User talk:Juiced lemon/Archive2007a

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

ARCHIVE 2007: My talk page on Revision as of 17:38, 30 June 2007.

Do not edit this page!




Deleted message[edit]

Hi, be careful with the history manipulation, you deleted one of my message.. - I restored. Dake 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Karlův most - renaming/moving categories[edit]

I would like to warn that you apllied three reverts in 24 hours, see history.

If you think that another name of category is better, please, write your reasons to talk page of that category, it means Category talk:Karlův most. As you can see, there are two users, that do *not* agree with renaming, but you are alone. So you are obliged to write reason. Maybe you are right, but I (still) do not see the reason, why new name of category should be better than old one. Users that disagree with renaming works with old categories, uploads pictures to these categories, sort them etc., but you only came and gave template move - you don't work with the category, your contribution to content is zero. You almost do not participate in discussion in talk pages.

I noticed that some other users don't like your behavior - you often acts aggressively and you ignores opinion of other members of community.

Please STOP aggressive renaming/moving categories. Please try to argue on talk pages when some other users disagree with your proposed solution. Please try to find consensus. --Ludek 08:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember you...[edit]

... shouldn't edit any change on Catalonian related things (French and Spanish) because of an unclosed arbitration because of content dispute. I give you two days to restore changes to the previous version before arbitration, in order to avoid more disruptions. You're adviced. --Joanot Martorell 11:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Altough you decided yourself in your own way not to recognize the arbitration started by NielsF, you've accepted already a third party opinion offered by pfctdalyse, and accepted also his claim not to edit any changes on those related things with Catalonia. If you want, you can to purpose for another new arbitration, but I'm still waiting you make undone the changes to the last previous version before the arbitration in two days. --Joanot Martorell 16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Churches .. Prague[edit]

We have categoriess "YYY of XXX Region" for all 14 regions of the Czech Republic (Prague being one of them). If you change Prague from "of" to "in", it doesn't fit into this scheme. --Miaow Miaow 19:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As for me, the "in" or "of" question isn't so important. If you wish to put it through, then do it, but completely (all files within Mountains, Rivers, Cities, Villages, Churches, Chapels, Castles etc.) and quickly. It is very uncomfortable to have images scattered through several categories with (or even without) different prepositions. You need a bot for it, because there are dozens categories and about thousand files involved within Czech Republic category only - too much work for a human being. Hoped to get all churches from overcowded Olomouc category tonight, but now postponed this plan. I'm going to do something with overcrowded Public transport, Praha category. --Miaow Miaow 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Good, To empty the Public transport is exactly what I'm going to do. Trams in Prague within Transport in Prague etc. Is the Prague Metro category (and other categories within Rapid transit in Europe) OK? --Miaow Miaow 21:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Record labels[edit]

Hi. Almost every image in Category:Record labels shows the paper label on an old gramophone record, and I suspect the few that don't are miscategorized. That's why I think having Category:Gramophone records as a parent label is appropriate. You removed it with the comment "a label is not a record". True enough, it is a portion of the record. I'm not quite sure I understand your objection, perhaps we need to adjust categories some how? I think we can work something out. Might a "Category:Record companies" be helpful? Other suggestions? Thank you, -- Infrogmation 16:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Men of France and the rest of them.[edit]

Bastique told me on IRC that you have a more intimate knowledge of the commons categories and that's why I ask you: is there any particular reason people are categorized as "men" and "women" in categories, like Category:Men of France, instead of doing the style of people classification we use on Bogdan 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one week.[edit]

You've been blocked by me for one week because to starting again a cross-edit war in Catalan related categories. You should discuss first any disappointing with disputed content. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell 10:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked Juiced lemon because it is obviously inappropriate for you to use your admin tools in dispute with this user, Martorell. It really reflects badly on you that you do this. If Juiced lemon's actions are worth blocking, then it will be very easy to find another admin who will agree with you and perform the block. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Macedon, Macedonia (Greece), Republic of Macedonia, Yugoslavia etc[edit]

I did some shorting out regarding the categorization of certain images especially in the "Category:Macedonia". The category was populated with images that should have been in the "category: Republic of Macedonia" and some of them (pre- 1992) also in the "Category: Yugoslavia" etc. I have redirected the said images in their respective categories. There is one image left associated with en:Macedonia (Greece) and the en: Macedonians (Greek). Clearly that image should be in the "Category: Greece" and possibly in a new "Category: Macedonia (Greece)", therefore I've decided to modify your move/rename request. I hope you don’t mind. The "Category: Rep. of Mac." was already there (thus making it easy to direct respective images there) so there was no need to rename it and move it to an the already present category. On the other hand I think that the "Category:Macedonia" should be renamed/moved to "Category: Macedonia (Greece)" which should be a subcategory of "Cat: Greece." Please, have a look at the Category_talk:Macedonia page and the rest of my contributions and tell me what you think. - Thomas C. 12:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mosques in Spain[edit]

Hello, you have deleted the Category: Mosques in Spain (or of Spain or whatever) from this two images:

Image:Cristo_de_la_Luz.jpg and Image:Granada san jose torre alminar.jpg.

The former is the mosque of Bab-Al-Mardun in Toledo, later transformed in the Hermitage of Cristo de la Luz. The latter is the tower of San José in Granada, a Caliphal minaret, later transformed in church tower.

Considering that even the Mosque of Cordoba is now a Christian Cathedral, denying the category to these constructions, built for the use of mosque is mistaking, unless you create a category called Former mosques in Spain to include them all. Until then, I put the categories back.

Yours sincerely,--Balbo 10:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again: this question is not about this image only, but about all the buildings with a use evolution through times. Therefore, if it is as you say:
  • Hagia Sophia shouldn´t be categorised as a church or as a mosque but only as a museum!
  • The Mezquita of Córdoba shouldn´t be categorised as a mosque but only as a cathedral!!
  • Louvre shouldn´t have the category Palaces, but only Museums, nd Musée d'Orsay shouldn´t be a train station....!!!!
Furthermore, Acropolis shouldn´t be categorised as a citadel, because it has not that use by now, but only an exposition of (superb) ruins!
I hope you see the absurd that way of categorising would reach to. If we only categorise by the modern use, no matter why and who constructed the historical building, a basic information about them is missing. Many of them are relevant to be in an encyclopedic project more for its former use and constructors than for the later transformations.

