[edit]

Hi, you're fast ;-) ! I don't know why you prefer "Caricatures of politicians from Germany" (perhaps you consider that this makes it larger than a category of "German politicians" which presume that they have "German" nationality); in any cases, than the category I just created should probably be deleted, and the others caricatures relevant to this topic included in "Caricatures of politicians" should be removed from this large and worldwide category to be included in this subcategory (Hitler, Wilhelm, etc.). I just did it for France, perhaps you want to do it for Germany. Cheers! Ahbon? (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, is there a way to use a bot to transfer the 19 caricatures in Category:Caricatures of French politicians to the category you just created? I just finished moving these 19 caricatures from "Caricatures of politicans" to "Caricatures of French politicians", I don't want just now to repeat this job ;-) Ahbon? (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah bon. You did a great job. On Commons, we prefer "Caricatures of politicians from Germany" over "German politicians" because the structure is more linear (small to big, variable part at the end), easier to extend (I.e. Frankfurt am Main) while using simpler Englisch (Try to find the correct prefix for Azerbaijan, Pyrenées, Niger, Nigeria or Georgia (country, state) politicians ...) --Foroa (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:1973 Arab-Israeli War[edit]

Longterm category name was Category:1973 Arab-Israeli War until last couple days when an attempt was made to move the category without discussion to Category:Yom Kippur War.

The introduction says:

"The Yom Kippur War, Ramadan War or October War (; transliterated: ħarb October or حرب تشرين, ħarb Tishrin), also known as the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the Fourth Arab-Israeli War"

"1973 Arab-Israeli War" is the international name, and has long been used on the Commons. We shouldn't use "Ramadan War" or "Yom Kippur War".

The Commons does not take sides, especially when many people don't speak English well, and will not be familiar with a Hebrew holiday name used in English. "1973 Arab-Israeli War" is the simplest English name, and so it is also the most practical name for most Commons readers.

Foroa. One of your edit summaries said "Avoid edit wars while following proper move procedure". There was no move request or discussion before the category was moved the last couple days from the longterm name, Category:1973 Arab-Israeli War, to Category:Yom Kippur War.

Also, Foroa, you reverted an admin, User:Krinkle. See this diff. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

1. As you can see here, this uncontested rename request was open since more than a month and two different categories developed in parallel so it was time to merge them.
2. When looking at the interwiki's, there is no reason not to use the "Yom Kippur War".
3. If you don't agree, please use a proper CFD or the proper {{move}} procedure. --Foroa (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
My bad. I must have missed that move request in all the zillions of bot edits the last few months. I will issue a move request back to the longterm category name.
Turkey uses this name: 1973 Arap-İsrail Savaşı
Please see Category talk:Yom Kippur War
--Timeshifter (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


Category:Wolves has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Teofilo (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi, possum goes to Phalangeriformes, thanks. Can you do the same with opossum : it should go not to Didelphis virginiana but to Category:Didelphidae or Didelphidae because there are many other opossum species. Opossum = carnivorous american sp. and possum = herbivorus oceanian sp. (cf. zoologist convention). Can you do something ? --Salix (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed it, but it seems to be in contradiction with en:Opossum that refers to the Didelphimorphia. But this is not really my domain. Merci pour votre coup de main. --Foroa (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Didelphimorphia would do equally, it's just one level upper. --Salix (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Just shows how difficult taxonomy naming is for the occasional contributor that loads a nice picture of an animal/flower/insect of the woods in his village. --Foroa (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Right! I'm dreaming of photo guides like this or like I did for Category:Tamias and Category:Chinchilla for each category... May the dream come true one day... --Salix (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
That's quite classy and cute. Would you do the same for mice, spiders, snakes and snails? You started with the most charming animals. Anyway, the most important is that you still can dream ...
I use the left Sum-it-up tab (see edit summaries in my contributions, option in My preferences/gadgets). Not that classy but quite efficient once you get used to it. --Foroa (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Can it be used for species? As soon as the Genus is not containing too many species, I wouldn't mind doing a photo guide for any king of "ugly/frightening" animals : I love all of them but I'm just better in rodents identification... --Salix (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
We trapped already a couple of species in Category:Opossum.
The number of species seems to be the limiting factor, I guess it should not take more than 60 % of the screen. Maybe you can find a nice starting test case in the common names, such as "rats/mice/donkeys/cattle/... pour les nuls" or any other one in the fairly incomplete Category:Animals by common named groups. Enjoy and keep me posted. --Foroa (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I spend my time doing this in French but common names are not exactly including the same specices from one langage to another... tricky. --Salix (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(Indent reset) I know that it is not easy, and we encounter that problem all the time, such as in Category:Mbira and Category:Pedal cars. But the better we document things, the more help people will find to locate the right categories. Enjoy ... --Foroa (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Auto categorization[edit]

Hoi Foroa, had jij niet nog ergens een verhaaltje liggen waarom categories toevoegen dmv sjablonen niet handig is? Het is namelijk weer eens zover. Multichill (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dank je voor mijn nominatie als verhaaltjesverteller ;). Niks in stock denk ik en die mannen lopen echt hitsig van zodra ze een kans zien om hun bot los te laten om massaal categories te gaan aanmaken, nuttig of niet. Ik reageer er morgen op. --Foroa (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lion Tomb / Lion Gate[edit]

La Tombe dite "des Lions" (datée 1460-1400 av. J.-C.) et la porte des Lions ou Lionnes (les deux existent) (datée 1350-1330 av. J.-C.) sont des noms conventionnels qui désignent des lieux du site de Mycènes : il me paraît plus judicieux de les regrouper sous "Mycènes". Le site de Mycènes a été occupé par les Mycéniens (ou Achéens; chez Homère) entre 1600 et 1100, et après aussi : le plus simple est peut être de s'en tenir à une simple distribution par lieux. Merci de suivre mes rangements !

dans le même esprit il me parait plus clair de ranger les trouvailles (conservées dans des musées, la plus grande partie au Musée Archéologique National d'Athènes) par Musée, mais je me lancerai plus tard là-dedans, car cela implique de vérifier la cohérence au niveau des musées.

Jean Housen 16:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pas de problème. Il me semblait que la tombe des lions était un sous-ensemble de la porte des lions, mais vous êtes viseblement l'expert dans la matière. J'ai essentiellement essayé de donner un petit coup de main pour vos premières démarches sur Commons.
  • Atttention avec le nommage des catégories: il suffit qu'on rencontre une autre "porte des lions" et on devra renommer le votre en "porte des Lions, Mycea" ou dans le style, pour éviter la confusion.
  • Pour mettre votre signature, il suffit de tapper --~~~~ et le système remplace ça avec votre nom utilisateur + la date. Normalement, il y a un petit icon (3ième de droite) au dessus de votre fenêtre d'édition, qui cause une insertion de cette séquence.
  • Merci pour votre cooperation. --Foroa (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


Merci pour avoir amélioré la Category:Musard que j'avais créé, en la renommant Category:Philippe Musard et en ajoutant un bandeau de présentation.


Basili (discuter) 18:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Cette fois si, cétait gratuit, un peu brutal, mais avec grand plaisir. Cordialement. --Foroa (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello Foroa. Since the en article was moved one week ago, how do we proceed with the move in Category:Mura? And what about the sub-catgories? Do we need an extra proposal? Brgds, --R.Schuster (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I renamed the top level Category:Mur River and its Austrian part, left a tophat note on the others. Not sure if the others need renaming, probably better from the top level, worst at the local side. --Foroa (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I guess we leave Category:Mura in Croatia and Category:Mura in Slovenia as they are. But I suggest to rename Category:Bridges over the Mura and it's subcategories, too, if you agree. Best regards, --R.Schuster (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Unicycle or Bicycle?[edit]

I saw File:Velocipedes.png. Then would you see -- (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right. The photographer tried to cheat. I added a note. --Foroa (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. If I find a doubt in the descriptions again, I will add a note as you have done. By the way, May I remove your talk of that file? It is no longer neccessory for everybody. -- (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you too. There is no need to remove that talk page; this might avoid further discussions on that. Removing or even deletion saves no system space on wiki software. --Foroa (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Roger. Thank you again. -- (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Naar aanleiding van "Translation tool"[edit]

Dag Foroa, naar aanleiding van je commentaar bij Translation tool bij de Village pump ben ik eens ingegaan op het gebruik van de "Description template" bij Italiaanse steden. Bijvoorbeeld bij Category:Pizzo. Er worden (maar) 9 vertalingen gegeven. Zelf zie ik graag wat uitgebreidere vertalingen wanneer dat voor een zoekmachine nuttig is. Ik heb mijn mening gegeven bij Vonvikken. Daarbij heb ik via template "Collapse" andere vertalingen toegevoegd, maar het werkt niet zoals ik zou willen. Bijvoorbeeld dat een Rus direct ook de russische tekst krijgt. Dat heb ik uitgetest door ?uselang=ru aan de URL toe te voegen. Heb jij een idee waarom dat niet werkt? Groeten, Wouter (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Aanvulling: Ik besef me nu ineens dat "Collapse" inderdaad alleen collaps is. Ik was in de war met een andere template. Wouter (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Die italiaanse templates zijn vermoedelijk standaard templates waar de namen van de steden/provincie in gepatcht worden. Niet uitbreidbaar dus en op termijn (250 talen) geen goede oplossing.
Zoals je in Commons:Village_pump#Translation_tool kan zien heb ik hetzelfde probleem betreffende mijn taal voorkeur. Er zou een soort van {{mld}} template moeten bestaan dat altijd de Engelse versie + locale taal voor locale items + user taal toont. Beter je mening daar ventileren dan bij een lokale gebruiker. --Foroa (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Theatres in Liège[edit]


J'avais créé la catégorie "Theatres in Liège" pour y regrouper toutes les salles de spectacle (au sens premier de "theatre", conservé en anglais), à savoir le Théâtre Royal (occupé aujourd'hui par l'Opéra de Wallonie) la Salle philharmonique, anciennement dite "salle du Conservatoire" mais aussi la Salle de l'Emulation (en cours de rénovation) le Théâtre de l'Etuve le Forum

en bref tous les lieux de spectacle qui disposent d'une salle, avec des coulisses, des loges, une machinerie d'éclairage et de son, etc. A l'exclusion des salles de cinéma, qui peuvent leur être reliées, mais dans une catégorie à part.

Il me semble pratique de mettre cette catégorie directement sur la "racine" de la ville : j'ai vu qu'à Montréal ou New York, c'était le cas, dans une catégorie (au Canada) "Halls et Theatres" qui permet de regrouper tous les lieux de spectacle.

Merci pour vos conseils !!! dans le cas des noms de rue, il est tout à fat juste qu'à part les noms très locaux, il y a beaucoup de risque de doublons et plus...

Jean Housen 16:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, il est sans doute préférable de s'aligner sur Category:Brussels ou Category:Bruges qui sont les villes le plus développées. Les theatres peuvent se trouver sous buildings et culture of ... Renommer des catégories est assez fatiguant, donc merci d'éviter des noms "génériques". Cordialement. --Foroa (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Foroa, with Belgium's categories such a mess - can you tell me why you seem to revert my application of the Country category scheme and the standard Commons sorting rules here? You have just reverted the communities cat move. We should discuss this to get some consensus. Ingolfson (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is Category:Brussels back in Category:Cities and villages in Belgium AND in Category:Belgium? Confused.

Similar concerns with your Brussels revert. Why should the capital of Belgium suddenly bypass its usual position in a "Cities of Belgium" cat and get a special treatment in Belgium? Category:Paris is rightly not located in Category:France either. Similarly for Category:Flanders (which Wikipedia notes as "Flanders, French: Flandre) is the (political) community of the Flemings"). Why is that Flanders category not in (and only in) Category:Subdivisions of Belgium, and maybe in Category:Communities of Belgium? Moving it back into Category:Belgium seems to be to be against one of our core sorting rules - only sort into the most specific applicable & avoid sorting into parent and daughter cat both at the same time. I am totally confused by these reverts, and they have stopped me dead in my tracks in trying to reduce the chaos in the Belgium cat, because I worry that you will keep reverting my changes. Ingolfson (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Removed silly drawing, I can give hundreds of examples of so called over/parallel categories.
Category:Belgium and all major Belgian cities and regions are optimised and tuned for easy and quick navigation to specific locations: on the top left of those categories, you can reach any place in two to three clicks without having a clue about the complex country organisation. Remember that there are communities and regions in three languages but regions and communities overlap and don't cover the same areas. Moreover, with its 2700+ cities and towns (and 2000 hamlets) in a small area, few people know the exact boundaries of the provinces (the latter might disappear within a couple of years). This facilitates greatly the majority of navigation to places in Belgium, especially for people that are not familiar with commons or Belgium. I whished that more countries were organised like that; it would save me significant time.
Brussels is a Village, a city and a region, but again, few people know the detailed differences, even less the precise borders.
If Category:Belgium is a bit of a mess by now, it is greatly caused by the great amount of "by country categories" that have been created the last months without any connection to a proper category in Belgium. Someone connected them all to Belgium to make sure that they are not forgotten, and we have to clean that up indeed.
I don't understand what you have against category:Belgium in categories: given the fact that people are adding 2 or 3 "xxx in Belgium" categories, it is very useful to have a flat list of all "in/of Belgium categories", something similar to category:Categories by country by alphabet. So you normally don't delete such categories without discussion. --Foroa (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
In a way you are saying here that because you personally feel different works better here, you will simply abandon COM:OVERCAT, one of the core Commons rules - and refer to the diagram exemplifying it as "a silly picture". Seriously, I am shocked to hear this from Foroa himself. Again, tell me why Brussels should be an exemption, but not Paris, or London? Why should Category:United States remain in Category:Countries of North America, when it is so much easier to find it in Category:Countries? After all, lots of people search here for the United States. We should move it right to the top. The list goes on and on - where does it end?
This has nothing to do with abondon of overcat, it is just that we have several category systems in parallel. Your example of Category:United States in Category:Countries of North America is a good example: Category:United States in Category:Countries is perfect: the world is divided in administrative/political pieces. Category:United States in Category:Countries of North America is flawed because, like many other countries, they have substantial parts of their territory in other continents and it is Overcat indeed.
As you can see in en:Brussels (disambiguation) Brussels is a region, capital and pseudo-province (161 km2), a city and municipality (32 km2), the city center (+- 16 km2), the old city center/village (+- 4 km2), the very old city center/village (+- 1 km2), but again, few people know the detailed differences, even less the precise borders, so these dimensions are all grouped, by necessity, in one single category:Brussels. So because Brussels has several hats, it is normal that it appears at several levels. I am running out of time, so the rest of the reply is for tomorrow. --Foroa (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Kidding aside, Foroa, I would really respectfully ask you to not undermine the main sorting principle like that! If you feel that Brussels should be more prominent for someone coming to the Category:Belgium - if you feel it needs more prominence, you could for example place a text header, along the line of "One of the most important subcategories is Category:Brussels" (either in Belgium or in the Cities and villages of Belgium subcat) to highlight it more - but please do not break the core rules of the project just because you feel a particular category needs more prominence.
Regarding the "Belgium by categories" cat - I thought you might have been trying to do something like the "Categories by alphabet" thing here. And I have no problem with THAT. However, can you give me a succinct answer (and an answer that the normal user would get instinctively too):
Which Belgium-related categories belong in "Belgium" and which belong in "Belgium by categories"?
The only answers I can see are a "all" / "none" or maybe a "Mmmmh... I don't know, there's no clear definition". Not clear at all. Now as I said, I would understand a Category:Belgium by category by alphabet and I would be very happy to support you in populating that. It is a valid "catch-all" category, and follows established category naming nomenclature. As for my quick action on the old format of "Belgium by categories" - it fit no existing pattern I knew of (like "by alphabet" would have), had a small and very uneven set of contents, and thus felt like an unfinished project. I apologise for my quick action, I guess I was simply "moving into gear" trying to sort out the big amount of obviously unsorted cats that were sitting in Belgium.
I guess what I am trying to say is that there are ways to resolve this without treating COM:OVERCAT as optional. So I hope we can find some agreement on these matters. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Main categorisation in Belgium[edit]

Belgium is a relatively small country, comparable to many states in the United states, departments in France, Lander in Germany, provinces in Canada, Italy and Spain, ... Most of them are not subdivided in other subregions.

There is a clear consensus of Belgian users not to divide Belgium in subcategories as for example per province, for several reasons:

  • Provinces are mainly administrative, play a small role in Belgium and might, like in Italy, disappear within a couple of years.
  • Because of its density, provinces are not very clearly delimited and with its 2700+ cities and towns (and 2000 hamlets), most people don't know the exact province from the many cities and villages.
  • A simple two level country/location structure allows for categorisation without knowing anything about the Belgian structure. As for postal letters that are adressed by location/country, most images contain only that location information.
  • As we can see in many bigger countries, a three level categorisation system is difficult to maintain as most categories start of as a two level one and are converted later to a three level category, creating quite some confusion as the category system evolves continuously from a two to a three level system.
  • We have been playing with the idea to subdivide Belgium in Flemish, French, German and Capital regions, but this level would only reduce the category sizes by a factor of 2 to 2,5 while potentially creating all sorts of politicial conflicts, which do not exist with the current system.

Consequently, Category:Cities and villages in Belgium just contains all the categories related to any location in Belgium. We have been playing with the idea of changing the name in Category:Populated places in Belgium, "Locations in Belgium", ... But it seemed better to stick to the then major standard Category:Cities and villages by country.

The system is not perfect, some categories need be revised, but it is generally accepted as the best compromise and the most friendly for efficient categorisation and navigation.

Secondary categorisations in Belgium[edit]

Territorial categorisations in Belgium[edit]

A secondary categorisation in Belgium is organised as a territorium structure that corresponds roughly with the administrative dependencies. Category:Belgium and all major Belgian cities and regions are optimised and tuned for easy and quick navigation to specific locations: on the top left of those categories, one can easily navigate to the next subdivisions:

  • Country --> Regions --> Provinces --> Municipalities --> Villages --> Hamlets/parishes.

Politically speaking, the German community is not on its place (belongs to Wallonia), but we prefer that the German community feel at an equal level.

Political categorisations in Belgium[edit]

Politics in Belgium are complex and the regions (territory related competences) and Communities (language/people related competences) are not simple to categorise. The good point is that politics are kind of abstract and don't show up very much in the categories. They can be found in Category:Subdivisions of Belgium but lead quickly to the territorial category system above.

Categories used in Belgium[edit]

A system such as Category:Peru in categories is badly needed. This needs to be written. --Foroa (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Foroa - thanks. I understand more about the Brussels case now, and I agree that some category systems can bee too unwiedly, especially if they require some extra knowledge by the user, or are likely to be changeable.
On the Peru in categories / Belgium in categories matter, I have not disagreed with you either as soon as I understood what you were doing. I would solely like this to follow established other syntax, which I also feel would better explain what the category is about - i.e. Category:Belgium categories by alphabet or similar. This would follow the established "by alphabet" logic compared to the (as far as I am aware) much rarer "Peru in categories" or "Belgium by categories" options. Would that be a change which you could consider supporting? Ingolfson (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I have always been very much against "category:xxx by name" or "category:xxx by alphabet" as all categories are by default all by name or alphabet, so those terms are almost always redundant.
Yesterday, I discovered Category:Categories of Italy and I added it to the Category:Countries by category. Category:Categories of Belgium seems to be the best compromise, and I could align Category:Peru in categories to Category:categories of Peru. What do you think? --Foroa (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the "by alphabet" logic, but I could live with your proposal as long as it is consistent over all categories (and preferably has a template tag written to stick on every one so users will be told this is the approved way of doing such categories and how to do it). But lets await the wider discussion at Categories of Belgium first. Ingolfson (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


Vielen Dank für die Feinbearbeitung. Gruß RaSlaMa (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

With pleasure. --Foroa (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wij gebruiken toch de Engelse conventie?[edit]

Ik zie een stel hernoemingen zoals deze. We gebruiken toch op Commons de Engelse conventie (locatie A, locatie B ipv locatie A (locatie B))? Hebben we dat eigenlijk ergens gedocumenteerd staan? Multichill (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ik zie beide door elkaar gebruikt worden, om dol van te worden. Groet.--Gerardus (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Jammer genoeg niet formeel. Volgens mij is het een duidelijke tendens die zich aftekent en die wij proberen te pushen, maar in sommige landen, zoals Italië, is de standaard duidelijk (locatie), hetgeen zich een beetje weerspiegeld in Europa. Ik vermoed dat het een gevolg is van de standaards/gewoonten op de respectieve wikipedia's. Zelfs docu vecht het aan als zijnde niet standaard. Het blijft een soepje, en ik corrigeer dat dikwijls voor moves, maar we proberen toch de zaak uniform te houden per streek. Vermoeiend inderdaad. --Foroa (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


Thanks, Foroa. Your help is much appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

With pleasure. --Foroa (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Renaming maps[edit]

