User talk:JMCC1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archivo 2007-2018 | 2019 |

Al-Hammamiya and Hemamieh are the the names of the Egyptian village. Hemamieh is a wrongly transliterated and outdated name. That's why I changed Hemamieh to a redirect. See also: Khouli, A. El- ; Kanawati, N.: The Old Kingdom tombs of El-Hammamiya. Sydney : Australian Centre for Egyptology, 1990. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @RolandUnger. OK. Thanks for your help. Organize it well, regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Pachomian Castle is the name of the abbot's residence in the monastery of Deir el-Muharraq. The monastery is nowadays surrounded by a huge enclosing wall with its two impressive entrance gates. Part of the monastery are several churches and an old keep with a sundial which was used as a defense tower in times of attacks. The Pachomian Castle is a modern building which was erected in 1910 at the time of the bishop and abbot Pachomius/Pakhomius (Bakhum, † 1928). The monastery was founded by Pachomius the Great (292–362) or one of his successors. More information are presented at the Wikivoyage article of Deir el-Muḥarraq. --RolandUnger (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claves de ordenación: apellidos, nombre[edit]

Hola, JMCC1. Solo comentar, por si no lo sabías, que agregar el nombre de pila, apellido y segundo apellido en Wikidata, hace en la práctica el mismo efecto que el default sort (es decir, que ordena la categoría según la clave APELLIDO SEGUNDOAPELLIDO, NOMBRE; además de hacer otras cosas como agregar automáticamente categorías de los apellidos y nombre). Un saludo. Strakhov (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historia[edit]

Hola, JMCC1. Te he deshecho esta edición (por los motivos explicados), aunque luego he visto que lo has hecho también con las de los siglos 18 y 19. ¿Por qué no con el 21? ¿Está fuera de la historia? Desde siempre he pensado que la calificación de historical es un poco subjetiva (casi diría que inapropiada), pero si alguien se propone agrupar "imágenes" «subjetivamente suficientemente» antiguas juntas pues adelante, pero no le veo beneficio a mezclar/enredar eso en el 'árbol' con las categorizaciones por fecha, mucho más ...objetivas. Claro, se puede crear Category:Historical images of Toledo, Spain in the 20th century y hacerla depender de Category:Toledo, Spain in the 20th century y así con todas. Ojalá que nadie lo haga, permíteme añadir (pues, en efecto, casi todos los archivos en Commons son imágenes). Un saludo. Strakhov (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Strakhov, tienes toda la razón. Un cordial saludo, --JMCC1 (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletions[edit]

Hello!

{{Bad name}} is only supposed to be used for two duplicate categories created independently of each other. When you move a category however, and want the original version deleted please tag it with {{SD|G2}} instead. I fixed Category:Photos from Egypt collected by Richard Polak. Happy editing :).Jonteemil (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bonfils?[edit]

Hi,

I see you added "Photographs by Félix Bonfils in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam" to Category:Reisalbum met foto's van Jeruzalem.

Are you sure this is correct? On the first page it says "Ferdinand Vester", ie https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fr._Vester,_Jerusalem (ie, The American Colony people),Huldra (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Huldra. F Vester & Co is a Religious organisation in Jerusalem, 1914-1920 (active) see britishmuseum
  • The photographs are from Bonfils (41 photographs), or attributed to Bonfils (4 photographs) "(toegeschreven aan)"
See information the Rijksmuseum:
  • Vervaardiger: fotograaf: Bonfils (photographer: Bonfils)
  • Datering: ca. 1867 - ca. 1895

Thanks for your notice, best regards --JMCC1 (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, Vester was an active photographer himself, and belonged to the American Colony, (same as the Matsons). (Vester was son-in-law of the founders of the American Colony). I cannot understand why an active photographer (=Vester) should use the pictures from another photographer (=Bonfils)? Could you give a link, please? Huldra (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look at the photographs, they have the Bonfils signature in the lower area. , etc. Best regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I see, thanks! Huldra (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorías por década, Generalife[edit]