Cheers, --Balbo 11:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with you in this: If we make different categories by present use and past use for historical buildings, as Category: Former mosques Category: former palaces, or category: Former train stations, the categorisation would be more exact. It would make, though, the reseach more rambling, because, for example, when looking for images of Hagia Sophia, almost everybody would look for a church, or even for a mosque, but not for a museum. Until an official politics is defined in Commons about this, I find clearer to keep the categories of all the relevant uses of the history of the building.In the case of the Gare d'Orsay, (only one of the multiple examples of relevant uses for the history of the same building), as it is by now, the category Gare'Orsay is included in the category Musée d'Orsay, so that page has both categories: gare and museum. It is because a subtile, somehow artificial diference: the collections and sculptures and the building, but with your logic reasoning all the photos (not drawings of the construction of the Station and plans) should be included in the category Museum, because they are, by now, the photos of a museum and not of a train station. As you see, some apparently "contradictory" information can coexist in the same photo, because it refers to different stages in the life of the building. --Balbo 12:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

textlinks to en.wikipedia[edit]

I find textlinks to en.wikipedia not very useful. Interwikilinks ok, but link in the text are contraproductiv in the sense that new articles are not created covering the Argentine provinces. In addition: We are an international project not an English one. Please think about it. --ALE! ¿…? 21:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Department of the Interior of the United States[edit]

Hi Juiced lemon; are the following the correct names?

Are either of these correct?

Thanks, Wsiegmund 03:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the Commons:By location category scheme applies only when you make up a new title with a location name for classification purposes. Here, the topics is the name of an organization, and you can use the title of the matching English Wikipedia article as is en:United States Department of the Interior (here, you'll find some alternative names used for redirection pages). Even, en:United States Fish and Wildlife Service is a correct category name in Commons.
About waterfalls, I deal them as other landforms, and I use the preferred preposition of, since we can regard that landforms are irremovable. So, Category:Waterfalls of Washington is the correct name (for the state of Washington). --Juiced lemon 09:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the Commons:By location category scheme link and help. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)



Category:Temple of Castor and Pollux and Category:Temples of Dioscuri are NOT the same cats. The first is about one only roman temple, the other is for all temples dedicated to Dioscuri. So they must be separated. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an embarrassing point. We could create 2 cats, Greek temples of Dioscuri and Roman temples of Dioscuri? Or simply consider recategorizing Category:Greek temples: create a separate mother-cat Category:Temples of greek deities where to put the current Temples of Apollon/Artemis/Zeus/etc., since they do not only contain greek temples. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Also: why do you overcategorize the cat Gemini? If this is a Zodiacal constellation so it is a constellation. Why not putting Category:Astronomical objects and so on? This is forbidden. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 23:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons:By location category scheme[edit]

Please do not revert and remove the two proposed concepts on this page. Note that it is a proposal at this time, so stating both viewpoints is valid, irrespective of what gets used in the end. Discuss the issue on its talk page, it not clear what the community consensus is on this issue. If you remove either of the proposals without getting community approval on the talk page first, I will block you for a short period.--Nilfanion 12:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Category: South Tyrol[edit]

I started here a discussion on South Tyrol catecory name; maybe you're interested. --mac 09:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories - comuni of Italy[edit]

I would like to know your opinion here. Thanks, Dantadd 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)



Geneva is primarly a French speaking city, so I think that the name of the category should remain as Genève. Regards, Yann 19:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories by country-problem[edit]

Hi Juiced lemon,
was this re-cat[1] really intentional or just a typo? Because, now Category:Baroque buildings by country appears under C not B in Category:Categories by country. -- Túrelio 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As you seem to be strongly interested in Cats, I found that in several sub-cats of the Categories by country-tree there are IMHO redundant cat-pairs like for example: Category:Gardens of Belgium and Category:Gardens in Belgium; the same is true for Canada, China, Czech Republic and the UK. Is there any consensus about this? Should they (one of each pair) be proposed for deletion? -- Túrelio 09:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Les noms propres dans les noms de catégories sont choisis d'après les titres des articles correspondants du Wikipédia anglophone. Pour un nom de lieu, la (ou les) langue(s) parlée(s) par les éventuels habitants n'entrent pas en ligne de compte.

C'est justement ça que je conteste. Ça me semble totalement injustifié. Yann 10:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Permets moi d'être en désaccord sur ce raisonnement. Je suis d'un avis exactement contraire. Yann 22:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Juiced lemon; your thoughts are welcome at Category_talk:National_Park_Service. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning (later rescinded)[edit]

This edit [2] is vandalism. Do not "strike out" other editors' votes.--Mantanmoreland 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Also do not leave disruptive "warnings" on people's user pages. Assuming that the same rules apply in Wikipedia as they do here, it is perfectyl acceptable for new editors to vote on image deletion pages.--Mantanmoreland 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note the administrator's comments here [3]. My participation in the discussion -- it is not a vote -- is totally proper and your behavior has not been.--Mantanmoreland 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no reason to warn, discussing the matter civilly would've been a much better way to approach the issue. There was no vandalism here, just an error done in good faith. Yonatan talk 03:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yonatanh, you mean civil like this? [[4]]
  • The caption text is a deliberate distorsion of historic sources. So the creator made clearly this poor quality image for propaganda. On 2006, I found in Commons a Gibraltar map which showed the Rock as a Spanish territory (and it was used in numberous wikis instead of the normal map!). We must be watchful to such propaganda. --Juiced lemon 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If what you say is true, how do you explain the fact that published and highly credible WP:RS sources (cited above) plus both major opposing POV's including the pro-Palestinian Passia and the Israeli MFA publish the same map and captions found on this map? -Doright 16:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You are a liar; there is no such fact, and this is precisely the reason why I gave a DELETE opinion. --Juiced lemon 12:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yonatanh, your implication that the victims of Juiced lemon's incivility are to be blamed is reprehensible and might even appear to some as self-serving since you are personally involved in the matter. Also, you can not rescind a warning that you did not issue. Please revert your alteration of the editor's comment. -Doright 05:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not call other editors liars, even if you feel what they're doing is lying. Yonatan talk 05:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
In common language, you talk about somebody he is a liar, even grounds to a single lie. That doesn't mean he is constantly lying. If need be, I can comply with a different usage in Commons, and say that an editor is lying instead (about a fact - for me, the meaning is the same). --Juiced lemon 09:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't help anyone when you say someone else is lying, even if they are. You are more than welcome to say they are wrong, misleading or making an incorrect statement but calling them a liar isn't helpful and is uncivil. Yonatan talk 14:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Allright! I'll conform to Commons customs. Henceforth, I'll courteously say “you are misleading”. --Juiced lemon 14:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hate the sin, not the sinner as it says somewhere or another. I feel that "you are misleading" is better than "you are a liar", but why not try softening even more... "I think that statement isn't correct" is even better as it addresses the substantive issue of the statement instead of attacking the person, even politely. If there's a history, it's ok to acknowledge that "I think you tend to consistently make statements that I do not think are correct", for example. I hope that is of some help to you, all the best. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