Dear Foroa, I noticed your comment on my talk-page and I'm rather puzzled by it. I renamed the maps because they were all listed in the backlog and I had no other objective than to do some cleaning up there. I did not even coin the new names myself but followed the wish of the creator of those maps, who put them up for renaming and as far as I know, creator requested renames are generally granted. It may have caused stress on the delinker and I'm sorry for that but I can tell you that it took me many hours to try to complete this task. You can imagine that I'm not very much pleased to learn that you removed my rights. A simple explanation as to why this was undesirable and a request to stop me would have been sufficient to alter my behaviour. I therefore kindly request you to restore my right to move files as I'm convinced that, maybe apart from the maps, I did quite some usefull work in the backlog. - Wikiklaas (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I was granted the right to rename files only recently, that I very carefully read the policy about file renaming, that I used the right in a very meaningfull way when I reorganised the files in category Magnolia, but that, on the other hand, I'm still in the process of learning. Giving me some comments and hints will make me a better user; plainly removing my rights only leaves you with one motivated contributor less and it also won't learn me to be a better contributor to the project. I hope you'll understand. - Wikiklaas (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Beste Wikiklaas, na verder onderzoek zie ik dat het probleem niet echt bij jou ligt, behalve je al te grote goodwill; ik zal meteen je move recht herstellen.
The problem is related to a complete and unnecessary waste of energy and resources; as you stated yourself, hours of work that could be avoided and spent to more useful tasks. I will explain it on the Vonvikken talk page as he is at the origin of the problem. Because I declined a major rename request from you on the COM:DL and you did continue, I removed your move right as a conservative measure. I will restore your rights now.
Some comment anyway concerning your parts of the chain. I did a couple of spot checks on the map files and none of them seemed linked to external or internal categories or galleries. In such a case, it is a complete waste of resources and energy to leave a file redirect behind (option in move) and to send it to COM:DL (why I rejected it in the first place).
But anyway, thank you for your cooperation and keep up the good work. --Foroa (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Beste Foroa, dank je wel voor de vriendelijke manier waarop je me te woord staat en voor de prettige en volwassen manier waarop je hiermee omgaat. Ik heb er begrip voor dat je mijn rechten (tijdelijk) introk, helemaal nu je ook bereid bent me ze weer terug te geven. Ik weet zeker dat er heel wat administrators zijn die een eenmaal genomen maatregel niet of pas na veel gezeur weer terugdraaien. Tegelijk wil ik graag van de gelegenheid gebruik maken uit dit voorbeeld te leren.
Tot voor kort had ik in de backlog vooral individuele files of kleine series behandeld. Daarbij checkte ik handmatig of er links naar de files waren binnen commons (door gewoon onderaan de pagina met de beschrijving te kijken) of op andere projekten (met de knop "global usage"). Vervolgens paste ik dan handmatig alle links aan voordat ik de filemove deed. Dat is nogal een karwei. Toen ik me meer in dat proces verdiepte, ontdekte ik dat commons/delinker het werk dat ik handmatig deed geautomatiseerd kon doen. Doorgaans checkte ik dan eerst of een file ergens gebruikt werd en als dat het geval bleek, meldde ik die file aan op delinker. Bij de maps van Vonvikken heb ik bij de eerste filemove gekeken of er links bestonden. Dat heb ik overigens later ook nog wel eens steekproefsgewijs gedaan en grappig genoeg deed ik dat blijkbaar toevallig bij files waar wèl links naar bestonden en viel jouw steekproef (toevallig) anders uit. Het kostte me al enorm veel tijd om al die files te hernoemen, ze aan te melden op delinker en naderhand de rename template te verwijderen van de beschrijvingspagina. Ik heb daarom niet bij elke file gekeken of het echt nodig was die op delinker aan te melden. Ik denk dat je hiermee voldoende inzicht in mijn werkwijze hebt.
Dan nu mijn vragen: 1) Heb ik het goed begrepen dat commons/delinker het proces automatiseert waarbij van hernoemde files de links zowel in commons als op alle andere projekten worden aangepast? 2) Is het niet zo dat dat geautomatiseerde proces juist bedoeld is om handmatige edits, zoals ik ze hierboven beschreef, te vervangen? 3) Je zegt dat je op COM:DL een "major request" van mij had afgewezen. Dat is me ontgaan en ik kan het ook nu nergens terugvinden. Wat bedoel je precies en hoe had ik dat eerder kunnen zien? 4) Ik ben geen administrator en volgens mij wordt er daarom bij elke file-move die ik doe automatisch een redirect gemaakt (ik heb nooit een tickbox gezien die dat voorkomt) en is het aanmelden van de ontstane redirect voor speedy deletion de enige manier om een redirect te voorkomen. Ik heb dat in veel gevallen dan ook gedaan omdat ook ik al het idee had dat het een zooitje zou worden als overal maar ongebruikte redirects bleven slingeren. Ik begrijp overigens uit discussies op andere OP's van gebruikers op commons en op enkele pagina's in de community portal dat er geen volledige overeenstemming bestaat over het omgaan met redirects. Sommige gebruikers lijken van mening dat je een redirect nooit moet weghalen, vanwege de kans die er bestaat dat er van buiten wikipedia toch naar de bewuste filenaam wordt gelinkt. Ik ben het met die laatste opvatting hartgrondig oneens maar mijn mening is er maar één van de vele en ik pas me maar liever aan aan wat op commons gangbaar is, dan loop ik de minste kans op conflicten en die zijn er wat mij betreft al genoeg.
Dan nu nog de afhandeling van dit specifieke geval. Ik heb gezien dat je nog niet op de talk page van Vonvikken hebt gereageerd op zijn activiteiten. Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat Vonvikken met de allerbeste bedoelingen die kaartjes van Ligurië heeft gemaakt en ook dat hij de allerbeste bedoelingen had toen hij voorstelde om ze andere namen te geven. Ik heb nu ongeveer 160 van de 220 files hernoemd. Wat is nu wijsheid? Dat ik alle hernoemingen ongedaan maak en de daarmee samenhangende regels uit commons/delinker weer wis? Of dat ik die laatste 60 files ook nog hernoem maar daarbij wèl check of er ook daadwerkelijk links naar bestaan? In het laatste geval wordt ook Vonvikken blij; in het eerste geval zal hij/zij ongetwijfeld teleurgesteld zijn. De situatie laten zoals die nu is lijkt me geen goede optie omdat het duidelijk de bedoeling was de hele serie systematisch en op de zelfde manier van namen te voorzien en dat proces hebben we nu helaas doorbroken.
Dank voor je tijd. Ik hoop op een (kort) antwoord en op een prettige samenwerking in de toekomst. - Wikiklaas (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Behalve tijd, geen echt probleem denk ik; eigenlijk heb ik te laat (of te vroeg) aan de noodrem getrokken. Betreffende de links, ik heb zojuist getest, en inderdaad, een user kan niet kiezen indien de link weggehaald wordt. Die honderduizenden ongebruikte links worden vroeger of later een probleem, daarom probeer ik in de eerste plaats renames te vermijden. Ik moet ook bekennen dat mijn spot checks overhaast waren: alhoewel ik klikte op de originele file, werd ik geredirect en was de file "not used by ...". Een andere beperking van de wiki software en een fout van mij. Nu weet ik dat er goede redenen waren om ze naar de delinker te sturen alhoewel ik wel graag geweten had hoe de wikipedia's zelf reageren op een geredirecte file (zie tekst beneden). En met gebruikers die de tijd nemen om te vragen en uit te leggen kan het niet echt mislopen. Trouwens de enige manier om een "Common"unity op te bouwen. Bedankt dus. --Foroa (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Foroa, I noticed that my decision to rename the maps I created has caused much more problems than I expected... So I think it's a good idea to explain why I did those renamings. I'm working together with other Italian users to improve the informations (media and categories) about Italian administrative subdivisions (regions, provinces and municipalities—comuni). My job is creating the maps with their boundaries and trying to uniform and disambiguate the categories municipalities (as you already noticed in other occasions). Now there's is a proposal about the abolishment of the redundant and money-consuming provinces (only a proposal by now, our government likes a lot speaking about good changes but less in actually doing it...), so, accordingly with another user (see here, but it's in Italian...), I put also the region name, in case it would remain the only valid one. Moreover, it's also for disambiguation's sake, because most of provinces have the same name of their chief-towns, so a naming like comune of XXX (Genova, Italy) is more ambiguous than comune of XXX (province of Genoa, region Liguria, Italy). Those 60 remaining renamings will be the last ones (and I assure you that I won't change anything anymore...), so if you don't want the delinker to be overloaded I'm ready to change the links manually (there are only 3-4 ones per image), but please don't undo the changes already done, it would ruin my job. Thanks for your attention, best wishes -- Vonvikken (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Systematic renames[edit]

Now I understand better the cause of those 220 file renames, which are some sort of name clarification but above all, to fit in a scheme that makes it easy to autogenerate map names in templates so that it does not need to be passed as a parameter to a template (I guess, no time to investigate in detail). According to the rename rules, those file renames are not justified and should be normally rejected. Passing such renames in huge quantity to the delinkeris a precedent and invites users to do such renames too; after all, it is easy to request such renames, the work behind is for the other contributors.

On each of the 220 files to be renamed, 3 people edited them and on average, 5 edits have been done per file. Moreover, then the renames have to be formatted for the delinker requests and then passed to the execution. So, this rename job has costed in total in the order of two to three person days. If one wanted to do that for all villages in any country, we would neeed a substantial team to serve all that. I guess that this demonstrates clearly why we need restrictive rules for renames. And why we should congratulate Wikiklaas for his willingness and good services; he deserves at least a bottle of fine Italian wine. Anyway, one should have raised a discussion on such mass of unjustified renames.

In the past, we have seen a couple of attempts to auto-generate or -compose file/category names to facilitate the inclusion of categories or files. While this looks initially a good and energy saving approach, in practise, it turns out very often badly. Sometimes, the naming of a concerned item changes (I.e. in the German part of Italy), an item needs disambiguation, or just other forgotten details (apostrophes, accents, ...). Moreover, in such a system, another user cannot insert a map because for example it is nicer, has the city colors, better details, clickable, zoomable, multi-language legends in Russian and Arab... So such templates are only acceptable if they have a prevision for an optional parameter that overrides the default map name. In such a case, changes doesn't generate a lot of work for several people.

The problem could have been adressed in other simple ways too (besides the template parameter). One way could have been to just reload the images under the new name and flag the old ones as duplicates from the new ones.

User:Vonvikken could have requested move rights (maybe, this facility is too recent in regards with the original requests) but that would have saved many interventions. If the original file name (that became a redirect) works on wikipedia, then there is no need to pass it to the delinker.

Possibly the most versatile approach, at least if the wiki software works now as it should, would be to use some sort of auto-generated name for a file that doesn't exist. That file however could then be redirected to the images that suits best the purpose at the moment. This would need more testing however, especially if it is to be used in external wikipedias.

Anyway, for now, we have to complete the job. Thank you all for the understanding. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Foroa, thanks for your help. Both you and Wikiklaas deserve a bottle of Italian wine, or, better, a one-year provision of Sicilian granita! ;-) You are right, those renamings to a standard pattern were also useful to make those maps usable with a template (like this one) that can be used uniformly in all 8,094 pages about Italian comuni. I put in the new names all the informations needed to avoid ambiguities now or in the future, so further renamings won't be needed. Regarding bilingual names (like the Italian/German Bolzano/Bozen), either I will put both names or I will use a redirect... I have to think about. Do you have some hits? Finally, I tried earlier to reload the same files with the new name, like you suggested, but I have been asked not to do such a thing because it seemed to cause a lot of troubles to administrators (see here)... Thank you again, best wishes! -- Vonvikken (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Vonvikken, I am still convinced that a reupload followed by a {{duplicate}} is much more efficient than the current procedure but it gives slightly more work to an administrator. But anyway, I installed a number of redirects which would make their renames unnecessary:
If this works (it should, did several tests), you can remove the rename requests, finish the lot on your own in an hour and everbody should be happy (in theory). --Foroa (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Foroa, I did some tests, and the solution you proposed works! So I removed the {{rename}} tag in the files you made a redirect of and later I will do the same thing with the rest of files in Category:Maps requiring renaming (not all now, I have little time — exams at university — but I will do them all). Thank you, best regards! -- Vonvikken (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi: All done, I completed all the renamings/redirects. Now this temporary category may be deleted. Good night, best regards! -- Vonvikken (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Great and thank you. --Foroa (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories of Belgium[edit]

Hello Foroa. I've just seen this strange category name: Category:Categories of Belgium. It seems redundant for every category contains categories. It's just a {{Metacat}}, but should not contain "Categories" in its name. The proper name should simply be Category:Belgium. Regards, Jack ma (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ports of Auckland[edit]

Foroa, please reverse the changes you made to the rename request of category:Ports of Auckland, i.e. the "fixes" to Category:Cranes of ports of Auckland and Category:Vehicles of ports of Auckland. The reason is that "Ports of Auckland" is a proper name - that is the port company here in Auckland, and as such, it makes no sense to de-capitalise the word 'ports'. Regards, Ingolfson (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC) ✓ 


--Foroa (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.[edit]

"I will rename them but the pictures will be removed from all projects that use them"? You are a vindictive son of a bitch and should not be an admin. Please report me, be my guest.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I blocked him for 3 days; but to threaten with the deletion of used redirect pages is hardly appropriate either. this harms the whole project & is kinda childishly as retaliation--DieBuche (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
He cynically reinstated rename requests while he had tens of unnecessary rename requests. If we want that the people that execute the rename requests remain motivated and keep struggling with the continuous backlog, we have to help them with removing unnecessary rename request. Maybe my way is kind of drastic, but it seems to work very well (and I intend to do it too if needed) and avoids long discussions with people that blundly ignore the rules or state that there are so many precedents that ignore the rule (those happens almost daily). I would not have blocked Kintetsubuffalo, drastic means cause drastic reactions. --Foroa (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


Please move this back to Category:Buda. That's what he is called in the various items included in the category. Calling it Category:Bleda gives severe problems in Category:Pycnonotidae, as Bleda is a genus within that family. See the genus list:

Included genera (for IOC classification 2.3):
Acritillas, Alophoixus, Andropadus, Arizelocichla, Atimastillas, Baeopogon, Bleda, Calyptocichla, Cerasophila, Chlorocichla, Criniger, Eurillas, Hemixos, Hypsipetes, Iole, Ixonotus, Ixos, Malia, Microscelis, Neolestes, Phyllastrephus, Pycnonotus, Setornis, Spizixos, Stelgidillas, Thapsinillas, Thescelocichla, Tricholestes

The result is that a person is now listed as a genus of Pycnonotidae, which it should not be. Anyone looking for photos of Bleda species is going to be baffled why the genus appears linked in the family genus list, but doesn't appear as a subcategory. - MPF (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Look at the interwiki's of Category:Bleda: they are all Bleda, why I restored it. It is not because in some countries, the buildings are referrring to Buda, that we have to use an incorrect name. Please don't rename established categories without a very good reason, Which you don't have. You have much more than one genus that needs disambiguation. --Foroa (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, but your edit to Category:Pycnonotidae does not work; the genus is called Bleda, it is not called "Bleda (genus)". Please re-edit the Pycnonotidae genus list so that it shows just Bleda in the list though linking to a new Category:Bleda (genus). - MPF (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Strange template but it seems to work. I am not a seasoned template expert, but if I can be of any help, let me know. --Foroa (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks to work. How does the principle of it work? I just tried adding the same after Malia in the list (similar problem, links to a pop singer), but it didn't work there in the preview (so didn't saved the experiment) - MPF (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, think I got it - need to add the number in sequence, so |d18=(genus) for Malia - MPF (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
'Fraid I've thought of a potential future problem with this workaround - Pycnonotus is known to be paraphyletic and is under revision; at some time in the future, various species in it will be moved to new genera. This will likely result in Bleda no longer being #7 in the list, and Malia no longer being #18. Hmmmm . . . can whoever adds the new genera to the genus list, be relied on to update the numbers, too? A workaround that doesn't rely on numbers would be very useful. Unfortunately, templates are beyond my capabilities - can you come up with anything? Would something like ... |Baeopogon |Bleda/(genus) |Calyptocichla |Chlorocichla ... |Ixos |Malia/(genus) |Microscelis ... be feasible? - MPF (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I looked into it, and the template is very liitle autoadaptive for that. Improving on that would need a complete rewrite with all sorts of problems with backward compatibility. So the solutions are either to live with it (and maybe insert warning comments in the appropriate places) or simply insert the item with its disambiguation as I did first. Sorry that I can't do better. --Foroa (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
If you have a better way to do it, let me know. I'll code it when I have more time. I'm aware it's not currently easy to update it (see my method as explained on Template:Genera2) but I don't think there's any feasible way to improve it. Rocket000 (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rocket000, nice to see you around. I hate that template language that makes many things fairly complicated to implement. I don't know in what order expressions are evaluated. In other languages, you could add in place of "d5=(genus)": d-next or "d-previous=(genus)" after each genera that needs it, to retain backward compatibility while internally, the d-previous could be assigned to for example d_n (count n being updated at each genera parameter). No idea if this is realistic though, please keep me posted on that. --Foroa (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, just catching up on all the fun I missed. :) As for your idea, it wouldn't work since parameters need unique names to be useful. You can only have one |d-next=, just like you can only have one |1=. Also, there's no way to tell the parameter's location in the template use relative to the other parameters (order doesn't matter when you name params; e.g. |1= can be in the second slot and the effect is the same). The only way to have something like what you described would be to use unnamed parameters only. That way we can do something like {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|(genus)|{{{1}}} (genus)|{{{1}}}}}. So if you did {{name1|(genus)|name2|name3|etc.}} it would know to add " (genus)" to name1. The problem is we don't always disambiguate with "(genus)". It can be anything (I use the family name, for example, since there can be homonyms—two genera with the same name). There's no way the template would know if a parameter value was a disambiguation word or just the next genus name... actually, we could check if the first character was "(". I think. That would be quite complicated and I've been gone too long to even try to attempt that right now. Rocket000 (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Indent reset) Last attempt, running out of steam. If you make the list with full cat names, including disambiguation terms. On the display side, however, you strip off all text starting from the first paranthesis. I did some experiences with wikimedia string parsing, but I was not impressed. But maybe there is some way. --Foroa (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...[edit]

You recently deleted Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) CIA bounty leaflets and Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) documents. Could you explain why? Was this the result of a discussion? If so, could you please give me a heads-up to where that discussion could be found? Geo Swan (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

All these moves have been requested by user:Ingolfson in an attempt to uniformise the category names in the "war in Afganistan (2001-present)" and to have a naming that corresponds with the basic commons naming rule: "Topic - qualifiers" as you can see in Category:Documents of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Strangely, this time I did not inserted the destination category in the delete edit summary, I don't recall for what reason, but it might have to do with the move backlog that approaches 1000. SOrry for that. --Foroa (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Isle of Man[edit]


You should have read my comment: “Readable title with agreement of the uploader (see my talk page).” Uploader agreement is the first criteria in Commons:File renaming, so this renaming is in order. If you don't want to get in charge that's your right, but you have no reason to cancel it. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 11:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As I stated and as in Commons:File renaming, this is not a valid reason for rename. Renaming and all associated delinker work is one of the most labor intensive jobs in our archaic system, while very much demotivating and with an eternal backlog. Don't exhaust our volenteers with such cosmetic changes, very few keep up on that job for more than a couple of months. --Foroa (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


Why the move of Category:Restaurants in Seattle to Category:Restaurants in Seattle, Washington? As far as I know, every other type of business and building just uses "Seattle". There is no other Seattle in the world. Seems to me to be more likely to be confusing than helpful. (Not a big deal, just seems an odd change.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Foroa believes in disambiguating pretty much every American city name. Wknight94 talk 19:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, if done consistently it might be fine, but changing exactly one of a bunch of related categories seems counterproductive. Shouldn't we try to get consensus on this sort of thing, rather than change things arbitrarily to suit our tastes, especially in areas where the person making the changes does not do a lot of work? - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
"There is no other Seattle in the world."[citation needed] Paradoctor (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's really hard to prove a negative like this. There is a "Seattle Heights" near Seattle. There is, of course, Chief Seattle, after whom the city is named, and I'm told a few people now have Seattle as a given name. But I'm pretty sure, as a person who has read well over fifty books about the city (more likely 100), and god knows how many articles, that if there was any other place called "Seattle" I'd have run across a reference by now.
  • Leaving aside that tiny possibility, in the complete absence of even a single image on the Commons that claims to be from any other place called Seattle, and given that we have about 20,000 images from Seattle, it's hard to imagine that there is ever any confusion caused by referring simply to Seattle. - Jmabel ! talk 23:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Better yet, how about applying the same standard to the rest of the world. I grew up in Rotterdam but I don't speak a word of Dutch because it wasn't this Rotterdam. But I've gone round and round with various people here - I prefer to talk to brick walls now. Wknight94 talk 22:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "same standard": I would think that, in a project of worldwide scope, the standard would be that major cities like Seattle and Rotterdam don't need any qualification unless there is likely confusion. I understand that Portland, Oregon needs a qualifier because Portland, Maine is quite an important place, and in the same country, but (for example) London without a qualifier is clearly not the one in Ontario. Nor Paris without a qualifier the one in Texas. - Jmabel ! talk 23:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Then, like me, you might be surprised by the trend at Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Category:Atlanta, Georgia where my proposal was scoffed at with, "Perhaps there are actually some intelligent admins in this project?" Wknight94 talk 00:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Even though I agree with you, perhaps you can look at it as simply a naming convention for cities instead of a form of disambiguation. From that angle, it's tolerable (until you come across London or Rome... anyone up for changing those?.. better stop before I start feeling POINTy ;) Rocket000 (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
My main complaint is that, naming convention or disambiguation or whatever, it can lead to confusion for people outside the U.S. I am in the U.S. and I don't know any of the states or provinces of France or England or the Netherlands. If I see "Paris", I know I am in the right place. If I were to see "Paris, Île-de-France", I would worry I was looking at some other Paris besides the Paris. At best, it would be annoying. Wouldn't the same be true for the U.S.? Do more people in Romania know "Illinois" or "Chicago"? Worse, "Georgia" or "Atlanta"? Georgia is a country in the Middle East to most people, right? Not just confusing but needlessly confusing. But, I should let an "intelligent admin" decide, no doubt. Wknight94 talk 03:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Rocket000 (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Again: While I think "Seattle" is more appropriate than "Seattle, Washington", I can go either way. But I totally fail to see the advantage of moving the category to Category:Restaurants in Seattle, Washington, which differs in form from Category:Bars in Seattle, Category:Shops in Seattle, Category:Theaters in Seattle, etc. And I'd really appreciate hearing from Foroa rather than from everyone else what was the rationale for this move, and whether there might perhaps be something I'm missing. - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This thing is being blown out of proportion for a requested move that I would not have initiated myself. The history first.
1. On COM:DL, there were a number of move request from User:FieldMarine to move a number of restaurant categories; the move of Category:Restaurants in Seattle to Category:Restaurants in Seattle, Washington was one of them.
2. I am pretty sure that User:FieldMarine is from the United States: he is probably responsible for a major part of the 700 or so categories that start with "United States ...".
3. All destination category names correspond with their main category name.
4. Considering the sensitivity here, I checked Category:Seattle, Washington, which is there for almost 5 years and didn't seem to be ever contested. I checked even on wiki articles starting with Seattle but the fact that there are hundreds of articles starting with Seattle brought no additional information
5 At that moment, I felt that I have no valid reason to decline the move requests to align the name of a subcategory with its parent category. So this is no "political" move as one seems to read between the lines, just a commons rule that subcategory names should correspond to the name of their parent category.
I do agree that something need be done to improve the consistency of the Seattle subcategories, but I think that alignment with the parent category name should be a priority rule. On the other hand, I can perfectly understand that some people outside Seattle prefer naming consistency, for example in Category:Buildings in Washington by city
It is probably better to have the discussion on another place (and when emotions calmed down), but I want to repeat that:
  • there is no Commons rule that gives priority to one place over another: last months, I added hundreds of disambiguation terms in the UK to avoid ambiguity problems with US names (so please stop insinuating anti-americanism from my side)
  • I find the historical priority situation with Florence, Rome, Naples, London, Paris, Amsterdam, Boston, Houston, ... annoying from a technical categorisation naming point of view; I just try to avoid that it gets worse
  • when one sees an address in the US, it almost always contains the name of the state. This is probably caused partly by the fact that so many US city names exist in several states and/or countries.
  • Personally, I am convinced that a systematic and consistent approach with a minimum of local/cultural/economical knowledge should have priority. --Foroa (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
For consistency sake, instead of basing names on the parent category, you should go with what the majority use. The parent category is only one category and it can be moved just like anything else. I'm saying this because the majority of the Seattle categories do not have the state name attached to it. Like you were going from, this is simply a technical POV. It makes more sense, no? Rocket000 (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
@Foroa, don't worry, no emotion here. Just trying to convey the frustration of trying to get any category consistency, esp. regarding city names, and more esp. American city names. It was enough to make me abandon most disambiguation-related category moves entirely. The results of that Atlanta move request - and a few others around the same time frame - make no sense at all and I advise people to find something better to do with their time before getting involved in those battles. Wknight94 talk 09:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Frustrating indeed and next to impossible to avoid.
Rocket000, could you be more precise about the majority rule that should apply here ? I am counting around 130 "Seattle, Washington" categories How many are having Seattle without Washington ? How can an average contributor guess that majority ? In Category:Seattle, Washington, 7 subcategories include Washington: difficult choice. --Foroa (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I just looked around in the main category. I didn't actually mean to try to do a count. Just a rough estimate. Maybe it's harder to judge than I thought. Rocket000 (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
More than half of those "Seattle, Washington" categories are neighborhoods, where we do, indeed, consistently use "Seattle, Washington". Similarly, there is a large group under Category:South Washington Street, Seattle. Some of the others are in titles of pamphlets or books (e.g. Category:Official guide to the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition - Seattle, Washington, June 1 to October 16, 1909) or just coincidentally have both words in the name (e.g. Category:South Washington Street, Seattle). - Jmabel ! talk 16:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop reverting perfectly legitimate rename requests of other users[edit]

Stop this. You are not the single user with file rename right on Commons. If you don't want to rename something, there are other users, who will be happy to fulfill a request. So please stop doing this, and finally read the guideline that you are linking to. Trycatch (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

They are not legitimate. --Foroa (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Black Thursday[edit]


What was reason to moved? --Starscream (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not initiate it myself, it was the first part of a request in COM:DL but it is obvious that there are many en:List of Black Thursdays, without the many others outside the English speaking part of the world: fr:Jeudi noir, nl:Zwarte donderdag, not to mention the Russian, Chinese, Arab, Russian ... For books, films, bands, ... it is a good idea to add systematically a disambiguation term. --Foroa (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe. But now there is nothing like it. Too hurry up. --Starscream (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Churches in Belgium[edit]

Can you give me your opinion on this subject : I think it would be more efficient to categorize the churches in Belgium by municipalities (including the municipalities before 1977), by "saint patron", by architects,... Limowreck say to me it's preferable categorize by former municipalities, but I think it's not easy to have more 2000 entries, for one or two churches (in the most cases, each village who was a municipality count one church, the maximum would be 4 or 5 and not for many municipalities !). With the municipalities after 1977, we have +- 500 municipalities.