Hola, JMCC1. Veo que has creado subcategorías temporales para archivos relacionados con el Generalife. El resultado es bastante vistoso con el siglo XIX, con el siglo XXI puede tener un pase porque al fin y al cabo hay tropecientas fotos... ¿pero no crees que podría omitirse la división en tres décadas del Generalife para el siglo XX? A fin de cuentas hay solo siete imágenes para todo el siglo (por el momento, a lo mejor luego empiezan a surgir a borbotones...). Como veas. Saludos. Strakhov (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Estaban mezcladas con las categorías de Alhambra. Ambas estarán relacionadas con Granada in the (17, 18, 19, 20 y 21) century. Existen decenas de pinturas, dibujos y grabados de estas magníficas construcciones (o "estructuras" (sic), como las denominan en otros idiomas). Cordiales saludos, --JMCC1 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Si me parece bien que las separes de la Alhambra si estuvieran mezcladas, pero ¿de veras crees que a día de hoy hay tanto material en Commons como para que merezca la pena subclasificar el siglo XX en décadas? Solo hay 4 subcategorías. En mi opinión bastaría (por el momento y mientras no aflore más material) con la categoría "Generalife en el siglo XX" (vaya, que el siglo veinte quede más como has dejado el diecinueve que como lo has hecho con el veintiuno). Categoría que, obviamente, colgará de "Category:Granada in the 20th century". Y las respectivas imágenes categorizadas en "Generalife del siglo XX por década" (1900s, 1910s, 1950 y 1990s) pasarlas a las categorías superiores de Granada por década. Strakhov (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Un poco de paciencia por favor. He empezado hace pocos días a separarlas de Alhambra. Para una edificación en continua restauración, es de gran ayuda para los redactores ver sus cambios en muros, nuevos arcos y cubiertas en el siglo XX, nuevos diseños de jardines, etc. Para agrupar las categorías, si fuera preciso, siempre hay tiempo. Es muy importante cambiar los nombres de muchas imágenes que los tienen incorrectos. Si me ayudas, estupendo. Gracias por tu interés en este tema, cordiales saludos --JMCC1 (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Si crees que vas a encontrar más... adelante. Paciencia toda la del mundo. Sigue con ello, no pasa nada, no obstaculizo más, mas sinceramente a mí, al menos con lo que hay ahora (y mucho más tendría que acumularse para que cambiara de opinión), me parece mucho más útil para el "consumidor de material multimedia" la categoría del siglo XIX (que se ven todas de un vistazo) que la del XX (que hay que ir cliqueando por década para encontrarse máximo cuatro fotos). En cualquier caso, a medio plazo, todo esto probablemente quede obsoleto con los datos estructurados. Un saludo. Strakhov (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories[edit]

Beste JMCC1, Je veranderde vandaag Category:Album Ver Huell, Rijkmuseum BI-1924-384 in Category:Album met 35 tekeningen van Alexander Ver Huell. Dat lijkt me om twee redenen niet de meest voor de hand liggende verandering: (1) categorie-indeling op Commons is grotendeels Engelstalig, dus er is een gerede kans dat dat later alsnog aangepast wordt, en (2) jouw omschrijving is minder informatief. Een meer informatieve omschrijving voor de albums van het Rijksmuseum zou volgens mij zijn: korte naam of omschrijving (incl. jaar), vermelding Rijksmuseum en nummer. Bij de "oude" naam kon je in één oogopslag ook zien dat het een Rijksmuseum-album was. Wellicht is de toevoeging "19th century" nog te overwegen. Koos je bewust voor Nederlandstalige categorienamen? Vysotsky (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beste @Vysotsky. Ten eerste feliciteer ik u met uw goede werk met het categoriseren van afbeeldingen uit het museum.
Ik heb gecategoriseerd door de naam van de afbeelding in de oorspronkelijke taal te kopiëren. Ik voeg hun vertaling meestal toe in het Engels en Spaans.
Als u een geschikter criterium voorstelt, wijzigen we dit.
Als je wilt dat ik de albumnaam Ver Huell, Rijkmuseum BI-1924-384 (of voor een meer geschikte) terugdraai, doe ik het in drie minuten.
Hoewel ik vind dat het classificatienummer van het museum (BI-1924-384) als beschrijvende tekst moet zijn, maar niet in de categorienaam. --JMCC1 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear JMCC1, Firstly, apologies for originally writing in Dutch. I falsely (and stupidly) assumed that you were from the Netherlands. Secondly, apologies for writing in English: your mother tongue is Spanish, but my Spanish is awful. Thirdly, thanks for your hard work (and beautiful images) in the last 14 years or so. Finally: thank you for your offer to change the category back again. If that would be easier, feel free to change over to Category:Album Alexander Ver Huell, Rijkmuseum BI-1924-384 Vysotsky (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beste @Vysotsky. OK, reversed. See: Category:Album Ver Huell, Rijkmuseum BI-1924-384, --JMCC1 (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Más apellidos[edit]