São Paulo[edit]

Please, STOP what you are doing with São Paulo or I'll block you. Dantadd 23:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This was already discussed many times, I won't do it again. Do not undo other's work or you will be blocked. If you want to make your point, go to right place and do it, so other people can give opinions too. Dantadd 23:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Native Americans[edit]

Whatsa the reason for this revert: ? Kersti 17:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

about Category:Racecar drivers by country[edit]

Pleas let me put "Category:Motorsports by country" on "Category:Racecar drivers by country". Editing it so should be very convenient for viewers and editors.--Morio 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Balamand Monastery[edit]

Dear Juiced lemon, I have just noticed that you renamed a category, originally named Belmont Abbey, to Balamand Monastery (see [5]). There was apparently no discussion of this action, neither at the category or at my user discussion (I'm the one who set up the original category name and who uploaded all the images contained therein). I am wondering about three points:

  • What was your objective in renaming this category if Belmont Abbey is named Belmont Abbey in practically the whole of English literature concerning this monastery? I'll provide you two samples:
Lous J. Lekai, The Cistercians Ideals and Reality, Kent State University Press, p. 54:
The best known and most successful was Belmont, southeast of Tripoli in the mountains of Lebanon, populated in 1157 by monks of Morimond.
Andrew Jotischky, The Perfection of Solitude, The Pennsylvania State University Press, p. 58:
The first two houses--Belmont (founded in 1157), in the mountains of Lebanon southeast of Tripoli, [...]
  • Why didn't you try to ask me for comments?
  • Why were no links fixed? The Commons links from various Wikipedias point to the old category name. Likewise, the category links within the Commons were not fixed.

Kind regards, AFBorchert 09:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


As far as I can remember, I have requested, on december 2006, to move Category:Belmont Abbey to Category:Balamand Monastery. In Commons, custom is to use current names first, so there was a patent reason to move the media to a new category (see de:Kloster Balamand and en:Balamand Monastery).

Then, I didn't take care of this request, and four months later, other guys recategorized the images and deleted Category:Belmont Abbey: sufficient time to begin a discussion.

However, I don't approve the deletion of Category:Belmont Abbey, because it breaks the interwiki links: some people in Commons have the bad habit to delete categories after a move. So, if you request the undeletion of Category:Belmont Abbey, I'll support you (but the pictures must stay where they are). --Juiced lemon 10:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Juiced lemon, I took the freedom to move your response back to my question as I am confused by discussions which are spread over multiple pages. There seems to be a significant confusion regarding the names Belmont and Balamand. There was once a Cistercian abbey named Belmont Abbey whose site was later reused for a Greek Orthodox monastery. Its name, however, didn't change. However, there exists different variants. The French and the German prefer Balamand which is derived from the Arab version of Belmont. This transition, however, never took place in the English literature which continues to use Belmont. The English Wikipedia article en:Balamand Monastery was created by someone who saw my German article but who didn't knew it better. Hence it is wrong to conclude anything from the title of the English Wikipedia article.
And, I still fail to understand why nobody cared to contact me. A short notice or question is not much work and is elsewhere standard practice in the Wikipedia. This is particularly useful if those who want to perform such a move have apparently no knowledge about what they are going to rename. This is no team work and this simply breaks everything without providing any progress. Regards, --AFBorchert 11:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I undeleted the category page and added {{seecat}}. I have no opinion on the best name for the category. AFAIK we have category names that are equal to the article name on en.wp, if it exists. Siebrand 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. However, the move was fully justified. Balamand Monastery is the current name of the place, and we have to use it, since the pictures don't date of the fondation of the monastery. Notice that there is a Belmont Abbey in North Carolina, now . --Juiced lemon 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)



I've noticed that you deleted participation categories like Category:Maps of countries and category:Maps of North America at some dependencies. Please don't. All dependencies are listed in Maps of countries too. We might create a new category Category:Maps of dependencies and use that instead, but as long as we didn't do taht, please let these entities remain in the category Maps of countries. Compare: w:List of countries. Furthermore, I do not see why e.g. Maps of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon shouldn't be in Maps of North America. Thanks. Electionworld 07:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Take Five[edit]

Hi, you have reverted my changing to Category "Paul Desmond", but I'm absolut sure that the composer of "Take Five" [6] was Paul Desmond and not Dave Brubeck! dontworry 15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, look here: [7] dontworry 17:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a moment[edit]

Befor you undo my edits, please first give a reaction on my remark of some days ago. Electionworld 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with you completely. It is OK with deleting islands with only penguins as countries. But the Isle of Man or Sanit-Pierre and Miquelon have human inhabitants too. Please follow the w:List of countries at the English Wikipedia for what is a country and what not. That is a well argued list of countries. I will revert those deletions from this category of entities in that list. Electionworld 06:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

International borders[edit]

International borders are politics [8]? Dantadd 13:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The categories ("International borders of") are useful (I created some of them), but I would rather categorize them in "Geography of" than "Politics of", or maybe both, but usually borders are seen as a "location" matter than a political one. Dantadd 14:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Maps showing the history of countries[edit]

Hi. I agree with Electionworld that Category:Maps showing the history of countries should also be a subcategory of Category:Maps of countries. Maps and map categories can be in multiple categories. I categorize maps and map categories fairly frequently, and so I know some of the logic. But before adding the category back again I will wait for your response at Category talk:Maps showing the history of countries. I left a note at User talk:Electionworld also.--Timeshifter 13:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Counties in Georgia[edit]

Per your requested move of Category:Counties in Georgia, I moved it up one level so that its parent category is Counties of the United States. That is the proper place for it, along with all the counties of the other 48 states (Alaska is excepted). I don’t think you have to request a move when you see something wrong like that—just go ahead and do it. You will also notice that the correct name is “Counties in ...” All of the other states except Texas use in. I may change the Texas counties to in, but it’s a huge job—Texas has about 250 counties! Regarding the change of the name to Category:Counties in Georgia (U.S. state): Yes, technically you are correct, and it would be consistent with all of the Georgia categories. However, I am inclined to let it stand, because we don’t even know that the country of Georgia has counties to be confused with the state of Georgia. If you think they should be changed, however, go ahead and do it. (All 160 counties!) Correcting an error does not require a consensus. DanMS 05:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Ieper is een Dutch speaking municipality, with an official Dutch name. The name Ypres is French, there's no reason Wikicommons should use a French name for an official Dutch name. As far as I know, there's not reason to move this to some foreign language (Commons:Language_for_categories#Neutral). Moreover, when you "propose" a move, it would be nice to actually discuss it (as stated in the template), instead of just going ahead (that's not proposing something, that just doing it on your own and reverting it) --LimoWreck 11:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to make things clear: I'm not really opposed to Ypres as category name ;-) I don't think rashing and premature category moves, and fitting the proposals to a personal opinion is the right way to co-operate on wikipedia and on commons.