More : when I see the category churches in Belgium, it seems unpractical to have "churches in XYZ" mixed with one particular church in a village, and some are in alphabetical order with E like "église" ....

Thank you for consideration. Infra my discussion with limowreck : I understand the necessity of not duplicate the whole hierachy, but I think it would'nt if you put the church "Saint-Machin" in the category of the village, and in the category "Churches in Municipality", which goes in "Churches in Belgium". --Jean Housen 17:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Isn't it more convenient to categorize the churches by municipalities, in the case of Assenede, all the churches of the gemeente in one category, and then this category in "Churches in Belgium" at Assenede, where you could find the churches of Bassevelde, Boekhoute, Oosteeklo etc ?--Jean Housen 15:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC) The same for Durbuy, etc. This solution would give 596 municipalities and their churches, in place of 2359 municipalities (before the "fusion" of 1977). I think it would be easier .... More : by creating one category "Churches in..." by parts of municipality, the risk is to have one or 2 churches in each category, for example in Bomal there is ONE church, in Durbuy ONE church, in Barvaux ONE church, but the Municipality of Durbuy count several churches in Durbuy, Bomal, Barvaux, Warre, Tohogne, Septon, Oppagne ....—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanhousen (talk • contribs) (UTC)

Well, it may be confusing at first sight, but pictures from the former municipality itself are put in the category of that section itself. So, "Churches in xyz" contains all churches from the section (former municipality) xyz itself. So, "Churches in Durbuy" contains all churches on the territory of Durbuy itself, "Churches in Tohogne" all churches on territory of former municipality Tohogne, etc... Otherwise, we tend to duplicate the whole hierarchy on the long term, which wouldn't be ideal . May you could inform with User:Foroa, who once put some explanations about the subject on commons, if I'm not mistaken. Regards --LimoWreck (d) 16:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, read first Category talk:Belgium and Category talk:Churches in Belgium and continue the discussion on the latter. This yalk page is not intendend for such lasting discussions. --Foroa (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


This category was an error from me, it should be better deleted. --Kürschner (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Those errors are made all the time, especially with strange words and inventing "new" plurals. It doesn't harm to keep it there, but I documented Category:Papakhi anyway (we have three times per year a request to move aircraft to aircrafts too). --Foroa (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Press brakes[edit]

Hi, I see you re-added category:hydraulic presses as a sub cat to this category, however I still agree with that categorization. A hydraulic press is a type of forging, stamping, or coining press, not a press brake. A press brake that uses hydraulics to run it doesn't make it a "hydraulic press". As such, I ask you to under your revision. Wizard191 (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I supppose you meant disagree instead of agree. I think that a press break is a special case (subcat) of a press. However, I forgot that there are indeed (older) press breaks that are not hydraulic. So I made it a subcat to presses. --Foroa (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I meant dis-agree, however I do agree with the new re-categorization. Cheers! Wizard191 (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I forgot how nice it can be to agree. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename requests[edit]

Hi, Foroa. Your edit summaries declining my renaming requests direct me to Commons:File renaming, but I'm not sure what particular part of the guideline you're pointing me towards. I'm already familiar with Commons:File renaming: What files should be renamed was the basis for my requests. In particular, I requested that File:LucienFreud.jpg be renamed File:LucianFreud.jpg in accordance with aim 5: "correct obvious errors in file names". Unlike the example of File:Seal Of The President Of The Unites States Of America.svg in What files should not be renamed, File:LucienFreud.jpg is used in only a handful of articles and the change would not affect large numbers of pages.

The cases of File:Orthodox Jews protest against Israel.jpg and File:Orthodox Jews protest against Israel 2.jpg are rather more troubling. In my opinion, the filenames are purposely provocative (please have a look at the original description). More importantly, at least as regards COM:FR, they're also misleading: referring to Neturei Karta simply as "Orthodox Jews" might be likened to characterizing Westboro Baptist pickets as "Christian protestors". In my opinion, these files should be renamed Neturei Karta protest against Israel.jpg and Neturei Karta protest against Israel 2.jpg in accordance with aim 3, in order to "correct misleading names into accurate ones". Rrburke (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To give you some context, I am in general more concentrating on categories, but I noticed that on COM:DL, hundreds of files were renamed without a good reason. It started with the case #Renaming maps above. Then I noticed a certain fatigue from the people that are willing to execute the renames; one can only execute 20 to 30 renames per hour when working very concentrated. There was a backlog of 700 or so files to be renamed (without the duplicates). My experience shows that few people are prepared to spend hours per day on such a boring job which is rather cosmetic and improves not really Commons (the right texts and categories are in the file, while a backlog of hundreds of thousands categorisations are obviously more important).
You should be aware too that the delinker is far from perfect, generates often errors during it replacements and don't delinks in all name spaces and sometimes not at all. This did not delink at all.
Moreover, because of the fact that some people rename their files just for no reason, I looked into the rename request and I admit, I used the strictest possible criteria: misleading names. Strange enough, any file name in Chinese, Arab, Russian is acceptable, but a small letter or even Capital difference in the file name causes rename request. On the reactions, I noticed that many people just reverted my removal with reasons as "better name".
The general idea is that if there is a continous stream of futile rename requests, that declined rename requests are reinserted immediatly, well then it makes no sense to serve the requests and finally we will go back to a queue of 1500 or more requests as a couple of months ago. The good point then is that people will rarely request it as it takes months to be done.
Now your cases.
File:LucienFreud.jpg: personally, I would not bother to change the name to Lucian Freud as, to me, it is not really misleading, especially when spelled properly in the file and properly categorised. The name of his brother or sister, that would be really misleading, and personally, I would not be prepared to spend 3 minutes of my time to correct such a detail (that's in general my yardstick). But resubmit it if you would be prepared to spend 3 minutes to rename it.
File:Orthodox Jews protest against Israel.jpg and File:Orthodox Jews protest against Israel 2.jpg is indeed another problem, but again, I never look really at the name of the file. Frankly, if I look at the pictures, I read from the picture: surprisingly "Orthodox Jews protest against Israel", but after some further thinking, indeed that could be possibly an insult for some orthodox Jews. Personally, I would have called it "Jews protest against Israel"; the more you are precise and have details in the title, the more you might have to prove it and risk to change it again. Anyway, Anonmoos resubmitted them with a improved explanation, and they will be eventually renamed.
Thank you for your understanding, but on commons, most people have their own projects and priorities and people that serve continuously the community are rare and overloaded. --Foroa (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
PS: I documented Category:Neturei Karta properly, and it is funny how the "Orthodox" image descriptions got a swing from one side to the other. I tried to get it in the middle, but frankly speaking, I prefer the originals: at least you get the right spirit from the uploader. --Foroa (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Actresses from England[edit]

Hi, I see that you deleted this category because it was unused and empty but I feel that User:Ron whisky emptied it for no good reason. He's also been removing Category:Actors from England from categories and replacing them with Category:Actors from the United Kingdom by decade, but one is not a parent of the other. Can you help at all? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that I deleted it because it was marked for speedy delete and Ron nevers drinks Whisky during his very professional and amazingly efficient Commonswork. His house (and head) is most probably filled with actors. Personally, I am not keen on doing gender splits in the occupations, but that is just me. I noticed that England and UK are often fallen over each other feet. Lets see if we can dance an English polonaise. Has there been a discussion somewhere that states the problem and positions ? --Foroa (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
No discussion that I can see. I'm not as experienced on Commons as I am on Wikipedia. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
No discussion at all and this is not simply about gender but nationality and identity. I've just spent the last hour trying to repopulate Category:Actors from Wales, which had been emptied by this editor and deleted. It seems he's done the same with related categories as well (* from Scotland etc). And they have been replaced with these *Actors from the UK by decade categories and nothing else. In my view this borders on vandalism. How much work will it take to undo all this. Whatever the arguments for/against the categories created by User:Ron whisky there is no excuse for embarking on an illogical POV spree like this, emptying and deleting categories which many editors have spent a lot of time on. It's just not on. Anatiomaros (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Typical recurring problem where on one hand, local categories are made for local use and on the other hand, a worldwide cat system is created which has no insight in the local cats (and country structure) and need to create a country level category. When one connects the two, people start shouting "overcat" and the troubles begin. This is a recurring problem because we have not developed (yet) a notion of main/master category and side/specialisation categories. If you both agree that those categories can coexist, you should be able to live together and chase away the "overcat" purists. By isolating cats for Wales or England, while shouting vandalism, without respect of the country level categories, then you should not be surprised that he does the same from his side. I have almost no time today, so I suggest to propose something constructive instead of yelling at him. I don't think he is very communicative or fluent in English, so try to be clear, concise, precise and constructive. --Foroa (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not yelling at him. Secondly, I do not understand the statement "By isolating cats for Wales or England, while shouting vandalism, without respect of the country level categories, then you should not be surprised that he does the same from his side." Who "isolated" these categories "without respect of the country level categories"? I didn't create them and they are included in the UK category so how exactly are they "isolated"? They are not. Thirdly, with regard to "you should not be surprised that he does the same from his side", it is Ron whisky who thoroughly "isolated" the Wales and Scotland cats by emptying them and deleting them unilaterally. What is more, he used Speedy with the reason "Empty and unused" without pointing out that they were only "empty and unused" because of his own actions. If you'd care to check the interwiki list I've just added to cat *Actors from England you will see 38 wikipedia projects there, including 'en'. As for "country level categories", Wales, Scotland and England are countries, officially recognised as such by the UK government and by their own governments (in the case of W + S). The constructive proposal in this case is that Ron whisky reinstates all the file categories he deleted, for a start. As for the *UK... by decade categories, I have no objection to them as such but they should not replace every other related category. That is illogical and unhelpful, and is just the opposite of constructive. Anatiomaros (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Witam, będę się bronił po polsku, gdyż tylko w tym języku mogę dokładnie wyrazić o co mi chodzi. Kategorie Category:Actors from the United Kingdom by decade oraz Category:Actresses from the United Kingdom by decade zostały stworzone na wzór Category:Actors from the United States by decade oraz optymalnie Category:Actresses from the United States by decade. Jako formalista i stały użytkownik wikipedii, uważam że takie wyjście jest najodpowiedniejsze dla aktorów i aktorek mówiących językiem angielskim, gdyż oni właśnie są najliczniejsi. Category:Actors from Wales, Category:Actors from Scotland, czy Category:Actors from Northern Ireland (!) zostały usunięte i sprowadzone do jednej uniwersalnej kategorii. Ma to swoje plusy. Każdy Irlandczyk z Północy, Szkot, Walijczyk czy też Anglik jest mieszkańcem Wielkiej Brytanii, czyli jest Brytyjczykiem. Wszelkie dosadne określanie pochodzenia aktora i wkładanie odpowiedniej zdublowanej kategorii wydaje się być błędem. Teraz w Category:Anthony Hopkins widnieją dwie kategorie odnoszące się do jego pochodzenia - Actors from Wales oraz Actors from the United Kingdom born in the 1930s. W takim żałożeniu można odnieść wrażenie że mamy jednocześne dwa różne państwa, chociaż w rzeczywistości jest jedno. Pozwalając na to w krótkim czasie zaśmiecimy kategorie, nie tylko te, ale również dla aktorów z Niemiec pozwalając im tworzyć Actors from Baden-Württemberg, dla aktorów z Francji: Actors from Lower Normandy, dla aktorów z Hiszpanii: Category:Actors from Seville. Czy na tym to ma polegać. Dla Polski też można podzielić aktorów na wywodzenie się z województw. Dla Stanów Zjednoczonych również, można określić stan pochodzenia, ale czy wtedy to będzie dokładne określenie narodowości aktora, czy wtedy też główną kategorią ma zostać kategoria dotycząca stanu czy też państwa? Category:Actors from Alabama czy Category:Actors from the United States ?? Może się myle, ale wg mnie, takie podejście nie jest błędem i wcale nie oscyluje na granicy wandalizmu jak sugeruje User:Foroa.

ron_whisky 09:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can compare England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland to places like Lower Normandy and Seville because England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland are countries whereas Lower Normandy and Seville are not. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that the UK case is indeed more complex than Normandy (if we simplify its history) but simple in respect of Spain with its ancient countries, kingdoms, autonomous regions and 4 official languages. --Foroa (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It is not comparable to Normandy or a US state at all: England, Scotland and Wales are countries (Northern Ireland's status is fiercely disputed, of course). See my post above and also en:Countries of the United Kingdom for a fuller explanation. Anatiomaros (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Wszystko zależy od tego jak uznamy Walię, Szkocję, Anglię i Irlandię Północną. Uznać ją za osobne państwa? Czy w kategoriach podawać Actors from Englad, jednocześnie podawając Actors from the United Kingdom? Czy może uznać że Anglik nie jest jednocześnie Brytyjczykiem? Lub od innej strony, uznać że jest Anglikiem i Brytyjczykiem, i doprowadzić do dublowania kategorii. Nie uważam aby Anglia, Scotland itp, były ważniejsze od innych regionów pozostałych państw. Powstały kategorie: Category:Actors from Catalonia, Category:Actors from Andalusia czy Category:Actors from Galicia (Spain). Moim zdaniem to błąd i powinny zostać usunięte, a wszelkie zamieszczone w nich media, przeniesione do głównej kategorii z nazwą państwa, a nie regionu. ron_whisky 13:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
[@Ron whisky.] Please use English (or French) as I can't understand what you are saying and that is why I've not replied to you directly. Thank you. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(Indent reset) The problem is only in its beginning phase. Once there will be more actors, the problem will get even more pronounced. It is clearly underestimated that former countries/kingdoms that have a long history and are now integrated in a larger country have a clear need for their own identity. This is even more so if they have their own language and often their own wikipedia, such as the Catalan, Basque and the Welsh: they need clearly separate categories for actors that speak their own language or even dialect. Therefore I propose to create an intermediate category, such as "Actors by Celtic nation or region" or something the like, (to contain actors from Wales, Scotland, England) and categorize the actors at the country level AND at the regional level as appropriate. The intermediate category might sound a bit overkill but it keeps "overcat fundamentalists" away. SUggestions or agreement ? If the UK side agrees, go ahead with the creation of the intermediate category. @Ron: I would not be surprised that one day, you will have Polish actors that need to be classified as actors that speak the en:Silesian language. And please, allow coexistence of Spanish actors of Andalusia, Catalonia, Galicia and soon Basque country. --Foroa (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Actors by English nation. Delete Actors from England. ron_whisky 11:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Only when consensus exist for it, but I don't think so. --Foroa (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Actors by English nation makes no sense. Just keep it as it is (was) and has been for several years (I presume), by repopulating Category:Actors from England and Category:Actresses from England. Surely the consensus was already there and Ron went against it by emptying the categories? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree with AnemoneProjectors on both points. The cat name suggested makes no sense and is pointless. The deleted categories should be restored and all of them repopulated just as they were before this happened. Foroa's suggestion makes a very good point but is a separate issue for now and would need discussing first (e.g. England is not a Celtic country and, strictly speaking at least, the term 'nation' should be used for peoples, not geographical territories). In the meantime let's just fully restore the old categories and move on, please. Anatiomaros (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mogelijke copyvio's[edit]

Dag Foroa. Wat denk je van de bijdragen van gebruiker Bylbyl? Zijn Liersestadium plaatjes waren alleszins al copyvio's. Maar zijn statica/mechanica/dynamica tekeningen zijn volgens mij ook scans uit één of ander handboek. Enerzijds zien ze er te professioneel uit en anderzijds zijn ze zeker niet met een vectorprgramma gemaakt (lichte CA zichtbaar en jagged edges). Advies? Lycaon (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Verdacht, een verdwaalde pool ? De lijnen lijken te recht om scans te zijn denk ik. Een te lage resolutie bmp via Jpeg terug naar .png geconverteerd ? Misschien gewoon even vragen ? --Foroa (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Volgens mij zijn die tekeningen toch echt wel door mezelf getekend in autocad 2010, geplot naar bitmap en omgezet in png. Bylbyl (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Als er een betere (en eenvoudige) manier is om vanuit autocad tekeningen van hoge kwaliteit up te loaden, dan sta ik steeds open voor suggesties. Bylbyl (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Welk formaten kan je versie van autocad exporteren ? Een of ander vector formaat is uiteraard beter (minder verlies, lossless), zoals CDR-family, AI, PS, EPS, WMF, ... Inkscape kan die vermoedelijk zonder al te veel problemen omzetten naar svg. Het is een beetje triestig bit maps te generen, om te zetten naar ping en dan die weer te moeten "tracen" om die terug naar een vector formaat om te zetten. Beste groet. --Foroa (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Probleem met exporteren naar wmf is dat de formules en sybolen als OLE-object (met equation editor) ingevoerd zijn in autocad en deze niet mee converteren, ook met lijntypes en lijndiktes geeft dit problemen. Exporteren naar eps geeft dezelfde problemen. Ik kan de tekening plotten/exporteren naar pdf of xps, welke uiteraard een betere kwaliteit geeft dan raster images. De pdf's kunnen omgezet worden naar svg via inkscape maar dan wordt de bestandsgrootte nogal opgeblazen (van 79kb naar 780kb bij een testje dat ik juist gedaan heb, en het neemt ook behoorlijk wat tijd in beslag). Ik wil gerust mijn originele dwg-bestand(en) (Acad2010) ter beschikking stellen van iemand die er meer verstand van heeft dan mezelf om deze om te zetten in svg. Ik zal ondertussen mijn toekomstige tekeningen in pdf uploaden. Als iemand mij deftig kan uitleggen op welke manier dwg's eenvoudig naar svg geexporteerd kunnen worden, zal ik ze zelf wel converteren. Bylbyl (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Heb zojuist geprobeerd om mijn tekening op te slaan in dxf-formaat en zo te importeren in inkscape maar ook dat levert niet echt iets bruikbaars op. Bylbyl (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Heb zojuist enkele svg-bestanden geupload, dwg->pdf->svg. Kost een pak meer werk dan een png te genereren. De png-bestanden zijn trouwens meer dan goed genoeg van kwaliteit om hun functie te vervullen, lijkt mij. Bylbyl (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ik heb een vraag gedropt op Commons:Village_pump#Autocad_files. Heb je via Enhanced Windows Format geprobeerd ? --Foroa (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrators noticeboard[edit]

I have posted about you at the and am notifying you to let you have the chance to respond. I encourage you to give all other users, myself included, such benefit of the doubt. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. See also:
--Foroa (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a warning, it was a notice, I am sorry you took it thus. I am fully aware of what happened, I was blocked for it. The question is, can we move on and work on the same Commons peacefully? I would prefer that and I am willing to do so.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem. All workalcoholics get carried away from time to time. --Foroa (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Let me ask you, is there any way I can help with those renames you have backed up? I would be happy to do so, and have time. I already do the linkfixes across wikis when images are improved from .jpg to .svg, so it's not much different.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You are not indebted to me, but of course, Commons can use all help it can get. I have not "backed up" anything. But in Category:Media requiring renaming and more specifically in Category:Incomplete media renaming requests for the courageous, there is plenty of work. --Foroa (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now I see, the English idiom doesn't translate well. I didn't mean that you backed up the system, but that you are dealing with the system that is already backed up. Sorry for the lack of clarity. So, how do I get to be one of the people that can rename, is there an application or voting process?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You might mean Commons:Requests for rights. --Foroa (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Now that I am a filemover (thank you for pointing me there), this is a tough job! Not the rename itself, but some of the names requested, people want codes I have no idea what they mean, which make the image less clear. Thanks for your hard work!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comics categories[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the kudos, and for the heads-up about the slashes. I didn't know about that.

However, I'm not really clear on what exactly sort keys are or do, nor do I remember adding any. Where did I do this?