Hola, JMCC1. ¿Existe algún buen motivo para esto? Yo por el momento no lo veo y estoy en contra del (pseudo)traslado. Un saludo. Strakhov (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nombres:
Nombre de nacimiento: Luis Esteso y López de Haro
Nombre en VIAF y worldcat: Esteso y López de Haro, Luis
Nombre en el Resumen de la categorìa: Autor: Esteso y López de Haro, Luis
Nombre en las portadas: Luis Esteso
¿Propones que sea Luis Esteso el nombre de la categorìa? Saludos, --JMCC1 (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No sé lo que es "el resumen de la categoría". Si te refieres a la copia de la entradilla del Diccionario Biográfico Española de la Real Academia de la Historia que has colocado en la nueva categoría que has creado (y que no estaba en la que existía hasta ahora) pues... se trata de una transcripción de una obra que ahí consigna (al igual que las entradillas de los artículos de Wikipedia) el nombre completo de la persona (también esta obra lo hace en el título de sus entradas), práctica que no siguen sin embargo ni los títulos de artículos de Wikipedia (que usan el criterio del nombre más común) ni las categorías de Commons (que tienden, también, a usar la forma más habitual, basándose con frecuencia, para ahorrar tiempo y no repetir discusiones, en el título de los artículos de Wikipedia). No creo que exista ninguna contradicción entre que en uno de estos "resúmenes de categoría" (de los que no soy nada fan, pues creo que es escapan al objetivo de Commons, al constituir texto plano perdido en el seno de un repositorio multimedia y son sustituibles en gran medida por las infoboxes, con un mantenimiento menos costoso para la comunidad) se consigne el nombre completo (por posible utilidad práctica) y en la categoría la forma que se determine como canónica (de manera análoga a lo que se hace en es.wiki con la introducción [nombre completo] y el título [nombre común]).
No existiendo una cantidad apabullante de fuentes actuales que traten la vida de este señor (un artículo en La Verdad de Murcia), el título en Wikipedia en español es "Luis Esteso" (que debería seguir el criterio del nombre más común). La entrada en la BNE (que sigue el criterio, creo, de nombre más común y representativo, aunque no sé si "en general" o de las obras que tengan ellos del autor) es "Luis Esteso". El VIAF (que es el mismo que en Worldcat, que coincida no es significativo) pues difiere, sí, también la alemana. En búsquedas en Google el nombre más frecuente (si bien el uso del segundo apellido compuesto no es nulo, existen algunas obras que sí) parece ser Luis Esteso ([1]), nombre más frecuente en obras publicadas por este señor (entre ellas, todas las habidas en Commons en este momento) y nombre con el que, creo, se le refería contemporáneamente en la prensa de su época de forma habitual, en lugar de con la larga forma completa. Así que sí, propongo que "Luis Esteso" siga siendo el nombre de la categoría, por más común, más breve y más sencillo, y no existir ambigüedad con otras categorías. Un saludo. Strakhov (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Strakhov, por favor, borra la Category:Luis Esteso, y procedo al traslado. --JMCC1 (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He dejado todo como estaba antes, no hacía falta borrar. Si quieres puedes volver a poner la breve descripción biográfica con las fechas de nacimiento y muerte y tal en la categoría, aunque desde mi punto de vista (esto es más cosa mía) con la presencia de la infobox (o un enlace al artículo de Wikipedia) debería ser suficiente en este caso. Me he dado cuenta de que fui yo hace años quien trasladó el artículo de es.wiki al más sencillo Luis Esteso, así que me disculpo por no haber mencionado este detalle circular en la argumentación anterior. Un saludo. Strakhov (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gracias,--JMCC1 (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Felices fiestas[edit]