Category interwiki's vs article interwikis[edit]

Moreover, you don't seem to grasp the difference between articles and categories ? Belgian municipalities are linked through interwiki links with their corresponding french, dutch, english, categories, not their articles. Gallery articles are linked with the corresponding articles. --LimoWreck 12:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Maps: province vs country[edit]

And it seems you don't have any clue about the categorsation of the maps of Belgian either. Municipality maps are sorted as in the province (of inside a relevant subcategory if desired), not the country. Do you actually known anything about the country ? --LimoWreck 12:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Territorial divisions[edit]

I will react, both on the talk page and on the page itself. Personally, I do not see any reason to differ from the en.wikipedia.list. But I will explain that at the talk page soon. Electionworld 11:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Your statements about Belgium are quite hilarious I must say. Thanks for the quick laugh !! --LimoWreck 21:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Category move?[edit]

You have moved several images from Category:Military vessels/vehicles of Denmark to Category:Naval ships of Denmark. The Military vessels/vehicles of Denmark category was created, because Denmark is a small country, and hence has a small defence and thus breaking it into three categories seems like a bit of a overkill. May i ask you why you have changed categories? --Hebster 21:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:United States National Park Service[edit]

Hi Juiced lemon; your thoughts are welcome at Category_talk:United States National Park Service. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Markets in Egypt[edit]

If you're going to make categories for all of the Maghreb countries, you may just want to delete Category:Markets in North Africa, which was a stopgap measure so those images wouldn't receive both the cats for Africa and the Middle East. You may also want to put the Egypt cat into Category:Markets in the Middle East. - BanyanTree 07:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "Middle East" is an ambiguous term that normally includes at least Egypt and sometimes all of North Africa. Regardless, I'll put Category:Markets in North Africa up for deletion as being unnecessary now. - BanyanTree 09:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

There was no agreement yet not to consider dependencies as countries. Please stop your actions. Electionworld 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

But there is neither an agreement not to consider them as countries. So for the time being please follow wikipedia, which has a clear list. If you find a consensus, I will adjust. Electionworld 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

But that is exactly the problem. Sovereign state and countries are no synonyms. Therefore Wikipedia has both a w:list of countries and a w:List of sovereign states. As long as we talk about countries, we should follow the w:List of countries. Electionworld 06:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC) The definition in w:county doesn't exclude entities like Aruba, the Faroe Islands, Greenland etc. What to do with Abkhazia or Transnistria, Palestine or Sahara. What to do with Northern Cyprus or even Scotland. Electionworld 08:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC) It is good to have the discussion at the right place. That might be the proposed commons policy page. There I will continue the debate, but it will take some time and we will need more people to take part in the discussion. In the meantime, stop your actions. BTW Northern Cyprus is a non-recognized country, legally part of another sovereign state. Electionworld 11:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to go back[edit]

Hi Juiced Lemon. What are you doing? The categories I have deleted wasn't necessary to maintain. I have tried to make it more simple to find certain pictures so why make it harder for people to find ?? Hubertus 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Category:Maps of countries" to "Category:Maps by country"[edit]

At Category talk:Maps showing the history of countries, Juiced lemon wrote: "I think that this move would satisfy you. If you agree, please support my move request, so we'll both get the wanted structures more quickly."

I support changing the overall commons category name from "Category:Maps of countries" to "Category:Maps by country"

I agree with it because then the category name would match the name at English wikipedia:

This helps with the the commons link from the wikipedia category, too.

Juiced lemon, you do NOT need, though, to remove the old category name from images and subcategories. When the name is changed there will automatically be a category redirect.

Juiced lemon, you initially put the move request tag on the category page on May 25, 2007. See this diff.

I do not see any objections at Category talk:Maps of countries. How do we make the move? I do not see a move link at the top of Category:Maps of countries. --Timeshifter 17:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see the problem. You created "Category:Maps by country" without using a move. We need to ask wikimedia commons editors how to move the page. There is no need for bots. Moves/renaming is done easily on article pages. All links to the old article name redirect automatically to the new name of the article.

Category pages probably require asking admins first somewhere here at the commons.

I suggest you ask at Commons:Village pump. --Timeshifter 19:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And please keep Category:Maps by country empty so that admins can make the move/rename/redirect easily. --Timeshifter 19:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)‎

Deletion of Category[edit]

Be more careful with your reaction. It was not an abuse. I deleted the category Maps by country because I agree with the move. As I understood we need to delete the existing file before we can move. I put a note on the administrators noticeboard how to perform the move. BTW, I am an administrator. Electionworld 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Undoing my edits[edit]

Please stop undoing my edits to the sub-categories of Category:Awards I am currently trying to rationalise the categories as many sections are currently duplicated. In particularly I do not see why Category:Military decorations of the Soviet Union should be moved out of Category:Military decorations by country when that is clearly an appropriate category for it. If you persist I shall be forced to report your behaviour. Madmedea 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In future you might find you get a better reaction if you leave a talk message first rather than reverting a good faith edits - this is considered wiki best practice.Madmedea 11:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ordo Sanctus Silvestri Papæ[edit]

Hello Lemonjuice!

I have managed to regroup all the pictures in the category "Orders", there are some problems left to solve:

  • There are quitte a few military decorations, mostly orders of knighthood, in the various categories. Do you propose to have them tagged "Military decorations"?
  • The Order of Saint Silvester was wrongly categorised as a clerical order, it is however an order of merit. How should we tag it now?
  • Order of the Vatican?
  • Order of the Papacy?
  • Order of the Holy See? (sounds good to me but I am not a christian)
  • Papal order?

It would all be correct.

Then there is an order that I do not know, the blue brazilian cross. There was also a hoax in the category! Did you notice the barn-star?

Should we create a category "unidentified medals and crosses"? We could also ask people to submit them to the "Orders" page.