Thanks again. :-) Nightscream (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

See here where I removed the sort keys because they make no difference whatsoever. . --Foroa (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I get it. That sort key at the top is there to make piped categories unnecessary, so that the category will show up according to the person's last name as long as you use the default thingee, right? Thanks, I get it now. I appreciate the help. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop and think!![edit]

Please stop just adding Category:Quercus to files just because the genus is named in the text. Most of the files you have added this to don't show, or don't usefully show, Quercus specimens.

  • If there is a tree in the file which is clearly identifiable as a particular species of oak, then add the category for that species.
  • If a particular species is named in the file, and that matches biogeographical expectations (e.g. Quercus petraea in western Scotland; it is the only oak occurring there; ditto Q. garryana is the only oak occurring in Oregon), then add the category for that species.
  • If there is a tree in the file which is clearly identifiable as an oak but not a particular species of oak, then add Category:Unidentified Quercus; if you are sure it is either Q. robur or Q. petraea (but not another species), then add Category:Unidentified Quercus in northern Europe.
  • If there is a tree in the file which is not clearly identifiable as an oak, then don't add a category, or add it to Cat:Unidentified trees (or Category:Unidentified trees (low quality), if the pic is poor qulaity, like almost all of those Geograph pics).
  • "Unter den Eichen" is just a street name, which may or (just as likely) may not indicate what trees are there. As it happens, the tree at the left edge of the photo probably is an oak, but it isn't the main feature of the photo; the most obvious tree subject in the photo, behind the gates, is either a Platanus or an Acer, definitely not an oak. Ditto for Category:Langå Egeskov - just the name of the forest. That isn't enough to categorise it in Cat:Quercus, or Cat:Quercus forests. The photos (e.g. this one) show it is currently made up of multiple species, as would be expected for any but a man-made Quercus plantation. Putting these in Cat:Quercus makes no more sense than putting, say, Adolf Eichmann or Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Cat:Quercus.
  • Perhaps particularly in Britain, for far too many people, oak is the only tree name they are familiar with; 'oak wood' very commonly means any deciduous broadleaf woodland. Cat:Quercus forests shouldn't be added without some clear evidence that the image actually shows Quercus spp.
  • "Described in 1830 as one of the finest oak-woods in the land" . . . errr, that's 180 years ago! Maybe it was then, but it certainly isn't now! The trees in the photo (which are much less than 100 years old, let alone 180 years) are most likely Fagus and Corylus, though given the very low resolution of the pic, not identifiable with sufficient certainty to categorise as such.

MPF (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This was a quite interesting experience. I decided to do a test with about 70 or so oak related images (I got 200 more or so to go, but I have limited time). It is not because I can distinguish three different types of oak wood that I can distinguish the different species of oaks. In that respect, I am comparable to more than 99 % of the Commons contributors. While I wanted to categorize in Category:Oaks, this one redirects to Category:Quercus so I dropped them there as indicated by the redirect.
The result of this experience is about 60 more interesting images in the Category:Quercus category tree and several new, interesting and useful querces and oak categories. This sudden burst of image arrivals is not really "natural", it is comparable what will happen over a period of say 3 to 6 months.
The point of course is that genus categories are close to being meta cats that should largely only contain subcats, and few or no files - any file should be either indexable down to a species, or else is an unidentified member of the genus. The exception is the small handful of files that can cover several species in the genus, e.g. a phylogentic diagram, and composite photos like this.
Now, a couple of conflicts that arose as indicated by user:MPF:
  • If there is a tree in the file which is clearly identifiable as a particular species of oak, then add the category for that species.
An average user knows only oak and has no idea what that species means, how can he find out which one of the hundred species it belongs to ?
Field guides, and similar.
  • If a particular species is named in the file, and that matches biogeographical expectations (e.g. Quercus petraea in western Scotland; it is the only oak occurring there; ditto Q. garryana is the only oak occurring in Oregon), then add the category for that species.
An average user knows only oak and has no idea what that species means, how can he check (text might be wrong) and if such category exists. "that matches biogeographical expectations ": are you joking ?
Again, readily available info in field guides, etc.
  • If there is a tree in the file which is clearly identifiable as an oak but not a particular species of oak, then add Category:Unidentified Quercus; if you are sure it is either Q. robur or Q. petraea (but not another species), then add Category:Unidentified Quercus in northern Europe.
See comments above.
  • If there is a tree in the file which is not clearly identifiable as an oak, then don't add a category, or add it to Cat:Unidentified trees (or Category:Unidentified trees (low quality), if the pic is poor quality, like almost all of those Geograph pics).
Where is this documented ? So we might send all oaks to unidentified Quercus. As Quercus is the main category, I suppose that some images are only put in unidentified Quercus, because the experts did not manage to find the right species (in general, deeper categories are handled by the experts of the domain)
Sorry, should have clarified, "which is not clearly identifiable as an oak, then don't add Category:Quercus".
Even worse: folks, if you are not 100 % sure, just send them all to Category:Unidentified trees, You might as well add: media needing categorisation.
  • "Unter den Eichen" is just a street name, which may or (just as likely) may not indicate what trees are there. As it happens, the tree at the left edge of the photo probably is an oak, but it isn't the main feature of the photo; the most obvious tree subject in the photo, behind the gates, is either a Platanus or an Acer, definitely not an oak. Ditto for Category:Langå Egeskov - just the name of the forest. That isn't enough to categorise it in Cat:Quercus, or Cat:Quercus forests. The photos (e.g. this one) show it is currently made up of multiple species, as would be expected for any but a man-made Quercus plantation. Putting these in Cat:Quercus makes no more sense than putting, say, Adolf Eichmann or Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Cat:Quercus.
Here I have several serious problems, especially with "Unter den Eichen":
The picture text states: Entrance from the street, under the oak: indeed, on the left side, 20 or so % of the picture is filled with an oak. This picture is interesting because it shows the oak size relation with other threes, buildings and people. Anyway, I don't think that you can refuse pictures in "your" category tree because the oak is not the dominant factor: it is the precisely the strength of Commons to put all those relations together. So this picture must find its place somewere in the Querces category tree.
As mentioned, the tree at the left edge is probably an oak. But it isn't definitely one. In a situation like this in / next to a botanical garden with high diversity of planted exotic trees, there are other trees that are confusably similar and wouldn't be reliably distinguishable at the level of resolution in the photo. And of course the picture text doesn't state "under the oak" as you claim above, it says [capitalised Unter, and den, not ein] the street name (c.f. the very famous Berlin street Unter den Linden). The picture makes no reference to that tree at the left edge at all.
Second problem, apart from your unjustified selectivity, is related with the picture categorisation history.
You tried to replace the Querces category with Category:Streets in Berlin. So on one hand, you are accusing me of not being knowledgeable or precise enough in my species categorisation, on the other hand you are categorising in categories which are far too high in level but can be found out easily without expertise. Because of my complaints, you tried to do better and added Category:Streets in Berlin-Steglitz, which is much better but still wrong I guess, and still makes no sense. The file belongs to Category:Botanischer Garten, Berlin-Dahlem which is the biggest category in Category:Berlin-Dahlem. Moreover, it makes no sense to categorise one single image from the garden in Category:Streets in Berlin-Dahlem (that has only two streets and no images): if they want to categorise all pictures from the garden that are connected to the streets, then they have to do it for all or nothing.
err . . "Ich bin nichts ein Berliner" ;-) It was very easy for me to find from google maps / google earth that Unter den Eichen is the name of the street that runs along the south edge of the Berlin BG; very much less easy for me to work out which district of Berlin it is in (as the district names and boundaries aren't shown on gm / ge). I put it in Cat:Streets of Berlin, assuming that a contributor who lives in Berlin would keep an eye on that and sort files as needed (much as I do regularly for various 'Unidentified' categories of taxa I know well). Well, yes, your obtuseness over its categorisation forced me to dig this up, which took me about 20 minutes and a possibility of error, for what a Berlin resident could have done in 3 seconds and with no error, through local familiarity.
  • Perhaps particularly in Britain, for far too many people, oak is the only tree name they are familiar with; 'oak wood' very commonly means any deciduous broadleaf woodland. Cat:Quercus forests shouldn't be added without some clear evidence that the image actually shows Quercus spp.
That does not give you the right to change the picture descriptions because you don't see an oak on a particular picture, please add notes if you disagree, but don't change the texts.
Of course it does. It's a wiki. It is free for anyone to edit to make corrections or changes. The original description is not sacrosanct.
  • "Described in 1830 as one of the finest oak-woods in the land" . . . errr, that's 180 years ago! Maybe it was then, but it certainly isn't now! The trees in the photo (which are much less than 100 years old, let alone 180 years) are most likely Fagus and Corylus, though given the very low resolution of the pic, not identifiable with sufficient certainty to categorise as such.
As you can read in w:Stratton Park this wood was one of the finest woods. Well, at commons, we make place for historical items: we have plenty of cities and buildings that don't exist anymore.
But that's no reason to include it in a category to which it is no longer relevant.
As a conclusion dear MPF, I think that you are too much focused on the pure species, expect from most contributors the same level of expertise and dedication, while when going outside your speciality, you seem to have very little connection with mainstream categorisation. And again, in that respect, it was an interesting experience for all of us. --Foroa (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't consider that a fair characterisation. - MPF (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Johann Stridbeck[edit]

Hello Foroa, you deleted Category:Johann Stridbeck with the comment "Two redirects are not possible". Is there something like a disambiguation for categories on Commons? Greetings --Bjs (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been hesitating to delete it. I deleted it because one of the links was not working and both names are incorrect (not English). Moreover, I don't like category disambiguations (forbidden on most wikipedias) because all items categorised there stay there till someone passes by and moves the items manually to the right categories, which can take 2 to 12 months. Note that redirects that exists for more than a week are moved within 24 hours. --Foroa (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought there would perhaps be a kind of category disambiguation as thre is a category redirect. Otherwise, it would be prefereable to have a disambiguation page instead of category. I therefore created now Johann Stridbeck as a disambiguation page, so that you may delete the category again. Regarding the name, I took "der Jüngere" as part of the proper name, but since it appears to be usual on Commons to translate ist, I changed the category name. Greetings --Bjs (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Hello Foroa. I noticed that you are an administrator. May I ask a favor? I noticed a bulk of wrongly named categories that I don't know how to request a bulk rename. Category:Hydroelectric power by country (and all its subcategories) are supposed be titled as "Category:Hydroelectricity by country". The titles should either be Hydropower for energy from water, or Hydroelectricity for electrical power from water. And Hydroelectric power definitely refers to Hydroelectricity. Perhaps we could request a bot to do this? Rehman(+) 11:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, we are (sometimes) kind of more analytical, precise and structured on Commons than on wikipedias. I guess that Hydroelectricity refers to everything that has to do with the generation, transport, technology related to the generation of electricity with water. Electricity is not the same as electric power/energy, why they chose to use Category:Hydroelectric power by country which is not the same as Hydroelectricity. Hydropower is not the same neither because the power of water can be used for other purposes, at least in theory. In a multi-language context, we have tendency of using the simplest possible words and avoid contractions: we have users in close to 300 languages, so simple naming is paramount. You can always issue a COM:CFD if you feel compelled to do so. Category renaming, even with bots takes significant human power, why we have a Category:Requested moves (all) backlog of 600 renames and more than 6 months delay on some of them. --Foroa (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for the info. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 12:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you very much for your support. Geagea (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Residential quarters in Brooklyn[edit]

Hi -- Regarding your removal of the Category:Neighborhoods in Brooklyn, New York City from this category -- all the images in this category really should be moved to the "neighborhoods" category (a project I'm loathe to start since I'm not an admin) and then the category deleted. But in the meantime, before the images are moved, wouldn't it be best to keep it in Category:Neighborhoods in Brooklyn, New York City so it at least shows up there and people realize there's another place to look for images? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

See #Deleted categories. Emptying transferred redirected categories (after cooldown) afterwards is not manageable for humans. I forced the move. If this is a problem, insert first a {{Move}}. --Foroa (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

New "all categories" system[edit]

I think I came up with a solution to this whole flatten list/by alphabet/by name thing brought up on Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Countries by category. It's not done yet, but check out my new MetaCat template. The goal is to make all this meta categorizing easy and consistent by doing it through a template. Also, I figured we didn't need the {{by country category}}/{{by year category}}/{{FlatMetaCat}} variations (they're all combined now). The part I would like input on is what to call the new meta-meta categories I'll be creating. Let's take Category:Categories by year as an example. Category:Categories by year will stay as it is (as a hierarchy), but *all* "by year" categories would go into this new category called Category:All categories by year or Category:Categories by year (all). Category:Categories by year by alphabet would no longer be needed. Having it set up this way (with the new MetaCat template), people should not get confused as much. I can't decide between "All categories by <criterion>" or "Categories by <criterion> (all)". The former looks better but the latter may be a little clearer. What do you think? Rocket000 (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have little time for now, but a number of remarks:
I think that we have to concentrate first on the categories of the meta categories first, for real flat lists, I think that (improved) catscan type of tools should provide a better long term solution, especially in respect of maintenance and system coherency. --Foroa (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I wasn't talking about Category:Categories of Belgium or the like. That should simply be Category:Belgium. Nevermind, it's fine how it is. Second, I'm not sure why you made {{CatMetaCat}}. I'm trying to combine all these variations of {{metacat}}. Isn't Category:Category maintenance meta categories the same as Category:Meta categories? The "all" in "all categories" is correct since it contains all the "by <whatever>" categories, what else would you call it. Rocket000 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you're doing. This is confusing. Your tree would actually coexist with my tree. They are different types of trees. Maybe I should create some initial categories so you know what I mean. Rocket000 (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Meta categories contain only categories. Categories of meta categories (maintenance), as the majority of categories in Category:Categories, are only containing meta categories, no normal categories, confusing indeed. --Foroa (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, compare Category:Categories by century with Category:All categories by century. I'm not done populating it yet but you'll get the idea. Rocket000 (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed this thread somehow. I must have this talk page bookmarked from long ago. How about Category:Categories by century, and Category:Categories by century (non-hierarchical) or Category:Categories by century (flat)? --Timeshifter (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Those can work too. If others think it's clearer, I will change it (what do you prefer Foroa?). I'm not sure people will know what "flat" means. "Non-hierarchical" can be confusing too. What's wrong with putting "all" in the title? Doesn't that tell you that it would contain all categories by a certain criterion? Rocket000 (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) The problem with "all" is that all categories contain all their own subcategories. The question is how they are displayed: Hierarchical tree, or flat list, or some combination thereof. The word "all" doesn't tell the average reader which method is being used. I go back to "flat list". Category:Categories by century (flat list). It is clearer than just "flat." I can't think of anything clearer than "flat list." Plus many people are used to "flat" from how forum threads can be displayed on the web. I found this just now (Threaded or flat thread format):

Other phrases can be used for other display variations (partially flat?). My main thing is I don't want the habit of putting "Categories" at the front. "All categories" would encourage that. I wish we could get rid of all categories that start with the word "Categories". It seems to be unavoidable at the very top levels. But I can live with that. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Putting the word "category" in the title helps show it's a category containing meta cats. These categories are about categories and themselves, not about content. Think metadata. It's data about data. Well, these are categories about categories. It only makes sense to include the word "category" because that is exactly what you're talking about.
I have to think about "Category:Categories by century (flat list)". It doesn't sound right to me (categories=lists?) but maybe it's the clearest. Rocket000 (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. I see that you are mainly talking about the highest levels by criterion (first few sublevels of Category:Categories). In those cases I have no problem with "Categories by xx". If some flat-list categories are needed in addition then in those cases maybe Category:Categories by century (flat sorting), or something similar, might work.
My problem is with Category:Categories of Belgium and Category:Categories of Italy. Those might be clearer as hidden categories with names like Category:Belgium (maintenance sorting) and Category:Italy (maintenance sorting. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Another format fix needed[edit]

Hi Foroa - can you fix the Taxonavigation genus link in this one, please? The trick done for Cat:Pycnonotidae didn't work here. - MPF (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a short look, and this a completely other template, much more complex and using several sub- and helper templates, so the only thing I am sure of is that the trick with "dn= (bird)" is certainly not going to work. At first sight, it is not possible and you have to use the full category name as in Category:Inga edulis, but I guess, you better ask that to Rocket000 (talk · contributions · Number of edits), the author of the template. --Foroa (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not possible to hide the disambiguation word within {{taxonavigation}}. I'm not the original author of that one and I haven't been able to come up with a way to add this feature without completely rewriting the template. I might try again; as long as I can keep the usage the same I'll do it. Rocket000 (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

CC Attribution[edit]

Hi. I'm always trying to improve my understanding of policies and guidelines. How exactly do rules for attribution work, and in what way do you feel I was "artistically interpreting" them? I'm not challenging you, mind you, I genuinely want to know.

And what's COM:AN? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the jargon. I am suffering from a legaleese-fobia and hate license discussions, so I am not really having experience on that type of issues. You could submit the problem, if any, on COM:AN or COM:VP where real experts might give you their opinion. With "artistical interpretation" I mean that you are defining your own rule of attribution which seems a bit stronger and demanding than the attribution required by the license text. On your images, you have to carefully read the text that results of the CC-BY ... template, there are some details about the attribution while referring to some longer texts that might create additional mud or clarification. If you want to accelerate such discussions, you better provide a link to an example image. --Foroa (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, the banner that appears when I choose the Attribution 3.0 license says, "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." I thought that was fairly clear, so it never occurred to me that I was stretching it. But thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Structural category?[edit]

What is a Structural category? ("Structural+category" ) In the Deletion policy it reads "A page can be deleted if it is: ... A category with no content or containing only a parent category." but I can't find anything about an exception for "structural categories". --Ephraim33 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Category:Railway_line_192_.28Czech_Republic.29. It is true that we need still to find a solution for that, but most experience people will only delete categories when they are not categorised and pretty sure that they are not really used or will not be used in the near future. If only you knew how much energy was lost in creating, deleting and recreating categories. Some well prepared people make their category structures before they upload. --Foroa (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Still Oshki...[edit]

Just wanted to let you know about this, in case of. Sardur (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Orders of Nagorno-Karabakh[edit]

G'day Foroa, I requested Category:Orders of Nagorno Karabakh be moved to Category:Orders of Nagorno-Karabakh, you deleted it instead. This has removed the edit history, categorisations, etc. There are a number of files pre-categorised for the changed category name. Can you please restore the deleted category and then move it to the new name to preserve the edit history, etc? Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems a bit of an overkill to have to move a category, that existed for one hour, manipulated by one author (to define in it only two parent categories) and contained zero items, to another category that had zero items. We have a category move request backlog of several months remember. --Foroa (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix and I take your point. There were files originally assigned to the first category, but I moved them to the corrected title. I would have sorted it myself, but the tools aren't available to ordinary registered users and I don't have administrator rights. Its as frustrating for me as it is to you, although I guess it is a more consistent issue for administrators. I do try to get the naming right first time, but like everyone I am prone to the occasional mistake. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


[11] and Category:COA (Bundeswehr). I guess the naming conventions for cats have changed? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it ? --Foroa (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

India Buildings, Liverpoo[edit]

The renaming of the cat India Buildings the new cat seems to be missing an "l" from the end.--JIrate (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, hurrying too much to catchup the backlog. Should be corrected by now. --Foroa (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Ta.--JIrate (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories computer graphic(s) algorithms[edit]

Hello, you have created the Category:Computer graphics algorithms while I created the Category:Computer graphic algorithms. I it about the writing (so everything should be moved to the new cat) or because you did not see and know about the other cat? --WikipediaMaster (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not see it, merged by now. One of the rare cases where cat redirects are useful. --Foroa (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

nur so[edit]

Danke hierfür, WikiAnika (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
"... nach ihren Naturschönheiten und Bauten ..." Thats why we live and work for ... --Foroa (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 ;) ... and I'am working on it, to share it in WP. (I like this old books because of there figurative language) --WikiAnika (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Diapresentatie in artikel?[edit]

Hallo, Foroa, allereerst dank voor je stem! Ik heb in Category:Hasparren een serie van 6 foto's Rebot, série... en een kleinere serie van 3 foto's staan, waarvan ik met name de eerste zes graag als diavoorstelling in artikelen zou willen plaatsen, omdat ze als serie de beweging goed weergeven. Weet jij of dat kan, hoe dat kan? --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Een interessante piste. Er bestaat ergens een formaat voor dergelijke situaties, zoals ik gezien heb in het gemekker omtrent die sex toestanden ({{user2|User:Privatemusings of zo). Ik moet wel even zoeken, misschien vanavond. Out of the top of my head: .ocv format, eigenlijk een video formaat maar blijkbaar zijn er andere toepassingen) ? Maar dat kan er een stuk naast zijn. Kijk eens in File:IRBSideViewClip.jpg waar er een "begin slide show" in staat. --Foroa (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Dat was een pseudodiapresentatie met aan te klikken wiki-links; dat werkt dus niet. Ik heb de vraag ook gesteld in the village pump, antwoord was nee. Een andere vraag: kan ik de belgische kerken in Category:Requested moves (date undefined) moven? --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Moves: niet nodig. Ik heb al serieus geherstructureerd en binnen afzienbare tijd ga ik een groot deel van die kerken hernoemen om een consistente naming te hebben. Heb geen tijd nu voor die slideshow, maar zoals ik al zei, ik denk dat het mogelijk is een soort video te maken van achytereenvolgende beelden: vraag even aan privatemusings hoe hij zijn sexshow gemaakt heeft. --Foroa (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Dit geprobeerd ? --Foroa (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

Hello, would you please considering moving File:UP Carillon.jpg into its new name as reuqested? I can't find any admin here that would facilitate the request and I am doing the layout of the English Wikipedia article where this image supposed to be. It happened that there is a file in English Wikipedia that shares the same name. Thanks.--JL 09 (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

DieBuche is doing a great job in the renaming backlog and was quicker than I was. --Foroa (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about superseded files.[edit]

Hoi, Foroa, do you have guidelines when and how to ask for universally replace superseded file A by better file A+. Must it be asked for replacing File:Bishopric liege flag.gif by Image:Bishopric of Liège.png. I start making mistakes, I stop for today. Greetings --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No real experience, kind of touchy, but very clear in this case but significantly bigger in size. I would say: try a universal replace and see what happen. --Foroa (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Categorien wijzigingen door[edit]

Foroa, graag jouw mening van de wijzigingen door de anonieme gebruiker Vergelijk Category:Biała (powiat prudnicki) van 30 maart en Category:Biała van 9 augustus. Behalve dat ik de grote kop lelijk vind is de witte tekst op licht grijs zeer moeilijk te lezen. Verder zijn er maar drie talen over van de oorspronkelijke 12. Een vluchtige blik laat zien dat die anonieme gebruiker actief is nog veel meer te veranderen op die manier. Zo laten of alles terugzetten? Wouter (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ik haat dergelijke grote schreeuwerige blokken waar er dan ook nog weinig in staat, maar er zijn geen regels die dat verbieden. Het ziet er naar uit dat het een licht selesische nationalist is, dus (hopelijk) beperkt in regio. Hij verwijst in zijn banners naar categorieën, hetgeen ook een maintenance probleem kan geven, maar niet verboden is.
Hoe dan ook, voor doorsnee cats vind ik de beschrijving in het Engels en de eventuele lokale talen voldoende, die hele waslijst van omzeggens identieke teksten zoals op de Italiaanse stads-templates, vind ik overbodig. Ik ga enkel verder naar een complete talenreeks als de items veel culturele of historische elementen en woordenschat bevatten. Hoedanook gaat er voreger of later iemand die banners vervangen door templates. Ik ga er dus niet wakker van liggen. --Foroa (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


dont make nonsense! A badge and a patch are complete diffrent - what I'm uploading are badges only! - and by the way, it would be useful to contact the uploader before deleting categories..... --Erwin Lindemann 16:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but at least, this time, the category name structure is in line with commons rules. --Foroa (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

deletion of category[edit]

ok, sorry.--ebraminiot 10:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi! I dont disagree with this move but all the other cats are like that:

cheers, Amada44  talk to me 15:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Those army stuff specialists think that the whole world knows what a AMX-36 is and that no product in the world will ever have the same name (category names should be in English). Moreover, the more popular some acronyms get, the more difficult it gets to find topics that are less hyped/marketed/popular. Try for example to google find the few items called "Tokio Hotel" that are not related to the German teenager rock band. Anyway, within one or two weeks, I will document and request rename of the whole series. In the mean time, don't hesitate to give the good example. --Foroa (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Help on translation[edit]

Hi! I noticed you speak Dutch, could you please add a translation into this language (and others you know) to these templates?