Te deseo a ti también felices fiestas, y un buen nuevo año, JMCC1. ¡A ver qué tal se da 2021...! Strakhov (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Persepolis[edit]

I hope you don't mind that I "destroyed" your categorization of Category:Persepolis. It's a city, so I categorized it as all other contemporary and ancient cities in Fars Province. Now categories of Persepolis will have city templates at top, infoboxes with various data (referenced inside), more chronological and functional cats... I believe, better than before. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok @Orijentolog. Thanks for your help, --JMCC1 (talk) 09:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. Anyway, the job is superficial at the moment (main categories), because my desire is that all related have proper infoboxes with many data, not only buildings but also artifacts. It will take time to fix all and harmonize naming. If you're doubtful of any detail represented in infoboxes, bear in mind that virtually all data is referenced inside (see for example Treasury). :) --Orijentolog (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just followed the same concept of categorization as with all other Iranian cities: buildings and culture are main cats, while architecture is a subcat of art, itself a subcat of culture. There are three good reasons why buildings are not just a subcat (if needed I can elaborate deeper, but it isn't discussion here). This concept differs from country to country, so you did not make a "mistake." I accept your argument about Gate of All Nations, so considering it's also a hall, I added cat Buildings in Persepolis. OK? :) --Orijentolog (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good solution, OK! --JMCC1 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Granada[edit]

Actually, my pictures from Category:2000 in Granada are from 2011, not 2000. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 15:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Superchilum, in Metadatos (down)
Título de la imagen (Image title) OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA ...
Fecha y hora de la generación de los datos (Date and time of data generation) 18:15 2 mar 2000
It's a mistake?
--JMCC1 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Changed to 2011, --JMCC1 (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pay attention to copyright
Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use content.

We do this because Commons is a shared media repository. Downstream wikis have different policies based on local laws. Uses that are acceptable under US law, for example, may not be acceptable in many other countries with more restrictive rules.

In addition, fair use is not compatible with our aim as a collection of freely distributable media files.

Therefore, Commons cannot legally rely on fair use provisions.

Non-free content that may be used with reference to fair use may be uploaded locally if your project allows this.

العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  فارسی  suomi  français  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  မြန်မာဘာသာ  Nederlands  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  русский  中文  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  বাংলা   +/−

--Anna (Cookie) (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use content.

We do this because Commons is a shared media repository. Downstream wikis have different policies based on local laws. Uses that are acceptable under US law, for example, may not be acceptable in many other countries with more restrictive rules.

In addition, fair use is not compatible with our aim as a collection of freely distributable media files.

Therefore, Commons cannot legally rely on fair use provisions.

Non-free content that may be used with reference to fair use may be uploaded locally if your project allows this.

العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  فارسی  suomi  français  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  မြန်မာဘာသာ  Nederlands  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  русский  中文  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  বাংলা   +/−

--Anna (Cookie) (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use content.

We do this because Commons is a shared media repository. Downstream wikis have different policies based on local laws. Uses that are acceptable under US law, for example, may not be acceptable in many other countries with more restrictive rules.

In addition, fair use is not compatible with our aim as a collection of freely distributable media files.

Therefore, Commons cannot legally rely on fair use provisions.

Non-free content that may be used with reference to fair use may be uploaded locally if your project allows this.

العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  فارسی  suomi  français  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  မြန်မာဘာသာ  Nederlands  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  русский  中文  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  বাংলা   +/−

--Anna (Cookie) (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Enlace a Cer.es[edit]

Hola JMCC1, gracias por añadir el enlace. Aunque no está de sobra, es una ardua labor añadirlo en todas las fotos del M.A.N. que subí, por lo que no voy a hacerlo. Te reitero las gracias. Un abrazo.