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:United States National Park Service[edit]

Hi Juiced lemon; I anticipate closing the discussion at Category talk:United States National Park Service in a couple of days. I'm assuming that since you haven't objected, that you concur with the proposed move. If that is not correct, please comment. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)



What was the need of this kind of change? The Neues Rathaus is an official building of the city of Munich, Germany; its name is German, it has to be respected. Do you intend to rename the whole buildings around the world with an approximate English name?—That would not be a very consensual idea for sure. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 22:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Je n'ai entamé de discussion car le cas m'a paru évident : entreprendrait-on de renommer Category:Hôtel de Ville de Paris en Category:Paris Town Hall ? — Bien sûr que non.
Donc pourquoi l'hôtel de ville de Munich, qui possède par ailleurs un nom bien établi en allemand, devrait se voir traduit en anglais ? Je ne trouve pas de réponse probante. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 22:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Les catégories de Commons Wikimedia sont en anglais, c'est la règle. L'anglais comprend des exonymes: pourquoi les anglais appellent-ils Paris “Paris” alors que les français appellent London “Londres” ? C'est juste une question d'usage. Pour le cas du Rathaus de München, le nom anglais m'a semblé bien établi; mais cela peut se discuter. Ce qui est incorrect, c'est de vider une catégorie pour la proposer à la suppression en prétendant un nom erroné, alors que son titre est parfaitement exact et conforme aux règles du projet. --Juiced lemon 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
La règle d'utilisation de l'anglais n'a pas été fixée de façon systématique et non circonstanciée. Commons reste par essence un projet multilingue, le respect des idiotismes doit primer sur tout autre impératif. Or contrairement aux noms de villes par exemple, tout nom d'institution nationale est un idiotisme, car il n'est fixé que dans et pour une seule langue (on exclut les Belges et les Suisses, ils trichent...). Que des usages étrangers soient plus ou moins établis parmi les étrangers n'y change rien, ces usages ne sont que des pis-aller sans valeur officielle. Le recours à la traduction forcée revient alors à créer une novlangue injurieuse dans son fonctionnement (elle accapare cela même qui ne lui appartient pas), spécieuse dans son résultat (Neues Rathaus est clair pour toute personne ayant un minimum de connaissance sur Munich, New Town Hall ne l'est que pour la partie d'entre eux qui est anglophone) et arbitraire dans ses usages (aucun nom d'institution française n'est traduit sur Commons par exemple, il ne manquerait plus qu'on s'amuse à traduire Category:Académie française sous prétexte que les anglophones utilisent couramment French Academy).
En conclusion : qu'un lapin soit un rabbit ou un chien un dog, cela vaut autre chose. Mais Neues Rathaus et Académie française n'ont pas d'entrée dans les dictionnaires multilingues ; et de fait, l'usage ne remplace pas la légitimité. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
“Projet multilingue” signifie seulement qu'il prend en compte l'existence de nombreuses langues, et certainement pas que différentes langues doivent se mélanger pour construire une sorte d'anti-esperanto que personne ne pourrait comprendre complètement. Ce projet se gère et se construit dans une seule langue : l'anglais : c'est une règle. Cela signifie que la connaissance d'une unique langue permet de naviguer dans la base de données et de contribuer à l'améliorer. “Rathaus” est un terme incompréhensible pour la plupart des anglophones, des francophones, et des internautes du monde entier. Entre la cohérence du projet, l'accessibilité à son contenu, et les états d'âmes de quelques uns, j'ai vite choisi. --Juiced lemon 21:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Il ne s'agit pas d'état d'âme. Neues Rathaus est un nom institutionnel ; pas New Town Hall. Category:Assemblée nationale est un nom institutionnel ; pas National assembly. Category:Museo del Prado est un nom institutionnel ; pas Prado Museum. Le cas est d'ailleurs particulièrement symptomatique : en effet, Neues Rathaus est une expression fossilisée comprise par tous, anglophones ou pas ; alors que New Town Hall a toutes les chances de n'être au mieux comprise que par un nombre beaucoup moins important de personnes : quelle avancée !
De plus tu lances des affirmations erronées sur le mode de l'argument d'autorité, ce qui est particulièrement malhonnête pour un administrateur : Commons:Language policy est très clair sur la politique de Commons en la matière. Il est parfaitement faux d'affirmer que « Ce projet se gère et se construit dans une seule langue : l'anglais : c'est une règle ». Est-ce à moi de t'apprendre cela ?
Les discussions autour de Commons:Language for categories et l'usage général partout constaté (que tu ne vas tout de même pas nier aussi j'espère) montrent clairement que le bon sens et le respect prévalent dans le nommage des catégories. Je ne trouve au contraire que de la rigidité dans ton attitude. Je note d'ailleurs que tu n'as même pas renommé Category:Académie française, tes propos ne sont donc pas en rapport avec tes actes.
Merci donc de réviser ta position et de reconnaître ton erreur : je n'ai pas proposé le renommage de Category:City and town halls en Category:Rathause, mais celui de Category:New Town Hall, Munich en Category:Neues Rathaus, Munich. C'est très différent et cela rentre parfaitement dans le cadre de Commons, ne t'en déplaise. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 22:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
La règle étant Categories are in English, je me moque bien des noms institutionnels pour le nommage des catégories, sauf si ces noms sont anglais, ou utilisés par les anglophones. L'objectif évident de cette règle étant de permettre à tout anglophone de naviguer aisément dans le réseau des catégories, et tout particulièrement dans la structure “Topics”.
Par contre, les noms des pages de galeries, qu'ils soient institutionnels ou pas, peuvent être dans le language des autochtones. Bien entendu, ces pages au titre généralement incompréhensible seront de préférence rattachées à une unique catégorie (du même sujet) correctement nommée en anglais (pas la peine de disséminer le charabia dans toute la base de données de Commons).
Enfin, préciser et faire appliquer des principes généraux n'implique pas de s'intéresser personnellement à chaque cas individuel. Je me contente donc de traiter les anomalies que je détecte, et tout particulièrement celles qui risquent d'influer sur le comportement de la collectivité. --Juiced lemon 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Voilà qui est plus clair : tu es personnellement opposé au multi-linguisme sur Commons et tu ne t'en caches même pas vu le mépris de ton propos (bien sûr, Neues Rathaus est du « charabia »).
Je vais donc demander un contre-avis à un autre administrateur. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 18:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Je ne suis pas méprisant, mais réaliste. Ce que nous écrivons est du charabia pour la plupart des anglophones, au même titre que Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин, الكعبة المشرفة, ou ประเทศไทย. Pourtant, tout cela est bien connu, et ce n'est pas du chinois, que nous n'aurions aucune raison de refuser si nous acceptons les noms locaux de certains pays dont la langue nous paraîtrait plus lisible que d'autres. --Juiced lemon 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Justement si, nous avons alors une raison qui est l'accessibilité. Tout contributeur sur Commons est censé pouvoir déchiffrer l'alphabet latin (sinon il est presque impossible de contribuer). En revanche beaucoup moins peuvent déchiffrer le cyrillique ou le grec, encore beaucoup moins l'arabe, le chinois, etc. Finalement, le déchiffrement de l'alphabet latin est le seul prérequis véritable de Commons ; il est donc pertinent de se poser la question de l'utilisation des caractères non latins dans les titres, quelle que soit la réponse qu'on décide de lui donner. Voir par exemple Commons:WikiProject Museums (phase alpha), section du nommage des musées.
Mais ce n'est pas le point qui nous occupe : toute personne capable de déchiffrer l'anglais peut déchiffrer l'allemand, il n'y a aucun avantage d'accessibilité. Et ce qui importe dans le Neues Rathaus n'est pas que ce soit le « Nouvel Hôtel de ville » de Munich, mais bien que ça soit le Neues Rathaus, tout comme la Königsplatz (voir catégorie) n'est pas la « Place du Roi » et que l'Englische Garten (voir catégorie) n'est pas un « jardin anglais ».
Le réalisme en la matière, c'est la cohérence (inexistante aujourd'hui) et le pragmatisme. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting User:Bibi_Saint-Pol until you have a discussion with him/her !![edit]