Thank you, regards! -- Vonvikken (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer and I am quite willing, but I don't think that it is a good idea to add Dutch to it. Commons covers 270 or so language wikipedias, the text blocks on the Italian municipalities are already far too big to my taste without adding real value. The Dutch speaking people form only one of the smaller language groups, and because we are small, we tend to get away with 2 to 6 languages. On the maps, I would try to lose even less space with such type of computerised multi-language messages (I don't think they will be collapsible). But if you want it absolutely, I will do it of course. --Foroa (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
If your are concerned only about the space it would take adding another language, don't worry: these templates only display one language at once, as you can see, for example, in this map, appending ?uselang=en (or it, de, fr) to its URL. Good night! -- Vonvikken (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
✓  Done --Foroa (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) -- Vonvikken (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


Really? Can you point me to the policy on that? Aboutmovies (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We have no formal policy on that yet (Commons:File naming only suggestions not to use it), but we try to avoid &, >, /, @ in category names as they create problems with some tools (ampersand is a separator in scripts). Moreover, we try to avoid the "fashionable" modern use of #, @ and & because in the end, 5 % or so of the category names would contain a "&" for a "and", which would make searching much less effective. This is not a strictly enforced policy, but we will certainly not spend efforts to move categories to introduce an ampersand that means "and". --Foroa (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if that applies to proper nouns where it seems to be the official spelling. I agree "&" should never be used as a replacement for "and", but I'm not so sure "and" should replace "&" if that's really how the spell their name. We have 1,239 category names with "&" in it (counting redirects), most of them company names. Consider these more popular examples: AT&T, Tiffany & Co., Barnes & Noble, M&M's. Rocket000 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
And in my specific complaint, the & is part of the official name, which is why the Wikipedia article uses it. Otherwise I agree, we should not use it as a replacement for and, but when it is part of the official name, then we should use it. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Geography and landforms[edit]

Hello Foroa. Could you have a look at Category:Geography of France ? Due to the new Category:Landforms of France, there is much ambiguity and over-categorisation (e.g. Category:Dunes of France). Also, if we decide to put the rivers into Landforms (see my revert), not directly under Géography, it should be also under Economy and Hydrography as well (a river is not only a landform, not like a valley). "Landforms", vague term, should not substitute to existing and clear-speaking categories. Was there any discussion about this new term ? Anyway, it should contains things like mountains, valleys, cliffs, plateaus, plains, and that's all. Regards, Jack ma (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I always have been annoyed by the landform category that exists since many years. So far, I considered this category for the exceptional, spectacular landforms such as peninsula's, geysers, cliffs, .... Anyway, landform is not in the (probably outdated) formal Commons Commons:Category scheme countries and subdivisions scheme. I disagree with you about the valleys: some of them are the spectacular touristic landforms, but many of them form some sort of region, industrial or agricultural area or biotope (Rhone, Loire, Charente valley, ...). en:Landform is a technical topography related term and I would say that it could coexist with Category:Geography of France but not replace it. Topolological and geomorphological classification is certainly not the main categorisation scheme on Commons, it is rather the political and cultural classification that is prevalent. --Foroa (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Jack ma, I think to propose to remove the landform categories in France and the Netherlands altogether. What do you think ? --Foroa (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I first tend to disagree, because Category:Landforms by country is much peopled. The second reason is that we should take the problem at its source: Category:Rivers should not be in Category:Landforms. The definition of Category:Landforms is correct (in Category:Geomorphology, Landscapes, etc...) so it should only contain Cliffs, Plateaus, ... not Rivers, and should be a parallel category of Geography, as you say. Maybe the best thing would be to accept these 2 categories, but to refine them and be vigilant... But, on a second hand, deleting these categories may be a good thing, if you think they are useless and source of confusion. Jack ma (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I have put a move request on the newly created Category:Landforms by country. --Foroa (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok (you mean: France and Netherlands). Jack ma (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
" Landforms of Canada, Croatia, France, Georgia, Wales , the Netherlands. --Foroa (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Dank u - Perth, western Australia looks much better - thanks for your help there! SatuSuro (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Karlsplatz (München)[edit]

Does it make sense to redirect from an empty gallery to a category? This gallery was generated by a user who made some mess on German Wikipedia with a new parallel article to stachus and was only linked from there (now no longer). I'd rather leave it deleted. --Bjs (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The story is not that important, what is important that tourists like me don't know that the Karsplatz is the same as Stachus, so redirects take care of that. I am cautious with category redirects, but (empty) gallery to category redirects work perfectly fine and are ideal for translation from one language to the commons "category language". You can delete it of course, but one day or another, someone will create it again. --Foroa (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a category redirect from Category:Karlsplatz, München to Category:Karlsplatz, München, so I believed this one obsolete. I was also confused by a redirect from gallery to category. But I think I shall create a gallery Stachus one day and then relink the redirect to the new gallery. --Bjs (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Food of China[edit]

I had changed the category to a redirect because having categories for and "Food of China" as well as "Cuisine of China", made categorising media and subcategories very difficult as many things fall in to both categories. If you take a look at Category:Cuisine of Belgium and Category:Food of Belgium for instance, it is a bit of a mess where, apparently depending on the editor, certain items fall in to one, and other similar items fall in to the other category. If you have a look at Category:Cuisine of Thailand (for which there is no Category:Food of Thailand), things are much easier to find. I think that the whole difference between "Category:Food of .... " and "Category:Cuisine of ...." probably arose due to different people having started the categories, some of them naming it "Food of ...." and others "Cuisine of ...". In my view the whole "Category:Food of ..." should best de deleted as it would imply that, for instance, animal fodder should also be included in the category. - Takeaway (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right in the sense that in China, most people used "food of ..." instead of "cuisine of ...". I renamed some of them to decrease confusion. The split between the two will alway be difficult and when you delete the one or the other, one see always popping up new categories such as "food products of ...", "gastronomy of ..." ... Basically, I think that the "food of ..." should have been named "food products of ...". --Foroa (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that everything can easily be categorised under "Cuisine of ...", even if they are name "food products of ...". I don't think that anyone will get confused by seeing, for instance, "Category:Grilled food of Thailand" categorised under "Category:Cuisine of Thailand". On the other hand, if you do keep the "Food of ..." and "Cuisine of ..." categories differentiated, you can see what, for instance, happens with the categories "Cheeses of ..." . Every country has it categorised differently, some under "Cuisine of ..." and others under "Food of ...". There doesn't seem to be a way to differentiate what should be categorised where due to both "Food" and "Cuisine" having nearly the same meaning as far as these categories in wikipedia go. Because of the fact that it is unclear to most editors here on wikimedia what should go in to which of the two categories, it took me quite a while to clear up the whole "Food of China" category. Without having to check, I am very certain that most "Cuisine of ..." categories which at the same time also have a "Food of ..." category, are in a similar messy shape. I would actually very much like to see the "Food of ..." categories merged in to the "Cuisine of ..." categories to prevent messes like these from really growing out of control in the future. Regards, - Takeaway (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
This debate is recurring. "Cuisine of" categories that have relatively little contents can hold the gastronomy side and the products side. Once they develop further, as I stated, one see popping up further side cats or subcats to differentiate. Many people cannot bear the idea of mixing the art of cuisine with commerce. Anyway, it will always be difficult in the sense that the moment that ingredients of the cuisine are commercialised, they become products (and national proud). I guess that anyway, we should rename all " food of ..." to "food products of" as this will clarifiy and improve the differentiation. --Foroa (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see how renaming "Food of ..." to "Food products of ..." will make things more a bit more clear. But how would one for instance categorise a photo of Thai curry paste? Is it under "Cuisine of Thailand" or under "Food (products) of Thailand"? It could have been made "in a Culinary manner" but it might also be an industrial product made for retail. I would opt to anger those few people who can not bear the thought of "mixing" art and commerce and just call them snobs. They apparently mistake "cuisine" to mean "haute cuisine" whereas it's just another way of saying "kitchen", and "cuisine of ..." only means "what people create as food in ...". You also seem to be weary that people will come up with categories such as "gastronomy of ..." but it seems to me that one should deal with those cases when they arise. This should not be a deterrent for merging the media from the two confusing categories "Food of ..." and "Cuisine of...". Regards, - Takeaway (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, I put a move request on food by country, France, Germany and Spain: In those countries, they should certainly not be merged with their cuisine counter parts. I spent already many days cleaning up gastronomy categories (I got to write protect it at some time). --Foroa (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you are disagreeing with because you seem to agree with me that the "Food of ..." category was very confusing. I have seen Category:Food of Germany and it again shows how confusing it is. Most things categorised in this category actually belong in Category:Cuisine of Germany or should be renamed to "Cuisine of ..." such as for instance Category:Food of Leipzig or Category:Food of Schweinfurt. I am sure that "Food products of ..." will help a bit but I foresee problems with categories which will contain both "culinary" made as well as industrially made products such as a future category "Thai curry paste" or as now already exists for Category:Weisswurst. It is now categorised under Category:Sausages of Germany and as such a "food product" but at the same time it is categorised under Category:Cuisine of Bavaria. There apparently is also not a clear distinction as to when something is a "food product of ..." or a "cuisine of ...". Regards, Takeaway (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict :)[edit]

Hi there! I was just doing that image: File:7.21.07GrandPréByLuigiNovi.jpg and it has been replaced by delinker already. As the other image was uploaded by the author directly (the other one was a move from en:wp) I keept this one (File:7.21.07GrandPréByLuigiNovi.jpg). cheers! Amada44  talk to me 08:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I just tried to avoid unnecessary file replacements, potentially for promotional reasons. (In some cases, people try to become the "author"). Too late but no harm done. --Foroa (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Question on cc-by-sa-3.0[edit]

Hi Foroa! I've got a question for an admin, and you're one of the few I know here.
I recently discovered File:Torosgyugh.jpg and I wanted to use it on fr:Torosgyugh. This file had the watermark "Foto by Andranik G.", but as it had been placed under cc-by-sa-3.0 (i.e. "free [..] to adapt the work"), I asked the fr:Wikipédia:Atelier graphique to remove it before using the file. Sémhur removed it but was "reverted" by the author of the file, 6AND5; this user also posted on the talk page that "I am (author photo) does not give agreement modification. It is better to remove the photo.". It's the first time I meet such a reaction in such circumstances.
My question is: what could be done? See also my answer on the talk page of the file.
Sardur (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To me it is not always clear: one has the right to make derivative work but not necesssarily the right to replace the original. This type of conflict happens often with so called (artistic or technical) image processing or cropping, resizing, perspective correction, ... I would say; upload it as a new file; this could not be contested. --Foroa (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


Dear Foroa, quite the other way: with my edit count I simply learned a long time ago that censorship is not a policy of Commons, whatever some contributors may say or imply or assume or tell.

I made my point here. If you are not convinced, which is your right, please let us bring the matter to the village pump and let's discuss about it there. This is the proper way to solve doubts, as thanks to my edit counts and the years I spent contributing to Commons I learned.

Thank you for reading. My best wishes. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Giovanni, sometimes some sarcame is a good way of making a point. --Foroa (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As a sign of good will, I had 5 of the images I presumed could be most disturbing to a general audience (nude genitalia, couples very tightly hugging) to be deleted. I hope I picked up the right ones :-) --User:G.dallorto (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

move versus adaptation of description[edit]

Hello Foroa, several doubtfull move requests could better be resolved by an adaptation of the category description. I did that at Category:GWR 5700 Class 7760 ‎; Category:GWR 5700 Class 7752 ;‎ Category:GWR 5700 Class 7715 ; Category:GWR 5700 Class 5786, with edit summary:not as move but as comment in category-description. Is that oké? --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. If you try to get a double name in the category name, you only make things more difficult to find and organise. --Foroa (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Two move request on the same category[edit]

...and administrator decide which is better! --Starscream (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just like two category redirects on the same page, two {{Move}} requests on the same Category:Dairy bars category makes no sense. I removed the latest. A move request serves as a starting point of the discussion. Anyway, if you read the texts, you will notice the difference between Category:Dairy bars (now categorised as bars in Poland) and Category:Milk bars (more general stores). --Foroa (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

One requested move without move request[edit]

A strange thing, yes. Look under Category:Requested moves (50+ days) at Iwan Iwanowitsch Schischkin (empty), this is a redirect without a move tag! I think, you like to see this curiosity. --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This happens often with categories that are generated by templates (why we are reluctant to use that). For example, you will almost always find such cases in Category:Broken category redirects and in Category:Non-empty category redirects. Most of the time, it goes away after some dummy edits or after hours or even days. --Foroa (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Katrina & refrigerators again[edit]

Hi. A while back I brought up your move of Category:Post Katrina refrigerators, to Category:Fridges damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Looking again, I have to say I don't understand the advantages of the different name. Why the slangy designation "fridges"? The statement "damaged by Hurricane Katrina" also suggests to me an inaccurate picture (many refrigerators were rendered trash as the result of having rotting food in them in for months without power in semi-tropical heat, rather than damage from the storm). So, what was objectionable about the original name, and do you have any other suggestions? Thanks, Infrogmation (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that this move has been requested by Ingolfson. I was surprised by the word fridge, but because they are damaged, language is maybe a bit more slangy (and might be less formal because it is no main category). Anyway, the commons naming structure is always <topic> <qualifier>. I understand your logic, but anyway, they end up "damaged", ruined. An alternative could be "refrigerators ruined by Hurricane Katrina" but there might be other simple words for "rendered useless"". --Foroa (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Move category[edit]

Since you have added categories to the image galleries I created, perhaps you could help me with a question. I just noticed that this, category:Tiles in Palestine, is accredited, in the file notes, to a pottery shop in Jerusalem that I discuss in Armenian tile makers and potters in Israel. It is the work of The Palestinian Pottery, which was founded by the Armenian potters Nishan Balian and Megerdish Karakashian. The pottery shop still exists (now run by only the Balian family) apparently at its original location on Nablus Rd. in Jerusalem.

Do you think it might be helpful to move the category to 'The Palestinian Pottery', which is its actual name? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I created Category:The Palestinian Pottery, Jerusalem for you. The top level category:Tiles in Palestine has to be kept of course. --Foroa (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Memorial plaques in the Czech language in Písek District and other related categories[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Memorial plaques in the Czech language in Písek District and some other related cateories have been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which they should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

--ŠJů (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Delinker actions[edit]

Hi - - why? Cat-naming here is, iirc, dictated by en.wp main article, and the Brighton article is Brighton, not Brighton, East Sussex. I noticed because "Brighton railway station" is the official name, it's not merely "railway station of Brighton", which Siebot just moved all the photos into. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As there are more than 25 en:Brighton (disambiguation) places (Special:Categories/Brighton), we have to disambiguate. Feel free to propose better names such as "Brighton railway station, East Sussex", I'll move it for you. --Foroa (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I can move it, I have delinker access, and I already reverted moves to the railway station and the piers, as those are proper names rather than just place names. I've left the rest, as quite honestly I don't care much about Brighton. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Showing how emotional people can get if "their" category is disambiguated. --Foroa (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't disambiguate me, man! -mattbuck (Talk) 15:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Probleempje met Category:Newport[edit]

Zie Category talk:Newport. Multichill (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming categories but not changing linked pages (Bilhi)[edit]

Hello, I do not understand why you renamed categories like Bilhi. The occitan wikipedia page Bilhi links to this category but you did not edit the page. You did it so on many other categories. Is this the result of some editorial policy? Best regards, --Jfblanc (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia software supports only one single name for a specific category, so we have to take the internationally most used name. I redirected the Occitan village names to the international names.
Wikimedia software has no tools to see what commons categories are used elsewhere: commons categories are an internal commons organisation. Commons is a server for 700+ Wikimedia projects and many others, so there is no way that we can synchronise external category names and links.
I suggest to create for example a Bilhi gallery that can possibly redirect to the related category. Galleries (as articles on wikipedias) redirect properly. --Foroa (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...[edit]

You recently removed Category:Customs Houses by city But you didn't really explain why, or give me a heads-up that you had done do.

Do you think I made a mistake? If so I think it would be in everyone's interest for you have told me so, so, if it was a real mistake, I didn't make it again. Geo Swan (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No real problem, just like Category:Customs Houses in Canada a capitalisation error --> Category:Customs houses by city. --Foroa (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Help with Template:Football_kit_template[edit]

Hello, I'm wondering if you can help me with something.

For pages where Template:Football_kit_template is included, the page is added to the Category:Football_kit_templates category. I think that Category:Football_kit_templates should be added ONLY IF the page isn't already included in one of the subcategories of Category:Football_kit_templates.

For example, the image below is included in the Category:Football_kit_body/Adidas_specific_patterns category AND in the Category:Football_kit_templates category. Because the Adidas category is a subcategory of the Football kit templates category, it should only be included in the Adidas category. The inclusion of this template is forcing the file to also be included in Category:Football_kit_templates.

Can you help rewrite the template? Or point me to someone who can help? Thanks for your help, this is beyond my level of skill.

From example: Kit body adidas geist gold.png

Udeezy (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Templates are not my forte, but I will try to have a look at it in the coming days. --Foroa (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


Can you please explain why you reverted (not just undid) my move of the main category for Minneapolis? —innotata 16:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1. We do not important category renames without a proper CFD or {{Move}} procedure, so I undid your move.
2. On commons, there is no such thing as a main category or primary name, except for large capitals with a large historical history (for practical reasons). Commons need to use a category system that can be used by all people allover the world without knowing which city is the most popular, richets, most populated, ... --Foroa (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I meant the main category, as opposed to subcategories of the same, many of which were already at "Minneapolis". A lot of other cities with very slightly ambiguous names don't have a disambiguator, so I'll take this to CFD. —innotata 16:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please attend to rules when you are moving categories[edit]

Hello. Today at 17:18 and 17:19 you moved 8 categories like Category:Trains in Slovakia to "Trans of..." and deleted the old categories. You as an administrator should know that:

1) Movings requested by {{move}} template should be made only after reaching a clear consensus - to do them just after that objections was brought and without any discussion is very improper.

2) Generally, the old category shouldn't be deleted but changed to category redirect, especially if its name is expectable and not mistaken. This rule was reminded many times to you.