Buenas tardes, JMCC1: Considero injustificado el renombramiento que has hecho de Category:Torre dels Escipions por Category:Torre de los Escipiones. Creo que deberias devertir la edición. La denominación anterior también era correcta.--Isidre blanc (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hola Isidre blanc@. El nombre Torre de los Escipiones es más común, 33.000 resultados mientras que Torre dels Escipions solo tiene 17.600 resultados. Saludos, --JMCC1 (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apellidos[edit]

Hola JMCC1:

Si pones la estructura:

"DEFAULTSORT:Leon Marchante, Manuel de"
"Wikidata Infobox|defaultsort=no"

Con la segunda orden estás anulando la primera, lo que es irracional, por eso simplifico los parámetros dejando sólo: "Wikidata Infobox"

Por otro lado, los nombres propios son tal y como están registrados en las partidas de nacimiento, al menos en España. Otra cosa es que se usen apodos o denominaciones incorrectas. Por ejemplo: "Santiago Ramón y Cajal" en el ámbito anglosajón le denominan "Cajal", cuando es realmente su segundo apellido. Por eso hay que escribir y ordenar correctamente los nombres propios, salvo que se decida usar pseudónimos. Esto tiene fácil arreglo cuando se sabe utilizar el programa Wikidata. Por ejemplo: fíjate de todas las maneras que se puede escribir el nombre de "Manuel de León Marchante": https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6300423

Un cordial saludo: Raimundo Pastor (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Es justo al revés: Wikidata Infobox|defaultsort=no prioriza el formato de Defaultsort y anula las posibles variantes de apellidos en wikidata y evita que cientos de apellidos españoles del tipo "de xxxx" aparezcan incorrectamente en la letra D. Compruébalo. Un cordial saludo, --JMCC1 (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Louvre[edit]

Hello,

The website of the Louvre is not updated, specially for the new Egyptian rooms (333, 336 and 337). Pyb (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Pyb. In the Louvre, they move the antiques
Example: Oupouaout, Salle 336 - Le Nil, Vitrine 1. Dernière mise à jour le 14.07.2021. It's a mistake?
We should write Categories in review (in 333, 336 and 337). Best regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JMCC1: , by adding some images to Category:Het groote tafereel der dwaasheid (1720), I noticed you created Category:Het Groote Tafereel der Dwaasheid, 1720. Maybe these images belong in one category. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JMCC1 is back :)[edit]

Nice to see you're contributing again, I remember you've been passive for many months. In the meanwhile, I organized everything related to Architecture of Spain by century (no more mess), consider it as a "thanks" for your organizing Persepolis. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Orijentolog, thank you for you help. :) --JMCC1 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hate to revert people, especially you, but Naqsh-e Rustam was never a city (or town, or populated place). :) --Orijentolog (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thank you for you help.--JMCC1 (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nooo, a big THANK YOU for everything related to Achaemenid sites, again. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appreciation[edit]

Years ago, as I see from the files' edit histories, you categorized lots of photos of hieroglyphic text according to which hieroglyphs were in the photo. This has been very useful to me as I've been looking up photos of various hieroglyphs lately, and I wanted to express my appreciation for your helpful work. :) -sche (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alhambra[edit]

Hola, JMCC. Veo que has creado varias categorías de la Alhambra por fecha de fotografía (Category:Alhambra in the 2010s). Dos preguntas:

  • 1) ¿Por qué no has seguido la nomenclatura principal? Esto es, la categoría principal se llama Alhambra y todas las subcategorías se llaman "Alhambra...", sin embargo has nombrado estas categorías así: "The Alhambra". Entiendo que existe un municipio en la provincia de Ciudad Real también llamado así, Alhambra (Category:Alhambra (Ciudad Real)), pero hay muy poco material gráfico suyo y en cualquier caso eso no me parecería razón para cambiar la nomenclatura en estas categorías anuales del monumento granadino, sino en todo caso para proponer cambiar todas, incluyendo la principal.
  • 2) ¿Por qué usar la fórmula poco usual del "[Something] photographed in [date]? ¿No sería mejor aplicar la fórmula genérica para clasificar edificios, etc, por fecha, sin entrar en la distinción de si el medio es la fotografía o es otro? (esto es: Category:Alhambra in [date])? Por ejemplo: Category:Empire State Building in 2010, Category:Eiffel Tower in 2010, Category:Tower of London in 2010,...).