Waiting until people go to bed, and then reverting their HOURS of hard work is NOT the way to work on a community project like wikicommons/wikipedia. Please do some usefull work first, and wait until tomorrow until Bibi Saint-Paul returns to have a discussion about his work ! --LimoWreck 22:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Categories by country reverts[edit]

.. is one of the main cats, dont do this - Gothic art is quite special - greetings --W!B: 11:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

oh I see, You did some more - why? did I make somthing wrong? --W!B: 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Look at this section. At the moment, this page is only a draft, but in my opinion, these outlined principles are largely apply in Commons.

Normally, we should find every Category:Foo by country in Category:Categories by country. It would help every body who go to use or to create a category in this family. And I still want to prevent the creation of duplicate structures. --Juiced lemon 01:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

ah I understand the problem: in fact, world is big, an there are a lot of foos in it - would you really like to have some thousand entities sorted be country all in that category? you find all easily by typing "by country" into the search box and mark only "Category":
well this is of course a point that should be discussed onae top-lever help page - but, why did You revert without any talking about that - you saw I was working on it, if You left me a short massage we could have discussed that: I won't start any edit war, as Yours and mine contribs will show the promlematic cases
but would You please like to discuss that specific problem on Commons talk:CommonsProject Architecture, as I was working on the main structure of architeture - I'm shure, we'll find an consensus there, which parts of the tree should be sorted toplevel, an which not: the problem of your reverts is, you cant never ever find those low-level-cats browsing through architecture as an theme, You ripped the theme apart by sorting some minor details toplevel
generally speaking, I think You are wrong: we well have some million pictures to handle and sort, it will for shure get hard to find them whatever we do: but Your modell will lead to unhandlable top-level-categories (we had that on early stages, thats why we started building trees: categories with some hundreds of images). I saw You worked on the Commons:Categories#Why is over-categorization a problem section, which describes that. I think, what causes Your problem (one do not find images in category-structures he/she is not expert in) is mainy a lack over overview-articles guiding through the theme: I will do one for Portals (stylistics) as an example to You, You will look on it and tell me, if that will be a method we could propagate - is that an offer You could live with? till than maybe we stop that categorizing project, both You and me, to get no horrible mess in it.. greeting (an excuse my english, my french is worse) --W!B: 02:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Coarse woody debris[edit]

Thanks for reactivating this category I shut down. With the new images it makes sense now. Greetings --Ies 18:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would find some debris to put in this category. --Juiced lemon 20:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete template[edit]

Do not remove delete template from articles, thanks. Feel free to rise your objections on the discussion page. -- Cat chi? 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

“Transport” is the standard term in Commons. Stop immediatly your edits regarding these categories. --Juiced lemon 15:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I am opening that to discussion. Do not remove the delete template even if you disagree with it. Make your case at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Transport instead. I will remove the template myself if that is closed as a keep. I do not intend to close it myself. -- Cat chi? 16:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This is your final warning, do not remove the delete template, if you continue to do this you may be blocked if not by me then by someone else. Thanks. -- Cat chi? 16:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You are disrupting Wikipedia Commons. There is no need to add delete templates in hundreds of category pages to reopen a former discussion. --Juiced lemon 16:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not disrupting anything. I am letting everyone know that there is a discussion. That is the very point of the delete template. None of the categories will be deleted unless the discussion concludes that way. -- Cat chi? 16:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I read "You are disrupting Wikipedia Commons" as an uncivil comment.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Juiced lemon, who are you to be giving orders to an Administrator like that? Shame on you!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Food -> Cuisine[edit]


I am inclined to agree with you. Would you like me to make the necessary moves? -- Cat chi? 11:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposal. However, I should prefer to wait some period of time in order to let other users to give their opinion about the move. --Juiced lemon 11:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Please spell "Cuisine" correctly.  :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi, please respond to this topic, which I wrote. I hope we can work something out that is agreeable to everyone. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You said, In a situation like this, I am embarrassed to communicate. I am not sure what this situation was. If there are common situations where there is a problem (or the start of a problem), maybe we could develop "template" responses for you to use? Figuring out a way to say something is definitely better than just not saying anything (which people will perceive as you ignoring them!). --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a template would help, but only if it refers to a policy. Are the Cook Islands a country? frankly, I don't know, but when I categorize Cooks Islands items, I need an answer, so I provide an answer. --Juiced lemon 15:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Passage de cervidés[edit]


Deer est donc invariable en anglais ? Dans le même domaine j'ai demandé le déplacement de Category:Fish in art ou Category:Fish, mais là, je suis bien persuadé qu'on dit fishes... Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 18:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Call to arms[edit]

Hi Juiced lemon. I write to you and all other users listed on the Welcome log helpers list, except for EugeneZelenko this Call to arms. The reason for it is that I have seen very little activity on the project by you. Because of this we have most probably failed to check the contributions of thousands of new users and have not been able to inform them of the practices on Wikimedia Commons in a timely fashion, causing more work for us and the contributor later in the process.

I would like to urge you to make a habit of checking at least 10 or so new user's contributions from the Commons:Welcome log each day you are active here. We welcome about 200 new users with contributions each day and we currently have 19 users on the helpers list. You can find links to some helpful scripts on the welcome log page, that are likely to make your life a lot easier. If there are no users to be checked that have been welcomed today, please attend to a previous log. Thank you for your renewed attention. Cheers! Siebrand 12:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Israel category[edit]

Please see this diff

What scheme? I know of no scheme to remove relevant categories. Is not Israel in the Middle East?

Concerning Category:Old maps of Israel. It belongs in Category:Old maps of the Middle East.

I hope you are not thinking of eliminating Category:Old maps of the Middle East.