Thank You. --ŠJů (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved those categories to be in harmony with the large majority of the other "trains of ...". I do such harmonisation moves very often even when there are no move requests. Discussion on the in/of/from theme are to be done at a higher category level. I have no intention to train the people badly by leaving everywhere "trains in ..." categories. If we have to leave for all the categories a from/in/of variant, we have to create about 2 million redirects. The destination category is in the delete summary; you can click on it, so almost as effective as a redirect. The backlog is big enough and I have far more productive things to do then to waste additional time on creating such useless and bad training redirects. Less than 0,4 % of the source categories that I delete are recreated as a redirect, so it cannot be that important. --Foroa (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Voie Verte[edit]

Hello Foroa. Pls see my question at Commons:Village_pump#Greenways. I think that "Voie Verte" has not a correct name for Commons. Jack ma (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Countries by category[edit]

Please delete all categories that are referred to this category tree due to consistency. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on categories relating to people by hair color[edit]

I've left a response at "Category talk:Women with blond hair". I've also left identical messages at "Category talk:Women with black hair", "Category talk:Women with brown hair" and "Category talk:Women with white hair". The same issue arises with all these categories, so I suggest we discuss the matter at "Women with blond hair". — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Musicians by country[edit]

I hope you don't mind the changes I made to this category. I found "Musicians by country and instrument" and "Musicians by genre and country" a little confusing so I rename one as Category:Musicians by instrument by country since the category itself is "by country", and the members are "by instrument". The other I didn't think was necessary as other genre subcategories were already in the main category. I sorted them with a "*". Rocket000 (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I once cleaned a bit there (such as "musicians by style by nation by instrument") but have not really time to help cleaning up. --Foroa (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Dinorwig pumped storage scheme[edit]

Hi, Forora. May I ask why you say the above title should be lower case? It is the called Dinorwig Pumped Storage Scheme (as a proper noun), not Dinorwig pumped storage scheme (as a common noun), as there is no such thing as a "Pumped storage scheme"; just a term used by the developers to collectively call all components of the development. Rehman(+) 07:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As you state correctly, it is an invented name, not a proper name. Commons does not use title case as you can see in the various other Special:Search/intitle:Category:Scheme categories. --Foroa (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I am yet to fully grasp naming formats here on commons. Sorry! Rehman(+) 07:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert...[edit]

... the addition of source detail here? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this was clearly a mistake from me. I've got to remove tens of overcategorisations that this user had added systematically to his heroes. Shortly after that, I discovered how dangerous the rollback funtion is: it does not only remove the addition shown in the diff, but it reverts all additions of the last user till the last version of the preceding editor. --Foroa (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Nordenfelt machine gun replaced by Category:Nordenfelt machine guns[edit]

Hi there, when you delete categories, such as in the above case, I suggest that you should first check for links to the category from the various language Wikis and also change them to point to the new category name on Commons. Otherwise we end up with broken links to Commons which is both irritating and makes Wikipedia look amateurish. regards Rod

Sorry, but we have up to 700 wikimedia and many other clients, so there is no way we can check (and find time) to investigate and correct all that. It looks that on the German wiki, they have a tool to correct that. Nowadays, deletion edit summaries contain a link to the new destination name. In the coming weeks, I should start to write a faq on that issue. --Foroa (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Political over-categorization[edit]

Hallo, Foroa! There's an anonimous IP over-categorizing a lot of images, these last 2 years (if it's really the same person). I would like to know your opinion about it. More information here. Dank u wel.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

After a quick look, it doesn't look like political, nor overcategorisation. It looks like a "by date" fanatic (there are a couple of them here) that try to create and fill up all sorts of "by year" and "by decade" categories (in an attempt to force you to create proper "by date" categories). Technically, it seems correct, as there are no deeper subcats for the Basque country. --Foroa (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
He or she started doing changes like this or this. Did you see it?--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Moves from two years ago from a non existing category to an existing remotely correct one. I did not see anything really suspicious. --Foroa (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Bedankt.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Solar chimney[edit]

I demand that you restore the Category:Solar chimney immediately. I made that category myself years ago, and some idiot renamed it to Category:Solar chimneys, without consulting me first. Obviously, the plural is plainly wrong; it does not adhere to naming conventions, which state that Categories should follow the names on I am getting sick and tired of this nonsense, and if it continues I will stop contributing to Wikimedia; I can't take it anymore JdH (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am one of the idiots. Suggest to read the naming rules first before making a fool of yourself. --Foroa (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I created this category in the first place, and you deleted it without even discussing it. What you should do is restore the Category I created in the first place, then we talk. What you are doing here is abuse the power given to you as an Admin: You delete the Category I created without any discussion whatsoever, and then you want me to explain why I think that is improper? No, sir, first you restore my work then we discuss, not the other way around JdH (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Please don't "demand" anything. It doesn't help your situation. Rocket000 (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The category has been renamed for a second time according to Commons naming rules, and I think that nobody ever will contest that rename. The first move to Category:Solar chimneys took place in March 2009 without any reaction. On Commons, there are around 600000 new categories per year and roughly 5 % is not named according to the naming conventions or need disambiguation. Many categories are created by people like you that only work a couple of periods per year on Commons, so communication with authors is problematic. On the other hand, we have to clean up quickly misnamed categories as bad names tend to train other users for using even more bad names. It is not the category name that contains the value of your work, but its integration in the category tree and its contents. --Foroa (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I added a commonscat template to en:Solar chimney so that it will be easy to find these images from there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Provinces in Italy (and other problems)[edit]

Dear Foroa,

Re: False Meta categories[edit]

Ok, I removed all the template of Meta categories. Sorry for my misinterpretation. But could I ask you why did you remove Category:Maps of municipalities of Tuscany and Category:Maps of municipalities of Umbria instead of simply deleting the template? Best regards, -- Vonvikken (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I noticed the corrections. I removed the mentioned categories out of frustration: pretended meta categories that are empty, and deletion is the quickest. Restored by now. --Foroa (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Bye! -- Vonvikken (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikijunior Sequences[edit]


You have deleted two sequences for Wikijunior ([12] and [13]). They aren't Galleries, and certainly are not empty.

Could you undelete them, please? Thanks! Helder 17:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

By definition, the main space on Commons is for galleries and galleries are for media. So it is completely normal that we delete galleries without media and even quicker if the galleries are not categorised. I guess that you need another name space for your sequences. --Foroa (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Humm... I'm Sorry. I didn't notice Sequence: is not a namespace. I was just following the example Sequence:Cats from Commons:Sequencer to try the feature. Should I categorize it with [[:Category:User galleries|]]? Helder 18:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No idea about what (pseudo) name space should be used, but this should be clearly defined and agreed upon. --Foroa (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

False dating categories[edit]

Hoi Foroa, can you have a look at User:Mtaylor848, he is adding moreless random at recent uploads two 2010 in ... categories, based on ;location and camera date;one of many exemples: Category:August 2010 in Scotland. I think we should stop him. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no clear definition of what should be in such categories, let alone a consensus. I am personally not convinced about the need of such categorisation, but at least, it don't get in the way of other categories and if it will become too filled up, people will create deeper categories. Frankly, it bothers me much less than all sorts of parallel categories (such as the tens of by name categories that are not maintained and create plenty of inconsistencies) or categories that are subdivided too deeply.
Note that above (Commons:Sequencer, there is some development going on that might interest you for your moving images. --Foroa (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Category redirects for Images from US Navy[edit]

Hi Foroa, as you're probably aware BotMultichillT has been transferring US Navy photos to Commons, and adding them into categories by location. Often there are several variations for one single location, for example[14]. So I've been setting up category redirects, to automatically "funnel" existing and future photos into the correct category. Category:Images from US Navy, location SAN DIEGO was one, which got deleted a week later. Now there are new images in that category (example), so I want to recreate the category redirect once more. To avoid going around in circles, I'd like to ask that these "Images from US Navy" category redirects not be deleted please? Benchill (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. My understanding of those categories was that they are temporary (as mostly with bot mass uploads) till the images find their home. Why I didn't bother to categorise them properly neither. I just wanted to avoid that we are getting many hundreds (potentially 5000) of such categories starting with "Images from US Navy," piling up without need: in the end, Hotcat will get congested and become useless. As you are telling me that bots continué to upload on such categories and they don't seem to learn, I will not delete them anymore. --Foroa (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Foroa. Benchill (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyrillic name of Category:Музеи means Category:Museums[edit]

Sorry for my rollback, but cyrillic name of Category:Музеи means Category:Museums. This may be Bulgarian or Russian museums, as example. Maybe need delete this category as with non-English name. Believe me;) I now begin to check what objects are located in Russia have already migrated to Bulgaria because of primary bad redirect. --Kaganer (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I know now that it means museum. My experience with people that want to absolutely use their local language (Google translate says Bulgarian ) are rather poor in English and tend to submit only pictures of their country (or tag it with Museums and Bulgaria). Moreover, once they "land" in their country, they find more easily people that can help them in their language with English. That's the way I usually redirect for basic names. So I would even prefer that such images are categorised in the wrong country with a similar language than in the top level category. --Foroa (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Why no Category:Museums in Russia? What is preferred? In fact, that once there was a lot of Bulgarian museums? This is not a good reason. In addition, such redirection should be understandable by themselves - or they must be removed. The red category is better than an incorrect redirect. Top level category - the correct category for such files, though inconvenient for further details. But the assignment "by default" to the wrong country - is unacceptable. I (or others) will sooner or later come to visit the upper level to "rake the debris." But what we need to look more and "the neighbors" - this a rather unpleasant surprise. I was not expecting such a deliberate trick from colleagues. Please do not do so in this case, and the like.--Kaganer (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Before redirecting it, it was full of images from Bulgaria. From now on, I will delete russian and Bulgarian redirects, that avoids needless discussions. --Foroa (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
(1) I initially guessed that;) (2) I agree, it is better - I still regularly check the wanted categories with Cyrillic names. But this debate has been useful to (for me) - I had not suspected that such an approach is possible ("it's better to be wrong country than the top-level category"). Now I will behave more vigilant. --Kaganer (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I should rephrase it. People that want absolutely to use categories in their language, tend to use only descriptions in their language for images from their area. If you redirect Category:Музеи to Category:Museums, there is a big chance that the Museums category will be flooded by images only documented in Russian, Chinese, Korean, Arab, Vietnamese, ... So for an average maintainer, it will be an impossible (and frustrating) mission to categorize deeper and he will give up. So it seems better to send it to a category within the correct language group than to let it pile up on one central "babel" category. I did the same "incorrect" redirects for some German and Dutch categories, and I never had complaints. In addition, when the bot replaces the Category:Музеи by Category:Museums in Bulgaria, there is a bigger chance that the author will correct it when the country is wrong than when it just replaces it with Category:Museums. But I do agree, at first sight, it is tricky. Before taking a firmer position, as an exercise, I would suggest to clean out the Category:Museums; it looks easy as there are few non-latin script images. --Foroa (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This might be another way of searching. --Foroa (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I use Special:WantedCategories for check "red categories" with four (and more) request counts (and "resolve" them). --Kaganer (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand why so done once, though. I only ask you not to leave such redirects as permanent (at least with respect to Cyrillic names). Yesterday there were Bulgarians, but today it is Russian, and tomorrow - bashkirs, chuvash, tatar or ukraine items... Yes, ba: + cv: + tt: + ru: = ru: (from country viewpoint). But uk: (as example) - is not the same. --Kaganer (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I will participate in the cleanup of Category:Museums. As first step, i propose create two categories: Category:Museums in unidentified country and Category:Unidentified museum collections. And put there all that we can not attribute. --Kaganer (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that those categories (unidentified ...) are needed. A lot of people use a tag style of categorisation (museum, city, country) or massive overcategorisation, so most items are easy to diffuse in the right categories. I would certainly not worry about museum collections as collections are so far rarely isolated in categories for now. --Foroa (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Monuments and memorials in the Netherlands[edit]

Halo Foroa, ik ben zeer teleurgesteld door de introductie van de Category:Monuments and memorials in .... ter vervanging van de afzonderlijke categorieën. De twee cats hebben niets met elkaar te maken (monumenten zijn vooral gebouwen, memorials zijn vooral sculpturen). Ik wordt er op aangevallen door User:Skeezix en ondervindt veel hinder bij het dagelijkse categoriseren van beelden, waar dan ook ter wereld. De nieuwe categorie zal daar waar ik heb opgeruimd ( ten dele) weer opnieuw ontstaan). Gezien de actie: Wiki Loves Monuments is de situatie nu zelfs ridicuul geworden. Onderstaand mijn antwoord aan Skeezix. Ik hoop dat er nog iets kan worden gedaan (al is het maar voor de binnenlandse gebruiker) aan deze te radicale verandering.

Hello Skeezix, thanks for not forgetting the sculpture images form Toronto. Then your question about the Category:Statues in the Netherlands. Statues are sculptures dedicated to a person from royalty, politics, art, history, etc. When the statue is ment to be a memorial I will add the Category:Memorials as well (only a small percentage is involved). The adding of two categories for a sculpture is normal practice in cases like: sculpture/relief, statue/memorial, fountain/sculpture, memorial/relief etc. So please don't disrupt that practice.

Most important however is the (false) introduction of the Category:Monuments and memorials in ... It was told you last week from Australia. Others keep quiet out of disinterest. I worked 3 years on categorizing sculpture in the broadest sense. I made 40.000 alterations and brought some order in The Netherlands, Germany and partly in other countries like Canada. A weekly activity for many hours. There are in many languages differences between Monuments and Memorials and combining the two in one category is in the Dutch language impossible.

Monument: Oorlogsmonument (war) = sculpture ! (only a small percentage < 1%) and natuurmonument (nature), architectuurmonument (architecture), industrieel monument (factory), rijksmonument (buildings listed by the Dutch state as valuable) and so on and so forth = building or structure ( > 99 %). The last two weeks the Category:Wiki Loves Monuments was started. 7.105 images were uploaded. Added to the thousands already on Commons I can tell you that at least ten thousand images are now categorized as monuments! As Category:Monuments, images were uploaded from houses, houses, houses, historic office buildings, palaces, museums, old factories, farmhouses, estates, windmills, lighttowers etc. Sculptures are of course not involved. I don't know who decided that new categorization, but nobody asked my opinion and I disagree strongly. In the newly created category you will already see the result. Within a few days images which don't belong there are uploaded and chaos is not relieved but revived. I don't know where to protest and I consider to stop my activities in reorganising and cleaning up other peoples mess. A bitter --Gerardus (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Groetend,--Gerardus (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Dag Gerardus, Ik heb initieel de discussie op Commons_talk:Categories#Monuments.2C_Memorials_and_partly_Sculptures gevolgd en moest tot de vaststelling komen dat memorials en nl:Monument (gedenkteken) lustig door elkaar gemengd waren, afhankelijk van de persoon en het land. Ik was niet onverdeeld gelukkig met de nieuwe naam, maar had niet meteen een betere oplossing, maar er moets iets veranderen.
Aan de andere kant heb je de nl:Monument (erfgoed), gebouwen die dus veel later tot monument gebombardeerd werden, en die eigenlijk voor mij geen echte monumenten zijn. Die passen in een totaal andere categorie, zoals in Category:Cultural heritage monuments by country. Zolang je die twee types van monumenten niet totaal afzonderlijk houdt zal je blijven sukkelen dacht ik. Maar waarschijnlijk vergeet ik wel een deelaspect; de problemen by categories komen soms maar langzaam boven water. --Foroa (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Ik ben in zoverre medeschuldig, omdat ik in oude situaties in landen die ik onderhanden nam de meest vreemde combinaties heb laten staan. Overal waar ik nieuw startte, zoals ik heel Nederland en grote delen van Duitsland heb aangepakt, heb ik consequent het woord memorials gebruikt, wat soms in Duitsland evenzo vrolijk weer werd teruggedraaid. De Oxford dictionary geeft voor monument de betekenis: structure or building. En dat is het in ons taalgebied ook. Monumentaal bedoelt dan ook groot(s) te zijn. Maar de oorlogs- en andere gedenktekens zijn totaal anders geëvolueerd. Het zijn inderdaad gedenktekens (Denkmahl of Mahnmal in het Duits) en/of eerbetoon aan personen d.m.v. van een stand- of borstbeeld en dergelijke. Dit laatste behoort tot het domein der kunst en moet gerekend worden tot de beeldhouwkunst. En beeldhouwkunst moet niet worden opgeteld bij de hoofdcategorie: Structures i.pv. hoofdcategorie:Art. Liever nog even de "mess" dan een verkeerde richting inslaan. Groetend,--Gerardus (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
De beantwoording van mijn vragen en de wijze van reageren staan me niet aan. Commons is engelstalig: ja! De oplossing voor problemen ligt dus bij en.wikipedia: nee! In het engels denken kan ik, maar me angelsaksisch gedragen niet. Mondiaal denken lukt hier duidelijk niet. Ik houd het voorlopig voor gezien en mijn opruimmanie voor beëindigd. Een ander gaat het maar doen. Groetend,--Gerardus (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Gerardus, ik denk dat het op termijn een goede zaak is dat de kunst en gedenktekens afgescheiden zijn van de "bureaucratische" en historische monumenten. Het zal je vermoedelijk toelaten om nog ongestoorder je goede werk verder te zetten. --Foroa (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Foroa, ik zal het als regelmatige bezoeker vast wel meekrijgen als zo'n verandering er komt. Vooralsnog wacht ik maar af. Groetend, --Gerardus (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Published sequences vs Published Sequence[edit]

I take it you like the fist one, I will update the publish code to use that category. We should normally not be modifying the file asset pages since they are automatically gennerated when the sequence is published. We can sync categories from the Sequence namespace Mdale (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It is not a matter of liking: Commons naming conventions state that category names must be in plural and not in title case. Is the sequence name space formalised and documented somewhere ? --Foroa (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sylvia story[edit]

Please dont move sensible categories till there is an agreement and after the proper procedure. You started this move nonsense, not me. - MPF (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that you have to investigate the history again. I did not start this. It was brought in line with en:Sylvia by user Okki, you just reverted that several times. Moreover, there was a {{move}} with consensus to move it to Sylvia (genus). You know very well that such controversial moves should pass through a {{Move}} of CFD procedure. --Foroa (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
But Okki's change moved it out of line with en:Category:Sylvia (and similar in several other languages), and categories should link to categories. So it should not have been done in the first place. And I never saw any consensus to move it to Sylvia (genus). Consensus means that everyone agrees, and that is manifestly not the case. The case for the move is very poor, and the problems of its incompatibility with the Taxonavigation template are major. - MPF (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to add, en:Sylvia (the disambig page) has no link to Category:Sylvia, while en:Category:Sylvia (the category of Sylvia species) does have a link to Category:Sylvia. This was broken by your moving the category. - MPF (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
There are nearly twice as much cats on Commons than on the wikipedia, within a couple of years, we will have more categories than articles on wikipedia. You are the only one that are against a proper ambiguation, so stop reverting the results of regular move procedures. We understand that you are a taxonomy specialist, but that is no reason to play an egocentric taxomaniac that negates all Commons procedures. --Foroa (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
So what? And where is the consensus for your changes? None on e.g. Category talk:Piranga, where no support at all was given to your move proposal. And I am not the only one opposed; User:Ö also opposed on Category talk:Sylvia, with very valid points that you never attampted to counter. And I trust you will withdraw the accusations of egocentricity. And I note that you have still signally failed to give any strong reasons for your proposals, nor have you answered (or solved) the incompatibility of the Taxonavigation template with your proposals (which is a major reason for not taking them up). - MPF (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) Back to the basics which you don't seem to grasp fully.

1. The only real naming rule in COM:CAT is The category name would be enough to guess the subject. There is fortunately no rule for priorities for categories that can drop needed disambiguation terms. This is the rule handled here with "tolerated" exceptions of some countries, capital cities with a large history and some national symbols.
2. Most category {{move}} requests are executed when there is no significant and motivated opposition (besides the traditional category creator that wants to keep the exclusivity of "his" non disambiguated category).
3. Reverting sneakingly or openly such moves afterwards is not really an example of social behaviour, even less so for an administrator.
4. Don't mix-up the problems with your taxonomy navigation templates. In their current state, their limitations are that they are either problematic to hide the disambiguation terms in the list or they point to disambiguated category names. I consider this cosmetic problems that don't justify adapting Commons category naming rules. Otherwise, you would have to rename hundreds of categories as for example here Special:Search/intitle:Category:(Genus)
5. Renaming sneakingly other categories as you did with at least 3 categories such as category:Piranga to make place for "your" categories is not a very good practise and community example. Unfortunately, this happens quite often here.
6. Maybe that the description of "egocentric taxomaniac" is not the correct qualification. But when considering your behaviour described above and the tens or even hundreds of galleries you deleted or redirected at sight because you basically did not like the name, much stronger wording springs to my mind. --Foroa (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe egocentric is not the right word, so I withdraw it. --Foroa (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Anoia (comarca)[edit]

I guess you do not speak Catalan. Anoia is not a Comarque, but a Comarca. Can you please ask a Bot to change the Category name from Category:Anoia Comarque to Category:Anoia (comarca). Thanks! --Jordiferrer (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me also add that you are right that Anoia has 3 main meanings (comarca in catalonia, river in catalonia, city in Italy), but out of them, the comarca has more articles than the other 2. This is why I think it was not a good decision to change the original name Category:Anoia. English wikipedia is doing it right, see: en:Anoia. --Jordiferrer (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Please don't start duplicate discussions here. If you want another name, please issue a proper {{Move}} request on the proper category.
Contrary to some wikipedias where humans can dwell around over several articles before finding the right one, commons needs a category system that offers to humans and bots a clear and fair access to all categories without trusting on statistical chances to get it right. On commons, the only non-disambiguated exceptions are for capital cities with a large cultural heritage. Most people with an average intelligence understand that. Strangely, some egocentric people sometimes get emotional about their categories and seem to loose their mind. --Foroa (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Done, thanks. --Jordiferrer (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Category reversion[edit]

Please stop You keep on adding this category to itself which results in it being uncategorized. Please stop this. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. Koavf (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Disregard I was completely mistaken. Please forgive me for wasting your time. Koavf (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Flat list categories[edit]

Here's how you make a new flat category: [15]. Now watch Category:Categories by province (flat list) fill up. Don't add "flat list" categories manually, instead fill in the metacat template. I have my bot add these parameters so most of the existing categories should have it filled in already. Rocket000 (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I thought you were adding it manually, now I see you just made the category. Rocket000 (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

delinker removal[edit]


I have seen that you have removed several lines of the CommonsDelinker that I added (see

Could you please explain me why ? Did I do something wrong ? I have not used this procedure before. It would take a lot of time to do this by hand, so I was hoping that some bot would do the job.