Un saludo. Strakhov (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hola @Strakhov. También veo mejor aplicar la fórmula genérica Alhambra in [año]. Solamente Alhambra, California tiene alguna entidad, pero muy poca. Las categorías superiores clasifican como Alhambra by year of photography y Buildings in the province of Granada photographed in ..., criterio menos afortunado que seguí. Resumiendo: cambio The Alhambra photographed in [año] por Alhambra in [año] cuando lo estimes oportuno. Un saludo, --JMCC1 (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirección de categoría[edit]

Hola, JMCC1. Te deshice aquí, básicamente porque creo que lo que hay que hacer a la hora de manejar categorías "duplicadas" es conservar la más antigua. Si por alguna razón crees que es mejor titular la categoría sin el segundo apellido, se puede trasladar (COM:RAC). Un saludo. Strakhov (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hola @Strakhov. En este caso, convendría trasladarlo a Esteban Anglada, pues se le denomina Anglada o Esteban Anglada en casi todas las referencias. Saludos --JMCC1 (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hola, JMCC1.
En primer lugar recordar que si no enlazas el nombre de usuario al que respondes en tu página de discusión, ya sea con una sintaxis del estilo [[User:Fulanito|Fulanito]] o mediante plantillas como {{Ping}} (limitándote en cambio a escribir una arroba delante de su nombre) a tu contertulio no le llega notificación y es en la práctica harto probable que no lea tu respuesta (como me ha pasado a mí... hasta este momento, con este hilo y el anterior).
En segundo lugar, te animo a que solicites el permiso de "File mover" aquí: Commons:Requests_for_rights#Filemover, que además de permite cambiar nombres de archivo también permite cambiar nombres de categoría. Creo que, habida cuenta de tu experiencia de más de tres lustros en el proyecto y tu prolífica labor de mantenimiento, podría serte útil a ti y serle útil a Wikimedia Commons.
Un saludo. Strakhov (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment Perdona, por lo que veo pareciera que se pueden trasladar categorías sin necesidad del permiso de "file mover". Así que retiro esa parte. Pero podrías solicitar el permiso igualmente para trasladar nombres de archivo. Strakhov (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gracias por tu ayuda. Saludos, --JMCC1 (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Factotum initial != initial[edit]

Hello, please note that a factotum initial means that the letter can easily be changed for another letter, because it is sitting inside a large white space inside the initial. So your recent moves are all wrong. F (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, Thanks for your help, --JMCC1 (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023[edit]

Te deseo también un buen 2023 ...y siguientes, JMCC1. Un abrazo. Strakhov (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hola JMCC1. Una consulta, en relación a tu edición en Category:Canary Islands in the 15th century, por casualidad no sabrías cómo hacer para que el recuadro del template countries of Africa se extienda todo el ancho de la página hasta el margen derecho como están los templates de autonomous communities of Spain y centuries in the Canary Islands? Yo lo he intentado pero no logro ver como se puede hacer. Un saludo, tyk (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intentaré ver si puedo solucionarlo. Un saludo, --JMCC1 (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, gracias, tyk (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aunque... Es aconsejable que antes lo propongas en su página de discusión. Ver (Nota: Esta plantilla se utiliza en muchas páginas. Con el fin de no colocar demasiada carga a los servidores, las ediciones deberán reducirse al mínimo. Por favor, antes de realizar algún cambio, debate los cambios en la página de discusión.) Y proponerlo a su creador. Evitará posibles conflictos. Un cordial saludo, --JMCC1 (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comparando con otros templates, los de Europa y Asia están así mientras que los de Oceania y América están como el de África. Igual hay algún motivo que se me escapa. Lo consultaré en el café cuando pueda. Un saludo, tyk (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category discussion warning

Photographs of Egypt in Leiden University Library has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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

Affected:


I am afraid but we have to delete these photos because we do not have permission from the artists that created the stage and costume designs. Yours sincerely, Gnom (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dividing centuries[edit]