It is the corollary category to Category:Maps of the Middle East. It also is relevant to Category:History of the Middle East and Category:Middle East. --Timeshifter 12:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Maps by subcontinent[edit]

Why are there 2 categories with similar names:

I will go and see what wikipedia is doing. --Timeshifter 11:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a category name with "subcontinent" in it. See:

So on the commons I suggest using Category:Maps by subcontinent and redirecting and/or bot-moving everything to it. From the looks of your recent edits I think that may be what you are planning anyway. We seem to have some of the same maps on our watchlists. --Timeshifter 12:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that these categories have not definite subjects which can be understood by Commons users. And the definitions of the English Wikipedia article subcontinent don't help.
Contents of Category:Subcontinental maps is miscategorized, and should be moved in other categories. Possible destination categories could be United Nations regions, as defined by the map in Commons:Territorial division of the World#Continents of the World. In this case, “subcontinent” could be a possible name for such regions.
My first objective is to categorize any territory according to the 7-continents model (assuming there is a consensus on this model). So, I remove unnecessary categorization in transcontinental regions. I don't yet know if we really need continent subdivisions. --Juiced lemon 14:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Yes, after looking the word up, I see that you are correct. "Subcontinent" is not well-defined:

I agree with you that the maps in Category:Subcontinental maps are miscategorized. I now think we can eliminate both the subcontinent categories. There is no need for them. There are already regional map categories that work fine. We can move all the uncategorized maps to Category:Maps for categorization later.

Maps can be categorized in both regional and continent categories. See:

See also Scandinavia, w:Scandinavia, w:Indian subcontinent, Central America, w:Central America, Category:Middle Eastern countries, w:Middle East, etc.. --Timeshifter 15:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There are not any maps of the Middle East in Category:Subcontinental maps. These are maps of the Arab world, a cultural/political region. The region of Middle East is an indefinite and transcontinental region, so it should not be used to categorize other territories: such categorization is non-neutral. --Juiced lemon 15:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should create this: Category:Maps of the Arab world. See the next talk section for my reply about Middle East maps. --Timeshifter 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Maps of the Middle East[edit]

Please see this diff.

Please stop removing Category:Maps of the Middle East from maps. Regional map categories are very useful and are found on both the commons and wikipedia. See w:Category:Maps of the Middle East. The map categories match up with the main articles about the regions. See Category:Middle Eastern countries, w:Middle East. --Timeshifter 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't reverse the role. The English Wikipedia is a reference for encyclopedic issues, not for the classification of media files, which is Commons Wikimedia domain.
Category:Maps of the Middle East is a category for “Maps of the Middle East”, but not for “Maps of anything in the Middle East” because the Middle East region is not an acceptable region according to Commons classification system. --Juiced lemon 16:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Says who? It is my understanding that the commons uses the names decided on at English wikipedia. In order to avoid repeating all the naming battles already done on English wikipedia. I, and others, used the countries listed in w:Middle East for classification purposes. Category:Maps of the Middle East has been around a long time. See the history of it:
You reverted many of my edits without discussing it with me first. I will report you to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems if this keeps up. It seems that you have been reported there before. --Timeshifter 17:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I have already discussed with you. I have explained why Middle East region is inappropriate to categorize current territories. --Juiced lemon 17:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of regions in the World, which can be climatic, cultural, economic, geographic, geostrategic, historical, political, statistical, etc, and we cannot use all of them to categorize territories, because it would lead to a terrible mess in the topics structure.

So, when we categorize according to the location, we have to select some areas to build a hierarchic structure. These areas are continents (7 continents-model) and subdivisions of continents.

The subdivisions of continents are not yet specified, but Middle East, as a transcontinental region, CANNOT be a subdivision of continent, and therefore CANNOT be used to categorize territories (substructures included). --Juiced lemon 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved your above comment from my talk page to here. Please reply here. I have this talk page watchlisted, and it is easier to keep the discussion in one place.
You seem to be ignoring what I am writing. Category:Maps of the Middle East has been around here a long time. You don't w:WP:OWN this site. It seems that you have many problems working with others here, and that you make up your own rules at times. You are making the issues way too complicated. It is a simple geographic region.
Also, categories do not need to be hierarchal. Look it up in the category guidelines. --Timeshifter 18:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Categories don't need to be hierarchical, but places are categorized grounds to a hierarchical structure. This structure is built according to CURRENT subdivisions of the World, therefore not the Third Reich, not Occitania, not Middle East.
In Commons, we classify media files in order to help readers to find them. We don't expect to learn something from classification, because we assume that the users who want to illustrate encyclopedic articles know their subject.
If you categorize Category:Maps of Yemen in Category:Maps of the Middle East, you embarrass the browsing through the hierarchical structure, and you confuse the internaut.
Similarly, such edit leads to clutter up the added category. You could add the category Category:Maps of the world as well, that would not be less sound. --Juiced lemon 18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Please see these longstanding commons categories:

All of them are CURRENT subdivisions of the world, and have been around a long time. For more info see

Image:GulfOfAden1860.jpg belongs in Category:Old maps of the Middle East because it is an old map made over 70 years ago, and it shows part of Saudi Arabia. I have been categorizing maps on both wikipedia and the commons for awhile now. I understand the map categorization system very well.--Timeshifter 06:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