Yours, 18:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, perfect move, why I picked them before their turn as you can see here. Problem is that the delinker seems not to cooperate very well since then. We are awaiting repair or some new start. I rescheduled it again. --Foroa (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Undescribed species[edit]

Hi. I'm curious about why you redirected Category:Undescribed species to Category:Unidentified Plants, which seems like an entirely different thing. Undescribed species are those that are known but haven't been given a formal scientific description, such as Nolina_siberica, File:Jaltomata_sp_greenFrOrangNect_758.jpg, File:Undescribed phalangodid.jpg, and File:Exoprosopa_nondescript.jpg. JerryFriedman (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's more than a year ago when we tried to uniformise all unknown, un... items into unidentified categories. When looking backwards here, it might have been too hasty. I guess that if one uses a category name like "xx to be described", it would generate less confusion and mixup. --Foroa (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I reacted a little slowly :-) . I'm not sure about "species to be described"—that suggests to me that we at Commons are supposed to describe them. Maybe "Species without scientific names" or "Species that do not yet have scientific names"? JerryFriedman (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't know. An alternative could be "Species without formal taxonomy name". You decide. --Foroa (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Category:Species without scientific names. I'll add the ones above to the cat. Thanks for working with me on this. JerryFriedman (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hospices in Lille[edit]

Bonjour Foroa. Je viens d'annuler la Category:Hospice de France que tu avais ajoutée à la Category:Hospices in Lille. L'Hospice de France est un endroit situé dans les Pyrénées. Cordialement. Père Igor (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

En effet, un erreur de ma part. --Foroa (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

macedonia stuff[edit]

Ich habe gerade das bemerkt!!! Ich werde auf eine Antwort bitten. Auf welche Grund hast du die Kategorien mit Name Mazedonien zu Name Republik Mazedonien verschoben? Das Land hat einen kurzen Namen. Wir verwenden nicht die ganze verfassungsmäßigen Namen in den Kategorien. Ich sehe nicht, dass Ihr Land (Belgien oder Holland), die verfassungsmäßigen Namen in der Kategorie verwenden, wie: [[Category: Rivers of Kingdom of Belgium]]. Für solche unerklärlichen Bewegungen erfordern wir Diskusion.--R ašoAero-stub img.svg 16:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As you can see in Category:Macedonia (disambiguation), there are several Macedonias, so we have to disambiguate to avoid confusion. We had several such confusions in Macedonia and the more Category:Macedonia (Greece) and Category:Macedonia (region) develop, the more conflicts one would have. In this case, the basic country name is Category:Republic of Macedonia, so all its subcategories have to comply with the name of the root category because otherwise, sooner or later there will be conflicts with the other Macedonias. As you can see in for example Category:People by country, this same principle is consistenly used in for example Category:Czech Republic, Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo, Category:Republic of the Congo, Category:Federated States of Micronesia, Category:Dominican Republic, Category:United Arab Emirates , Category:United Kingdom , Category:United States , Category:United States Virgin Islands . This naming principle has to be followed even more strictly if during the course of history, country compositions, rulers/occupations and borders have been changed. --Foroa (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh please. This is nonsense. There would be no confusion with the above terms of regions and provinces. Do not mention the example of the Czech Republic because it is inadequate. If the state is called Czechia, then is no not need of the notion Republic. But Macedonia is not Macedonian Republic. The same is for the Congo (Dominica, Korea etc...). So the world has two countries with that name. I do not understand why you are not trying the same with Luxembourg. As far as I know Belgium has a province of the same name. I do not understand why there is not a mess??? And do not forget Moldova. One is the state, and another is the region (much larger than the country). So please revert the edits. Groeten --R ašoAero-stub img.svg 19:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It's good that you have started this question, I need to explain something. I have seen that the category Museum of Macedonia is renamed into Museum of the Republic of Macedonia which is totally wrong. Museum of Macedonia is an institution (trademark let say), not a term that need to be disambiguated. As you can see in the real life, the Macedonian part in BG is called Blagoevgrad Province, in Greece the Macedonian parts are called Greek Macedonia and Macedonian part just Macedonia, so what can we confuse?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I restored "museum of Macedonia" for now, but one day, it will need to be disambiguated as chances are great that one day, another Museum of Macedonia will pop up in another place.
As can be seen in en:Macedonia, there are 19 or so places or regions that are called Macedonia, so the disambiguation is not there without any reason (we got already many mixups and renamings in the past). We have already Category:History of Macedonia that is in the Macedonia region and that contains Category:History of the Republic of Macedonia. Sooner or later, one will find similar structures for culture, art, people, ...
It is perfectly logic that category names are in line with the parent category names, especially for people that don't know the country. You cannot have a "system" that says that in one context, Macedonia means a region, in another it is a country. This naming consistency is even more needed for bots that perform auto-categorisation and category maintenance. --Foroa (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


I made cleanup all Mustang pictures and assigned them to right categories (Category:Ford Mustang V and Category:Shelby Mustang) it's been all reverted because admin always knows better, alright I won't argue anymore as it's pointless but those categorie should be kept as this car is V generation and Shelby yet it doesn't appears in those categories. Peter.shaman (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a matter of an administrator knowing better, it is about respecting the work of a community. It concerns 3 categories that have been created and filled by various persons: they are perfectly distinct from their parent categories so they make the crowded higher level categories more manageable.
So I was surprised to see that you emptied (and blanked) those categories, issued CFD's, then orphaned the CFD's probably because there where some signs of legitimate objections, and then tried to blank the categories. If all people would proceed like that, there would be not much community work possible on Commons. --Foroa (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done a lot of work re-categorizing 'bout 100 pictures of Mustangs so if someone doesn't respect somebody's work it is You, btw reading Your talk page I see that's not the first time… btw 2 replying at own talk page is ultimate selfishness and also sign of no respect (I have better things to do than checking this page in case You was so kind to respond).Peter.shaman (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but a substantial part of your categorisations will be undone sooner or later. You don't seem to be aware that you can manually or automatically (Menu My preferences, watchlist tab) set any page on your watchlist.
Most people that communicate a lot keep the discussions on one single page: that keeps the discussion together and allows other people to follow and jump in as needed. This is generally indicated on the top of the talk pages as on this one. --Foroa (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/09/Category:Orders and Decorations[edit]

G'day Foroa, Please explain why you have unilaterally decided to change the category naming from that which is in use on en:WP and the subject of consensus from several editors and a closed CfD. You provided an assertion of what should, or should not, exist on Commons but provided no reference to Commons policy to support your assertion. I have undertaken a search on Wikipedia Commons but have been unable to find a formal policy on serial commas. Specfically, COM:Cat makes no mention of the issue and a Commons search on "serial comma" turns up one user who states is grammar and punctuation practices. Your change is disrupting one of the purposes of the CfD which was to create naming alignment of an entire category schema with that of en:WP. You assert that serial commas are not common interationally, but provide no evidence for this. As a native English speaker, my experience (echoed by my partner, a native English speaker who copy edits academic literature for a living) is that use or non-use of serial commas is a stylistic preference, not a hard and fast rule. The use of serial commas is widespread in the English-speaking world, as is the non-use and the selective use of serial commas (I fall into the selective use camp). Per en:WP:RETAIN, there is no justification for changing the naming of the en:WP ODM category structure naming (it has been stable for nearly four years and is extensive). Therefore, as the newer project to adopt a comprehensive, coherent structure, the Commons category is the one that should be following suit. In the absence of a formal policy on the use of serial commas, your views are only a personal preference and it is not appropriate to be unilaterally imposing them on others without consensus - particularly since you are an administrator. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick reply for now. Anyway, it is not normal that after some objection and its reply, 15 minutes later, the cfd is closed and executed, leaving no time for reaction.
To the best of my knowledge, we use no serial comma category notation on Commons, so it should not be started without a serious discussion on the subject. When reading en:Serial Comma, the following passage is striking:
Opinions vary among writers and editors on the usage or avoidance of the serial comma. In American English, the serial comma is standard in most non-journalistic writing, which typically follows the Chicago Manual of Style. Journalists, however, usually follow the Associated Press Style Guide, which advises against it. It is less often used in British English.[4][5] In many languages (e.g. French,[6] German,[7] Italian,[8] Polish,[9] Spanish[10]), the serial comma is not the norm; it may even go against punctuation rules, but it may be recommended in some cases to avoid ambiguity or to aid prosody.
From this, it is clear that this is not a really universally used notation and more importantly, it is against de ponctuation rules in most languages. It is just not a good idea using a notation which is primarily used in "American English non-journalistic writing", so which does certainly not correspond with an average Commons user profile.
It sounds a very bad idea in an international context to allow for mixing notations at user will. We better stick to one notation.
I guesstimate that the large majority of Commons uploaders and clients are not native English, but you don't hear them because of that. So the notation is not natural at all for the majority of our users.
Finally, as we are discussing that, it is maybe the moment to formalise the informal Commons habit to arrange such category types in an alphabetic enumeration order. --Foroa (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The CfD should have been closed long before you got there, all though I acknowledge your concern about the closing off without your having responded - that may be a reason to halt proceedings, but it is not a reason to overwrite with your own change which was clearly going to be contested. As I said earlier, it is stylistic punctuation, it is not a punctuation rule. The Wikipedia article is actually fairly weak in its coverage of the subject. There are good reasons why serial commas are used - they aid in clarity with lists, particularly complex lists. A simple example is "arts, literature, science and technology" vs "arts, literature, science, and technology" - in the former, "science and technology" form one list element, whilst in the second they are discrete list elements. In the absence of clear contextual information to the contrary or the rigorous application of serial lists, the former punctuation is ambiguous. Serial lists avoid ambiguity. Whilst the example at hand is a simple list, and therefore a serial comma is not essential, nor is it incorrect. I am trying to achieve consistency - something which helps editors. You are relying on assumption for your argument, which has never been a valid reason for decisons on Wikipedia/Commons. For starters, the relevant uploaders are those who upload in the field of orders, decorations, and medals, not Commons more broadly. Secondly, they shouldn't be uploading directly to the "Orders, decorations, and medals of X" categories anyway - these are parent categories and should only contain child categories. For those that use the auto-fill function it is not an issue since by the time they type in "Orders, d" the remainder will come up with the comma showing. The category structure is primarily maintained by members of en:WP:ODM (which includes several non-native English speakers, such as Robert Prummel, a fairly prolific contributor to Commons). These editors should be fairly familiar with the serial comma in the ODM category structure as that is in use on en:WP. I would have had no problems omitting the serial comma in the case at hand if it had not been in use for the en:WP category schema (in that instance, the schema proposal on Commons would have been listed without it). You are also mistaken if you think that the serial comma wasn't in use on Commons prior to my proposal, there were numerous ODM categories that were already using this format, they just weren't part of my proposal because they already existed, I just needed the appropriate parent category to be established before re-linking them. As I finish writing this section, I have just noticed that despite this being contested, you are hunting out and renaming more categories, this is very poor form. I have now reported you at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Foroa

Category:Oswaldkapelle Breite[edit]

Good evening, Foroa. I don’t see any reason for adding the name of the municipality to the category’s name, as long as there is no other Oswaldkapelle Breite. Best Regards, --Abderitestatos (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Most probably a request from Roland zh. If we know that chapels exist with the same name, we better disambiguate them immediatly before the problem arrives. People that are really intensively working on categories tend to prefer a systematic approach as here: chapel name + village. One never wastes time with looking up, mixups, conflicts or renames. Moreover, in architecture, by era, canton, name, ... categories, one sees immediatly where it is. They avoid what they call in English "penny wise, pound foolish". Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


... voor de 'category-goeroe': Hoe pas ik deze foto in bij Category:Traffic signals? Nieuwe sub maken met Category:Shipping traffic signals? Of iets dergelijks? Mvg. Lycaon (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ik zou zeggen zoals in Category:Bus lane signals, Category:Ship lane signals, desnoods Category:Ship traffic signals. Maar misschien bestaat er ergens iets dat niet op zijn juiste plaats zit. Beste groet. --Foroa (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Category move/merge[edit]

Hi. You removed my category request. Is there anything wrong with it, or is there some other place where it should be placed? Because I may have some more similar requests.—Andrei S. Talk 08:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really Andrei, it has been executed. Note however that it took me some time to find out if disambiguation is needed or not and if those categories where recent. Note that I don't remove disambiguation terms if they are used in any possible wikipedia; I don't want to move categories for the rest of my life. I have the impression that on the Romanian wikipedia, most villages are systematically disambiguated (as in the US and Japan), which is a very good approach, so please don't waste time removing disambiguations. Just inserting descriptions and interwikis as I did recently saves quite some investigation time while improving search capabilities: on many city categories, you have to click through 2 or 3 cats before you know in what country you are. --Foroa (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the pointers.—Andrei S. Talk 10:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders category - redirect vs. delete?[edit]


Do you think that this category should be recreated to serve as a redirect to Seattle Sounders FC instead of being deleted? BrokenSphere (Talk) 15:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been considering it but found it not to be correct. The ideal solution would probably be a disambiguation like in en:Seattle Sounders, but I did not have time to research if this is realistic here. I don't like redirects for spelling and punctuation details (bad training and Hotcat is used for only a little part of the categorisation work), I don't like disambiguation categories as things hang in them till somebody passes by every 6 monts or so. The best solution to me is a gallery that redirects to the category: they work immediatly and need no maintenance. Its your choice ... --Foroa (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nawpaktow...Wenetian should be "Nafpaktos" and "Venetian"[edit]

But I can't menage to change it. Thanks for help. --Dimkoa (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)



--Foroa (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bronzes of Italy[edit]

Hello Foroa. Could you check, if you have any time, Category:Bronzes of Italy, there may be some overcategorisations in the subcategories... There are slight distinctions between "in", "from" and "of". Jack ma (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No real problem I think, although naming might need improvement to make it better distinguished (Originating from in stead of from for example.
I understand that the rationale is as follows: In most countries, for art related cats, we assume roughly that most art is in and from the country, so it is simplified in of. In Italy however, they have many art originating from ancient cultures, so they want to distinguish between the origin and the place where it is. I guesss this will ripple further to Ancient Greek, Etruscan, Chinese, Arab, Egyptian, ... art. I don't know if it will ripple through more recent civilisations, as then, the author is known, and indirectly, the country of origin (although the more recent, the more artists are mobile). --Foroa (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
ok then; Thanks. Jack ma (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Astor Place Cube[edit]

Hi. I'm wondering what the rationale for deleting the category "Astor Place Cube" was. I created Category:Alamo (Astor Place Cube) to hold images of the public sculpture Alamo, which is located in Astor Place in Manhattan, New York City. "Alamo" is its formal name, but very few people know that, they refer to it as the "Astor Place Cube" (or just "The Cube"), so the point of the category redirect was to help people who use "Category:Astor Place Cube" to get to the right category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Astor Place Cube contained {{category redirect|Alamo (Astor Place Cubs)}} which was obviously a broken redirect and therefore has been deleted. I have no way of checking all sorts of spelling alternatives. I restored it so you can see it with your own eyes. --Foroa (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks you for restoring it, I have corrected the spelling error which created the broken redirect. In the future, it might be a good idea before you delete to contact the editor who created the category redirect to see what they intended. In this case a simple late-night typo ("cubs" for "cube") was the cause, and a quick note to me would have avoided this problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
There are tens or hundreds of broken redirects per week. Checking the colour of the link at creation time or reading the deletion edit summary might prove far more efficient. My feeling is that when the creator doesn't bother to check the colour, it cannot be very important so we shouldn't bother neither. --Foroa (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Your "feeling" violates AGF, which you, especially (as an admin), should not do. The broken redirects aren't so terrible a problem that you couldn't afford to slow down and give each one a little more consideration. People, being people, will, after all, make mistakes. and it's better to actually fix those problems, rather than compounding the error through hasty deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

People by hair color: Consequential moves[edit]

Hello! Do note the following moves consequential on the discussion at "Category talk:Women with blond hair":

Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that one needs to merge the by name cats. Life can be complicated. --Foroa (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Er, I thought the outcome of the discussion was that we should not have the "by name" categories. I created them earlier because I thought that the "Female/male XYZ hair" categories should be kept for general photographs, while the "Women/men with XYZ hair" categories should be meta-categories only for subcategories named after people, which is why I proposed that such categories be renamed "Women/men with XYZ hair by name". However, the consensus was that we should not have the "by name" categories, and that we should just use the "Female/male XYZ hair" categories. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You are right about the conclusion. But you initially proposed to move them all into a meta cat; when responding, I was still in the meta/non meta category phase. The easiest is indeed to simply issue the move requests. Best. --Foroa (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Gouritz River[edit]

Please take my Photos back to Category:Bridges over the Gouritz River. The official plaques on the bridges show you the names Gouritz River / Gouritzrivier. Thanks. --Admiral Horthy (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As you can see in Category:Gourits River and en:Gourits River, Gourits River seems to be the official spelling, but I don't know since when. It is true that in many official sites, they are mixed up. I can find you places where the "offical plaques" are existing in 2 to 3 different variations, it depends very much how old they are. --Foroa (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Ignace Guillotin[edit]

Foroa, how to clean or not to clean Joseph Ignace Guillotin, Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, Category:Joseph Ignace Guillotin and the strange way to link to wiki's? --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be alright by now. --Foroa (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Museums in Italy[edit]

Hi Foroa. Thank you allways for your help in changing for me the names of some categories. You really give me a big help in making order in the italian categories! Thank you so much! Now I have a little problem with the changing of the museums names of Italy, requested I think by Giovanni Dall'Orto, and just made. Can you help me please to understand why these names was changed from the capitals to the little letters? The words "Archeologico Nazionale" are not adjectives, but part of his official names! In all theyr official links in internet, you will find his names written in big letters. The archaeological museum of Naples is the "Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli" and it's called MANN. "Museo archeologico nazionale (Naples)", imho it's not correct: we have to do with a name, not an object! These are not potatos. Why we don't write "British museum"? Or "Metropolitan museum of art"? Or "Royal museums of fine arts of Belgium"? In Category:Archaeological museums in Italy you can see that there are important museums ("nazionale", "regionale"), and other museums of less importance, usually little museums or those in little municipalities. They have a simple name "Museo archeologico" or "Museo civico" or "Antiquarium" etc. So I think that to make order in the categories is allways welcome; but in this case it will be necessary to distinguish the official names like "Museo Archeologico Nazionale" of important museums from the simple characterisation of the kind of museum in a little municipality e.g. "Museo archeologico di Pietrasanta". What do you think about? Thank you for your answer! Saluti, --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:G.dallorto#Musei_italiani my answer is here. Thank you both. BTW, Denghiù, the British Museum correctly follows the rules of the ENGLISH language, where capitalisation is compulsory. The same should be true for Italian: just follow Italian rules. In some languages, such as German, capitalisation is compulsory. In others, the reverse is true: this is the case for Italian. You can't impose blanket rules, otherwise you would create "wrong" entries. Just use the rules of the language, unless a proper English translation is commonly in use, such as in "St. Peter's" at Rome. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

@G.dallorto. First: be calm. Here is a discussion not a war. We are all working in the same project, and it can happen that we disagree in some case. But we discuss to come to an ageement or to clarify a situation. So you don't told me again and again and again but only once, how you can control in my user talk. Perhaps you told again and again to other people, not to me... Never mind! Second: I undestand very well the problems that you have by the categorisation of pictures; I have similar problems in my work on categories of Italy. So that we need consistency and consistent rules, I am the first one that want this. Third: I don't see a "CONSISTENT rule" to use capitalisation for the names of churches, streets, squares, but not for important cultural institutions like National Museums in Italy. And then for all museums in the world, but not for the museums in Italy. I repeat: I understand very well your problem to give the appropriate category to tousands of uncategorisated files; but now we have exacly the opposite, a not consistent rule! Last but not least: I disagree completely with the resolution made for the museums of Italy to change theyr names from capital to small letters, but I accept it and will to apply it. It's true, in it:WP the museums name are at the time in low letters, but periodically they change to capitals letters and then again to small letters, so there is not yet consensus. Best regards at all! --DenghiùComm (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the position of Giovanni, but it might be a good idea of explaining a bit more.
The difference between proper names and the more fashionable title case creates a major consistency problem in the majority of the en:wikipedia texts. Most people don't know/respect the rules defined in en:Capitalization, example in "Do not capitalize a generic term that follows a capitalized generic term (Yangtze River valley)", but in many cases, people prefer to interprete generic terms as proper terms anyway. Thus rule is quite country, language and culture dependent. English, like German, used to capitalize all significant words, and this is still felt. On the other hand, when writing an article about for example the "Silicon Valley", most people will use in the text valley without capitalisation. So, slowly the more simple title case rule becomes dominant in most English articles.
Now to the Italian museums. When looking in Category:Archaeological museums in Italy one can see a list that is pretty much consistent according to capitalisation rules in its stricted sense and as applied by most Italian, French, Scandinavian, ... groups. In en:Category:Archaeology museums in Italy, there are fewer and more a mix of different styles.
So frankly, I am a bit shocked by you proposition:
1. To mix up even more styles: Italian names with English (title case) capitalisation and different from the parent categories. Not a good way to achieve consistency.
2. To discriminate smaller museums in respect with "big" museums: so a user can see on the capitalisation what museums are important ?
3. Using an incorrect argument concerning for example it:Museo_archeologico_nazionale_di_Napoli: even when written in lowercase, there is no problem in calling it MANN. --Foroa (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Monuments historiques in Basse-Normandie[edit]

Hello. I read Commons:Naming_categories#Categories_by_CRITERION and I saw: "These are special categories which are useful to group other related pages (not media files) according to a given criterion. [...] These criteria are currently used in Commons: [...] country subdivision, like: states, counties, cities, districts, etc.". Calvados, Manche and Orne are subdivisions (départements) of Basse-Normandie which is itself a subdivision (région) of France. So I don't see why the Category:Monuments historiques in Basse-Normandie is not a metacat. --Karldupart (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As discussed in several sections above, such as #Streets in Toronto, here on Commons, we define a "pure" meta-category as a category by criterion. The whole idea is to forbid categorisation bots to categorize images in such a category. It is true that most intermediate categories on Commons are "would-be" meta categories. In this context, Category:Monuments historiques in Basse-Normandie is not a meta cat because a bot cannot go to a parent cat when it has an image that belongs to Category:Monuments historiques in Basse-Normandie. Moreover, within that category, one could have all sorts of other images and category organisations that are perfectly plausible in Category:Monuments historiques in Basse-Normandie: its history, activists, organisation, maintenance, funding, maps, visiting trails, former monuments, ... along with all sorts of classifications: by location, by date of construction, date of nomination, by canton, departement or arrondissement, by its condition, ... --Foroa (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Road-Railway Bridge in Novi Sad[edit]

I saw that you moved category "Road-Railway Bridge in Novi Sad" to "Road-railway bridges in Novi Sad". This is wrong because there is only one Road-railway bridge in Novi Sad (and its official name is Road-railway bridge). All other bridges in Novi Sad are used either for road traffic either for trains, but not for both. Therefore, all images in this category are showing one single bridge: - So, please, can you revert this category to its original title? PANONIAN (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Renamed to Category:Road-railway bridge in Novi Sad. --Foroa (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Hello, Foroa. I am sorry, but you action forced me to fill in a request on Administrators' noticeboard. Just wanted to let you know. All best. --WhiteWriter speaks 19:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Kosovo is not (and never has been) in the European Union. The addition of that category is incorrect. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Railway stations[edit]

Hi. I have a problem with [16]. Every UK station is a railway station, not a train station. As far as I know this is the naming consensus for most of the world. They are not "train stations", at least not the UK ones. Please consult UK rail wikiproject before making further mass moves. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely; in British English, at least, "railway station", "train station" and "tube station" are not synonyms. Please reverse this. iridescent 17:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I would just say (stating the obvious) that the Commons is not bound by the naming conventions of a Wikipedia project, and for very important reasons has a universality principle when it comes to category naming that does not exist in the same way over at Wikipedia. None of this means that the category names can't be reconsidered, of course. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes—but this is moving things from a correct to an incorrect title. AFAIK there's no variant of English in which "train station" is correct—as the (mistitled) en-wiki article says, in British English it's "railway station" and in US-English it's "railroad station". iridescent 17:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Sounds like all the categories should be "Railway stations". I was really just responding to the first comment that suggested that Foroa ought to defer to the UK rail wikiproject, or that we should use different nomenclature for the U.K. But if there is a better universal term, then I would agree with you completely. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Consensus for UK station naming on Commons was agreed at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/12/Categories of train stations - please gain a new consensus before renaming. Tivedshambo (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
(adding 2p worth) - the correct term, since the mid/late 1820s is "railway station". Dumbed-down newspeak (BBC guilty of this) is train station. Let's try and keep some standards up and use correct English at all times. Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The move request was issued by Ingolfson. As you can see in most category trees, there is a long standing consensus and de facto internal commons standard that allover the world, we use train stations, except in the UK where we use railway stations (there are roughly 2000 "train stations..." cats, 400 "railway stations ..." cats). I checked a couple of them, so I was under the impression that this was respected. I'll check again and revert where needed. --Foroa (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Just adding my support to those who think this is a terrible idea. Regardless of policy concerns or WP versus Commons bureaucracy, the over-riding issue here is the correct use of English. (I agree with the "dumbed-down newspeak" comment!) --RFBailey (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Australia and New Zealand like the UK also uses "Railway" rather then "Train". Bidgee (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) The UK category move is reverted by now.