Hi JMCC, I noticed that you have been changing the attributions of maps to centuries. I do know that the correct way is to attribute everything before the date 1801-01-01 to the 18th century, including everything that dates of 1800-12-31 and before; and that the 19th century only starts afterwards with the year 1801.
However, that is not how all our templates work here on commons. This doesn't stop with maps, we also have hundreds of thousands of books, paintings and photographs dating from some XX00 years. Furthermore, we also have decade-categories (Category:Spain in the 1800s) which include 1800 in the 1800s but exclude 1810. Instead, 1810 according to the templates, is part of the 1810s. Yes, that is inaccurate, but eminently practical when programming of templates,
What this all means is that in essence, 10% of all stuff sorted by date, is sorted in a way not adhering to the "correct" way you prefer, but according to a more casual understanding where centuries start with a 00 and end with a 99. I had initial headaches because of that, but then I switched the perspective: It is easier to implement and most people don't even understand the correct system. If everyone except for some archivist-nerds agrees that 1970 is part of the 1970s, then we have essentially a convention that here in Commons, we break centuries and decades at the year 0 instead of the year 1.
Of course, I may have missed something important: Can you point me to a discussion where this topic has already been adressed? How do you hope to proceed with correcting the century attributions? Do you know who will provide technical assistance to re-program all the templates of centuries and decades? I am very sceptical that what you are apparently trying, is achievable unless it is part of some larger effort. But if that is so, I will gladly help.

All my best regards, --Enyavar (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Enyavar. A good solution will be to include the text:
  • The first century begins on January 1, year 1 and ends on December 31, year 100. (In the first century category)
  • The second century begins on January 1... etc.

All my best regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That can educate people who read the texts, but doesn't solve any of the issues. First you need to introduce this text into each and every century category (and don't forget the decades, because the 110s now have to begin on January 111 instead of January 110), then second you need to manually recategorize each and every "miscategorized" file on Commons, and third you still need to solve the trouble with the templates that I pointed out.
So, with whom have you talked about it so far? I recognize you as being active here longer than me, which is why I asked about a consensus I might have missed. I couldn't find something obvious in the village pump? All the best, --Enyavar (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Summarizing:
  • the year 1900 will be in three categories: 19th century, 1900s, and year 1900.
  • the year 1901 will be in three categories: 20th century, 1900s, and year 1901.
All my best regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I asked at the village pump but got just a single response that "we on Commons" use the popular method and not the strict construction. Commons:Village_pump#How_do_we_sort_the_year_1900_in_categories_by_decade+century. You might want to respond there, too, I think. All my best wishes, Enyavar (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC) (PS: sorry for writing all this in English, I did not notice before that you are level en-1 and es-native. If you prefer to answer en Espagnol, I can translate myself.)Reply[reply]
OK. Thanks for your help. --JMCC1 (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Church of la Asunción, Cuevas de Velasco[edit]

Gracias por el aviso. Ya está hecho. Un saludo. Millars (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category discussion warning

Doorframes has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


JopkeB (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open![edit]

2022 Picture of the Year: Saint John Church of Sohrol in Iran.

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rodin[edit]

Para las esculturas de Rodin, creo que te diriges en la dirección equivocada. Por lo general, Rodin creó múltiples copias de cada escultura. Por ejemplo, para Category:Brother and Sister by Auguste Rodin, aunque la mayoría de las fotos son de la copia en Nueva York, uno es en Portland, Oregon. Sería razonable crear una subcategoría para la copia de Nueva York, pero no debemos convertir la categoría principal en algo específico para esa copia de la escultura. (Favor de desculpirme si hay errores en el español mío, soy anglohablante de nativo). - Jmabel ! talk 14:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hola Jmabel. He creado la categoría Cupid and Psyche MET 10.63.1. Aunque todas las imágenes actuales (de 1893) están en el MET y las denomina Cupid and Psyche. Gracias por tu ayuda y tu magnífico español. --JMCC1 (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disculpáme, no estaba referiendo a Category:Cupid and Psyche MET 10.63.1, sino a Category:Brother and Sister by Auguste Rodin. Un ejemplar es en Portland. - Jmabel ! talk 20:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Ver: Category:Brother and Sister MET 08.265. --JMCC1 (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]