There have been many discussions about the railway/train station name, mainly because there is no clear single English standard. My interpretation about the "train station" name that exist currently in more than 4300 category names on commons:

The term train station is universal in the sense that it matches well in the series of train, tram, bus, metro, taxi, ... stations.
Railway station can be ambiguous as it could mean a station for trains, trams, metro, rapid transport, ...
Train station is more basic: station refers to the etymology of the word (accusative of statio - standing, post, job, position, motionless) and makes translation/comprehension easier and more logical in other languages.

Anyway, I don't think that my talk page is the right place to discuss this. --Foroa (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for your confidence in me (Commons:Patrol). Regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your great work. --Foroa (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I found the guilty :)[edit]

Today i finally found out that you flag me as autopatrolled. Many thanks! For your work first! Take care--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. --Foroa (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Devil’s bridges contains subcategories with devil's and devil’s. Can you have a look at that? My keyboard generates them automatically from the same key, depending on typing circumstances, very strange. Is that a more general problem? --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess that this kind of accents can be language sensitive and OS dependent. But keyboards and punctuation vary significantly with the user's country, language and habits. Another example is the short and long Em-dash; the latter is only in a number of countries available on the keyboard. I harmonized the devil's categories; it looks like devil's is the standard. I don't know if this is a more general "systematic" problem, but I think that it is more a user problem. --Foroa (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ingelstad Löderup.svg[edit]

Hello! I missnamed a file and then messed up the renaming-tagging. The files should be named hundred (härad) + parish ie Ingelstad Löderup.svg, Ingelstad Valleberga.svg and Ingelstad Hoby.svg. I think it was correct after user:AVRS actions.--Edaen (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the delinker seems to attribute renames to me in an erroneous way. As you can see here, I have not been involved in the renaming process. --Foroa (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wejer or Wejher[edit]

You write @ Jakùb Wejer "incorrect surname! Wejher, not Wejer". Dear Foroa, Wejer and Wejher is a correct version of this surname. --Kaszeba (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the delinker seems to attribute renames to me in an erroneous way. As you can see here, I have not been involved in the renaming process. --Foroa (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Category Issue[edit]

You recently changed the category (Category:University of Dayton) to (Category:University of Dayton, Ohio). This is mistake and the new category should be deleted and changed back to (Category:University of Dayton) to reflect it's official title and name. I might also add that there is only one University of Dayton in the world. So the state after it is not needed. And there are no other categories where the University has the state after it. For example, the Univerity of Cincinnati is not the University of Cincinnati, Ohio and the University of Toledo is not the University of Toledo, Ohio and so on. Please reply back to me once the changes have been made. Thank you. Texas141 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Rat guards of catchers[edit]

Dat krijg je als je een poos bezig bent en niet meer weet wat je soms maanden eerder deed. Vergeten wat er al was. We zijn het vlot eens, dan resteert de vraag of ik de discussie laat staan of zelf kan intrekken en wanneer. Weekje wachten? --Stunteltje (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Gebeurt regelmatig bij cat verslaafden. Zet er gewoon een redirect op. Het probleem zal waarschijnlijk geruisloos verdwijnen. --Foroa (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Heel mooi opgelost. Ik zal het in de planning zetten voor pakweg over een week en ben niet beledigd als je het zelf al eerder doet en de discussie afsluit. Ben te weinig ervaren is discussie aandragen om te weten hoe ik die volgens de regels beëindig --Stunteltje (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Probleem is dat degene die aflsluit beter niet "involved" is, zodat veel dingen pas na maanden afgesloten worden. Ik zet meteen de redirect: het duurt een week voor hij "koud" en effectief wordt. --Foroa (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Category renames[edit]

Could you, please check references to an old category name before removing a moved category? Ankry (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I execute 500 to 1500 category moves per month from User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, so I check only occasionaly references. In User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, it is clearly stipulated:
Note: It is up to the category move requester to adapt all references (“What links here” tab) to the moved category as needed. This part of the task is not automated.
I requested an extension of SieBot to automate that, but there seems not really candidates to extend its functionality. Sorry, I wish I could do better, but my backlog is far too big. --Foroa (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The links should be fixed after category is renamed and before the old name is removed. You should not assume the requester to do it if you do not leave enough time for him. However, I think it should be discussed with others. Could you, please, point me the right place for such a disscussion? Ankry (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that this is a realistic requirement. Category rename is an almost atomic operation. As far as I know, there have never been real central discussions on the problem. Category management is one of the weak parts of the wikimedia software and people live with it. Anyway, a moved and deleted category has its new destination in the deletion log; it makes not much difference if you have to click on a redirected category or on the category in the deletion log. The neatest solution is to include it in the bot as I requested on User_talk:Siebrand#Potential_bot_improvement; it did not encounter a wild enthusiasm. --Foroa (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Barges by location[edit]

Ik belandde op Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Danube Barge en heb een voorstel gedaan om een andere manier van benoemen te gebruiken. Danube barges leek mij teveel op een type, zoals een Rijnschip. Gebruikelijk is meer Barges on the river Danube, vind ik. Maar wellicht heb je ook nog een duit over om in de zak te doen. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Goede reactie van jou. Echt verwonderlijk hoe moeilijk mensen een systeem kunnen begrijpen. In de huidige Commons category structuur zou het moeten "barges by bodies of water" zijn, maar dat bekt niet. "Barges by waterways" klinkt best voor mij, maar straks riskeert er weer een piepo "yet another" waterway category te foefelen tussen bodies of water en rivers/canals/lakes. --Foroa (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Dank je. Ik draai inmiddels al weer een poosje mee en dan krijg je toch wat meer gevoel voor wat zou passen. Het vervelende is dat ik op de één of andere manier niet uit de voeten kan met een overzicht van het systeem, de structuur, waar ik dat kan vinden en eventueel al werkende bijwerken. Zou ik toch eens aan moeten beginnen. Category:Barges by waterway voor mij een prima oplossing, beter dan by location. Ik sloot alleen maar aan bij ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please rename 10rubles Vologda.PNG[edit]

Hello, you have issued a request for replacement of the file File:Vologda coin.png with File:10rubles Vologda.PNG based on the duplication criterion. Please note, that the latter file is discriminated as an advertisement [AD] if the corresponding setup is being used in a browser, so please rename it to make visible for everyone. Thank you. --Happykg (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the delinker seems to attribute renames to me in an erroneous way. As you can see here, I have not been involved in the renaming process. --Foroa (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Undo function[edit]

Hi. Do you know why the Undo function might not work? I made a color adjustment to this pic, and another editor reverted it, telling me to upload the retouched version with a different name, even though the proposed policy brought up during that earlier discussion clearly states that color adjustments are a type of minor adjustment for which the Upload a new version link on the original's page is to be used, and not the tool for uploading one to its own page with a different name. I tried undoing this, and it didn't work. Can you help? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to undo this. Obviously, the uploader is picky about his image that is used on several wikipedias and don't apprciate your improvements that use a more agressive compression as to reduce it size by half and to better suit your personal taste. You should bear in mind that some people have very high quality standards and spend a lot of time adjusting images, often using color calibrated equipement. Not surprising then that they don't appreciate other personal tastes and preferences. --Foroa (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Braine-le-Château castle[edit]

Cher Foroa,

Afin de ne pas créer de confusion entre Braine-le-Château, Braine-le-Comte et Braine-L'Alleud, j'ai créé la catégorie dont question en objet.


Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Très bien fait, Jean-Pol. Merci et à+. --Foroa (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


Category:Raam needs cleaning, and probably renaming as well. Can you have a look. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


Foroa I saw made a contentious changing, moving Category:University of Santo Tomas alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Santo Tomas without any explanation or discussion. Perhaps it helps you to see the benefits - here was the preview, creating a category for Sergio Osmeña, by copy/paste the categories from the En article. Please tell me you can see all of those redlinks, and understand this occurs for each new person category I create, half an hour looking up what strange names does each category have this time. If no explanation is forthcoming I intend to reverse the change. Benchill (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons needs more analytical, precise and better structured naming rules/conventions than the en:wikipedia. Those rules need to be more enforced and form a system as about 25% of the information comes from the en:wikipedia, the rest from the 270 wikipedias in other languages. Commons contains now almost twice as much categories as the en:wikipedia, while growing 300000 categories per year faster than the en:wiki, so it is not realistic to expect a one-to-one category correspondence between Commons and en:wiki.
As an example, the en:wiki contains 4 times more categories that start with American, 3 times more categories that start with United States than on Commons. I noticed that the last years, en:wiki category naming evolved more towards the Commons naming system, but since categories are rather an afterthought on en:wiki, it will take several years for better convergence.
Commons convention is that category names start with the topic followed by qualifiers, and so do the subcategories. A simple rule that seems easy to follow by people from most languages; although category creation rate has quadrupled in the last couple of years, housekeeping and harmonisation category renames have decreased.
The last time I checked in Category:Alumni by university or college by country, 26 from the 28 countries follow the Commons naming convention; the exception being New Zealand and 60 % of the United States because the moves have been contested. The majority of alumni categories start with "Alumni of ...". I reckon that you will accept that I tried to avoid the creation of a third exception country.
It is indeed very unfortunate that we cannot keep the category naming on Commons and en:Wikipedia identical, but it is more important that we have on Commons a consistent naming method. You are relatively lucky as you are a native English speaker and many categories match, but people from the 270 other languages need a naming "system" too. Sorry that we cannot do better, but that's community life. --Foroa (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Images from US Navy, location SANTA RITA, Guam[edit]


Please do not create such categories: the category type US Navy, location XY are intended to categorize files uploaded by this upload bot roughly. These categories must get deleted after the images in it have been properly categorized. Consequently a creation of such categories is wrong. Please rename this cat or move the content to a better category. --High Contrast (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Must be a misunderstanding. I did not create Category:Images from US Navy, location SANTA RITA, Guam; to the contrary, I deleted many of them. I have been told in #Category redirects for Images from US Navy however that the upload bot continues to use them so they should not be deleted but redirected. --Foroa (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
There, you gave the order to move a category from Santa Rita to Images from US Navy, location SANTA RITA, Guam. So your bot command had the result that a category "Images from US Navy, location SANTA RITA, Guam" was created because of you. --High Contrast (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
In some cases you're right High Contrast, location Naval Base Abc or USS Xyz ought to go directly into the main category. But general locations can get totally overrun with 100s of photos of US Navy activities and interior views of navy ships at the location, really disproportionate. Like Category:US Navy in Bahrain which I think were all under Category:Bahrain, or Category:Coronado, California, where many Navy photos have already been moved into subcategories. Benchill (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that High Contrast is jumping too quickly into conclusions: As you can see here, the category was existing and populated since a certain time. There was a move request which I rerouted to an existing category as I did not have the time to investigate and create a proper category for the base at Guam (and indeed, flooding normal city cats with hundreds of US navy images is not a good idea). The most important issue to solve then was to clean up Category:Santa Rita and to convert it into a proper disambiguation cat, while returning misplaced images where they came from. --Foroa (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
But doing it this way is wrong. With this edit you created a category that is superfluous. This is the mistake. What happened before is not of interest. The proceeded move request was worng and you know this. Sometimes it is better to admit one's faults. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, you don't want to hear what I am saying: As you can see here and its history, the category was existing and populated well before the bot move. I admitted that, if I would have had time, that I should have created a proper category for the military base; it is still waiting. --Foroa (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Data:Yen Ching-piao[edit]

Hi Foroa, you deleted Data:Yen Ching-piao and Interwiki:Yen Ching-piao. As indicated, at template talk:creator, this is a test to see if a broadening of the creator namespace would be possible. Could you restore them ?--Zolo (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  • ✓  Done I keep clearing out uncategorised stuff. --Foroa (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay thanks. I have made some test templates that are uncategorized, just I had something so that they don't bother you?--Zolo (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

a question[edit]

You deleted Category:Afghan National Army Military Police and Category:ANA Military Police after Category:Military police of the Afghan National Army created.

I have noticed other categories get deleted when they were superceded like this. I have wondered why the superceded categories weren't redirected to point to their replacements. Can I ask you whether you considered redirection? If there is some general reason why we don't do this automatically I would really appreciate knowing.

I know proper categorization is very important -- otherwise our readers will have more difficulty finding the images they need. But choosing the right category represents a cognitive burden to us uploaders -- one that could be considerably eased if the categories we used in the past kept working, through redirection.

Way back when I was in University I did an informal experiment, whose results were applicable here.

By day I had to use the IBM/CMS system maintained by the University's (non-academic) Department of Computing Services. This is the system the students used in the course for which I was a teaching assistant. When I wasn't working I used a version 7 UNIX system. I encountered a cognitive problem, a human factors problem. I would type in a command line that would perform the operation I wanted -- but on the other system. As an experiment I wrote a shell script, on the UNIX system. I put it late in my search path, so it would only be invoked when I typed in a command line for the other system. The shell procedure was capable of parsing all the arguments on my command line, and either invoking the command I really meant, or telling me what command it thought I really meant.

I had all my friends use it, and any of my actual students, who wanted to try UNIX. Initially I had it simply invoke the command line it guessed users really wanted. That was a mistake. My friends got confusing error messages when things didn't work. It didn't train them to use the right commands. So I changed it, to merely tell them what I thought they should use. That had its problems too.

Anyhow, hotcat gets it right. If the category one types in there is actually a category redirect, when you click on OK, instead of silently proceeding to use the target of the redirection it replaces the entry field with the name of the target of the redirections, and requires a second OK click to confirm. I feel this is preferrable. Geo Swan (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan. I will reply more extensively on that later, but in the mean time, you could have a look at #Alumni and Commons:Category redirects suck. It is indeed all about (bad) training and the fact that HotCat is only used for I guess 10 to 20 % of the categorisation work while mega-categorisers (such as G.dallorto and AnRo0002) hardly use it for their main work. --Foroa (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My QI cat[edit]

It is a cat of user images which I have every right to delete? Please do not undelete it again without discussing it with me. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 19:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Herby, but we are trying to get Special:WantedCategories empty and try to get all categories blue, including Category:Quality Images by Herby that contains 104 images. Categories should only be deleted when empty. --Foroa (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Jay Street - MetroTech (New York City Subway)[edit]

Can you please point me to a policy, guideline, or some other page on why en dashes shouldn't be used on commons? enwiki uses endashes often, and creates redirects from the hyphenated version (see en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes). Since the name of the station page on enwiki uses the endash, the corresponding category should also use it. Thanks! Train2104 (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons is not enwiki. Categories are not articles. As you can read in Commons:Category redirects suck, category redirects don't really work properly. In many wikipedias, category redirects are forbidden. But most of all, we need to converge to a world standard that is more uniform. As you can see in for example en:Category:Railway stations opened in 1919 notations with hyphens, hyphens and dashes and sometimes slashes (elsewhere) are mixed up, sometimes surrounded with spaces, sometimes not. Moreover, in many countries, people don't have short nor long dashes on their keyboard. The distinction between hyphens and the various dashes seems a real problem for many people as they have problems distinguishing them, especially in edit boxes. So we are facing the problem that new redundant categories are created all the time with all sorts of separator/spacing variations. People that categorise all the time need a clear and uniform system. I noticed that the emerging standard on Commons is clearly a hyphen surrounded by spaces. Because we are trying all the time to harmonize, we apply upcoming de facto standards or tendencies already in COM:DL. So I will introduce in the coming weeks an extension to the naming conventions to precise the use of hyphens, #, &, @, /, \ and other separators and punctuations in Commons category naming. --Foroa (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi! Talk to me. Why "Book design" but "Porcelain designs"? BTW, a porcelain design is a concrete design, but porcelain design is e.g. the process of porcelain design, so "Porcelain designs" may be a subcat of "porcelain design", containing for instance a cat for "Meissen Blaue Rispe". --LeastCommonAncestor (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mostly right. This is a problem we are facing often. Sculpturing/sculptures/sculptors, painting/paintings/painters, drawing/drawings/drawers, ... If we don't carefully select the names, those categories end up completely mixed up, why we changed sculpture to sculpturing which improved the situation a lot.
As I noticed that porcelain design was empty, and chances where great that you would first find images and subcats for porcelain designs, such as indeed "Meissen Blaue Rispe" after Category:Richard Riemerschmid, I set it in plural as it should be. More abstract categories tend to arrive later and are more rare (in general, you don't need a lot of tools or books for porcelain design I guess)
Concerning the process itself, to avoid confusing and to better follow the Commons naming conventions and style, we should call them "design of books", "design of porcelain" to avoid mix ups. --Foroa (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought about putting all the "Meissen Blaue Rispe" images into a subcat, but I'm still waiting for my AWB-ok.
Is there a good intro for Commons naming conventions and style? --LeastCommonAncestor (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no real good intro for Commons naming conventions and style. Problem is that only when a category fully develops that we need a real analytical naming to be scalable and expandable. So you can start with shoe, furniture, porcelain ... designers, but once you have tens of designers and several subcategories, this no longer works. Within one or two years, we will have hundreds of designer categories and then we run into problems, such as potentially for example "Italian cubistic furniture designers", "Interbellum fashion for women designers", "Limoges porcelain designers from Metz" ... So the sooner we get that in a more analytical naming format, the less renamings we have to do. --Foroa (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Flat categories in France by department[edit]

Hello Foroa. I've just noticed that adding Category:Categories of France by department or Category:Categories of France by region in a metacategory such as Category:Baptismal fonts in France by region is not necessary anymore due to the {{Metacat}}, which seems to fill the hidden category Category:Flat categories. Can you confirm this new feature to me ? (I've read the discussions here and archive). Jack ma (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This a a relatively new feature, but contested in Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Flat categories. The advantage is that it is automatic and maintenance free, provided that the categories are created with the right parameters in {{Metacat}}. But you might prefer for France a structured appproach such as category:categories of Italy. --Foroa (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I like this new feature (the autocategorize feature was added on September 11th to {{Metacat}}). But sorry, I'm just realizing that the metacat fills Category:Categories by department (flat list), and manually adding Category:Categories of France by department fills Category:Categories of France by department. So these are two competitive categories... So, for the time being, it's better to use BOTH the metacat and the category (e.g. Category:Architectural elements in France by department, where I revert my modif of yesterday). But I understand that this situation is not comfortable and I hope we'll come to a concensus... Jack ma (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
There are three major differences, the one aiming at worldwide maintenance, the other on helping maintaining French categories:
  1. Flat lists are filled up automatically
  2. Flat lists are ... flat, while categories of France can follow a certain hierarchy and contain only the top level categories, but there is no real rule, so used in a rather random fashion.
  3. Categories of France concern only ... France. --Foroa (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/12/Category:Delegates to the House of Representatives[edit]

A while back you commented on Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/12/Category:Delegates to the House of Representatives - I was wondering if you wanted to make any further comments in light of the discussion that has happened since then? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

After a category move...[edit]

...please update CommonsCat on Wikipedia categories that may point to it. Otherwise, it breaks CommonSense. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

With commons having 12000 new categories and 1500 categories moved per month, I guess that we need a new dynamic for that. Any suggestions ? --Foroa (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you me explain ?[edit]

Hi Foroa, how are you? Please, can you me explain this ? Now the names of the categories has been changed (so it's not so important my question), but I continue to not understand why my request was moved to the project page? Is this a new rule? Or was all my past requests wrong? Thank you for your answer. Saluti, --DenghiùComm (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Saluti. Looks completely normal to me: Your requests, as always, have been scheduled for execution. Problem is that the delinker is broken for the moment, so we are awaiting repair. --Foroa (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you very much for your answer. Happy Christmas to you! --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Category Lieu d'Art Contemporain Sigean France[edit]

Thanks for taking your time, espescially in the category Lieu d'Art Contemporain Sigean and the adjustment of category Piet Moget even if Moget is the creator of the Lieu d'art contemporain Sigean that's why I was thinking that this could be allright to add the category Best, --Jurgenborgers (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. I added the category and gave it the correct name as there are several "Lieu d'Art Contemporain". --Foroa (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Cities in Belgium[edit]

Hello Foroa - have produced a bit of a "discussion document" on this on my talk page, to see if we can get the special status of cities in Belgium aligned better with the Commons structure. Have a read at your leisure, and in the meantime, have a good Christmas. Ingolfson (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Naming ship categories[edit]

For your information: Started a discussion on Commons talk:Naming categories --Stunteltje (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy Christmas[edit]

For all of you .... --Foroa (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Prime minister ?[edit]

Why did you rename Category:Prime Minister of Australia to Prime minister ? Prime Minister (i...e. both caps) is correct, there is no such thing as a Prime minister. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Because, as one can see in en:Prime minister, like the kings, premiers and any other ministers, it is written without a capital, except when it concerns the addressing of one specific person, as can be seen in Category:Prime ministers by country. If you read en:Prime Minister of Australia carefully, prime minister is more often written without capitals than with capitals. --Foroa (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I refer to : it's a compound noun, where both parts are either capitalised or not ... hence the example Prime Minister (of Australia) is applicable to a section heading or Category name - the first word must be capitalised and theirefore also the second, and either Prime Minister or prime minister is correct within a sentence. To reiterate, there is no such thing in English as a Prime minister. Quoting existing incorrect usage is not relevant. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
In en:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Titles_of_people it is stated:
  • "Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore start with a capital letter only when followed by a person's name", which is not the case for prime ministers of Australia.
  • "In the case of a compound word such as "prime minister" or "chief executive officer", either all parts begin with a capital letter or none (except, obviously, at the beginning of a sentence)", which is the case here.
We are coherent with en:Prime minister and partly with the body of en:Prime Minister of Australia. see Category talk:Prime ministers too. --Foroa (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


Hee Foroa, ik heb Commons:Categories needing disambiguation maar eens aangemaakt naar aanleiding van het Geograph gebeuren. Wellicht is het ook handig om ergens een lijst van plaatsen bij te houden waar bewust eentje als meest belangrijke is aangewezen? Dus de Melbourne's van deze wereld zeg maar. Multichill (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Dat is een interessante lijst. Wat me op viel was dat er vrij veel categorieën met een specifieke naam een redirect hebben gekregen naar een minder specifieke naam. Bijvoorbeeld Category:Windsor, Berkshire naar Category:Windsor. In alle (duidelijke) gevallen heb ik er een 'NOTE' bij gedaan om duidelijk te maken dat er meer plaatsen zijn op deze aarde met dezelfde naam. Wouter (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Foroa heeft dit zo te zien ondertussen opgeruimd. Bedankt daarvoor Foroa! Ik heb nu ook Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph/Disambiguation problems aangemaakt om in kaart te brengen wat er bij Geograph boven komt drijven. Zie ook Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph#Disambiguation problems. Multichill (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Ik ben er inderdaad aan begonnen, en als ik wat tijd heb werk ik daar verder aan. Disambiguations maken is waarschijnlijk beter dan er eindeloos over te kletsen. --Foroa (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)