subdivide To divide a part or parts of into smaller parts. (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000)
Middle East, Scandinavia, and Central America are regions of the World, but Middle East and Scandinavia are not the result of subdividing the World in smaller parts, and therefore are not subdivisions.
We can classify species in various ways, but Wikispecies develops an unique hierarchical system. Similarly, Commons have to concentrate on an unique system of World division.
Regions which are out of the system can still have categories, as for any encyclopedic subject, but developing a large substructure from these categories is inappropriate. --Juiced lemon 07:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I have many category help and guideline pages bookmarked on both the commons and wikipedia. From w:Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories do not form a tree (emphasis added):
Categories do not form a tree
w:Image:Category-diagram.png Wikipedia's category system. Definitely not a tree structure.
Each Wikipedia article can appear in more than one category, and each category can appear in more than one parent category. Multiple categorization schemes co-exist simultaneously. In other words, categories do not form a strict hierarchy or w:tree structure, but a more general w:directed acyclic graph (or close to it; see below).
Nevertheless, parts of the category graph will be tree-like, and it may be convenient to think of parts of the category graph as being like multiple overlapping trees. When applying the guidelines above, consider each tree to be independent of the overlapping trees. A person browsing through a hierarchy should find every article that belongs in that hierarchy. This can lead to a good deal of debate as to what the hierarchies actually are. To clarify the structure of the hierarchy and help people browse through it, you can add a classification to each category. For more about this, see w:Wikipedia:Classification.
The commons and wikipedia do not base their categories on strict hierarchies like those used for species. --Timeshifter 07:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
We are talking about categorization according to the location, and not about categorization in general. More, classifying media files is not comparable to classifying articles. Therefore, many Wikipedia documents about categorization are irrelevant for Commons Wikimedia project. --Juiced lemon 08:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect. It applies to all categorization. You don't get to apply your own special rules to wikimedia and wikipedia. This may be why you are having so many problems at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. --Timeshifter 09:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
These are not my own special rules. I formalize existing custom rules, and for this purpose, some standardization is necessary. The draft Commons:Territorial division of the World is open to discussion. If you don't want to comply with any rule, you'll have many problems. --Juiced lemon 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It is you who are not complying with the wikipedia and wikimedia guidelines and policies. As you said, the page you refer to is a draft, not a guideline. And it does not say anything at all about multi-nation regions. You do not get to "formalize existing custom rules." You do not w:WP:OWN this site. As noted by the many comments concerning you at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems.--Timeshifter 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You are talking in my page, so stop these ridiculous and non-constructive accusations.
Commons:Territorial division of the World clearly describes a division of the World according to the 7 continents-model. :::::::Our discussion regards the Principles section. So, i you want some transcontinental regions with complete substructure, state your proposal in the talk page, since there are many transcontinental regions in the World (like Category:Latin America or Category:Roman Empire). If we don't want to mess up the topics structure, we cannot let users develop any existing region. --Juiced lemon 12:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The Commons:Territorial division of the World#Principles section of the draft page refers to geographical regions within countries. Not multi-nation geographical regions. You talk about regions such as Category:Roman Empire and don't bother to find out that there ARE map categories for old empires. See: Category:Maps of empires. There are many map subcategories there. See also: Category:Locator maps for provinces of the Roman Empire and Atlas of the Roman Empire. I have much experience with categorizing maps. That is how I know these facts. I don't have to ask your permission to add maps to longstanding, existing map categories such as Category:Maps of the Middle East. If you want to delete them, then it is you who needs to ask at Category talk:Maps, and you need to get consensus first before trying to remove maps and subcategories from those existing map categories as you have been doing. --Timeshifter 15:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Maps of the Inca Empire and other similar categories in Category:Maps of empires are not for categories regarding current countries.

As I previously stated, we can have categories maching any encyclopedic subject, and that concerns also transcontinental regions. When you have too much media files, you can still add subcategories in order to classify these files. So, you can build substructures for any transcontinental region.

So, Wikipedia users will find specific files in order to illustrate articles about a given transcontinental region. Categorizing other areas, like countries, is useless, since countries can be easily found according to a hierarchic structure following the 7 continents-model. It's not only useless, but harmful to contribute in turning a forthcoming structure into an inextricable web.

Contrary to what you claim, Wikipedia Commons don't give you the right to categorize anything in any category page. When you add a category to a page, you should be able to explain why. I suggested you to justify the categorization of areas in transcontinental regions in the Commons:Territorial division of the World talk page. If you cannot or don't want to do it, there will be a simple conclusion: you will not be allowed to do unjustifiable things, like putting a total mess in the topics structure. --Juiced lemon 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. You don't w:WP:OWN wikimedia or wikipedia. Many people have told you this in so many words already at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Your condescending attitude towards me and others is rude and uncalled for. Especially since you don't seem to know of some of the map categories until I point them out to you.
You will be blocked if you continue (as you did today) to remove maps from categories you don't personally like. No one has to get your permission to do anything. You are just one person. Wikipedia and wikimedia operate by a rough consensus. We are not ruled by Juiced lemon.
Your comments are contradictory. Look at your last comments for example. You cite draft pages, and then when I point out the flaws in your reasoning, you ignore my comments. I have pointed out current regional map categories on both the commons and wikipedia. They are not an inextricable web to anybody but you it seems. You seem to be in a very small minority. Just look at the comments concerning you at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. -
I say back to you what you said to me: "you will not be allowed to do unjustifiable things". You could be blocked or even banned if you continue this tendentious editing. --Timeshifter 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Here are even more map categories. Look at the regional and chronological map subcategories of this map category:
Category:Maps of the history of Europe
And here are more longstanding, current regional map categories:
Category:Maps of the Balkans
Category:Maps of the European Union--Timeshifter 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you stop your threats and think? You don't own Wikipmedia Commons neither. I have justified my actions, but you are unable to justify yours. Why do you want to add irrelevant categories to Middle East categories? To exert your nuisance power? --Juiced lemon 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
They are not irrelevant. They are map categories for the nations in the Middle East. Maybe you think the Middle East is irrelevant?
"Nuisance"? I do not appreciate your incivility. Please see w:WP:AGF and w:WP:CIVIL. I have justified my actions by numerous longstanding regional map precedents on both wikipedia and the commons. I also refer to exact quotes from wikipedia and commons guidelines. You have yet to come up with a single guideline quote that justifies your actions. I refuted the one draft section you mentioned. It did not apply. Here are some more regional, multi-nation map categories:
Category:Maps of European regions
Category:Maps of Eastern Europe --Timeshifter 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your tone, if you want to know it.
Map categories for the countries in the Middle East are irrelevant in Middle East categories because you will not find any map of the Middle East in these categories. Except when a map is already categorized in Category:Maps of the Middle East.
What is the problem with Category:Maps of Eastern Europe? It has no subcategories at the moment.
There are no valid precedents in an incoherent system. That's why we work with schemes. If you cannot propose a scheme justifying your peculiar categorizations, I'll logically conclude that you are just bored to do not exert your will. --Juiced lemon 23:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't require a rocket scientist to go along with regional map categories. Even continental map categories are just larger regional map categories. You obviously don't understand wikipedia and wikimedia category systems. Just as there are country subcategories in the continent map categories, there are country subcategories in other regional map categories. Such as for the Balkans, the Middle East, Scandinavia, Empires, etc.. This doesn't take a genius to figure it out. --Timeshifter 00:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't obviously understand the categorization system in Commons. That's why you are unable to develop a scheme in order to categorize regions properly. --Juiced lemon 00:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The Balkans, the Middle East, Scandinavia, Latin America, Central America, Eastern Europe, etc.. are all common regional names. All of them have maps. You seem to be the only person commenting that does not to know this. Regional map categories were on both wikipedia and wikimedia commons long before the draft proposal you keep referring to. And that draft proposal does not cover many things. Why.... Because it is a draft proposal, and not a guideline yet. You don't get to delete stuff just because you don't like the Middle East, or because a draft proposal doesn't cover it. Categorization is covered by EXISTING guidelines and policies. --Timeshifter 00:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Old maps of the Middle East[edit]

You are removing categories from this longstanding, commons map category, too. Today you removed these categories from it:

Are not all of the above nations and regions part of the Middle East? The Ottoman Empire extended into the Middle East. --Timeshifter 23:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire extended into Europe, and yet Category:Old maps of the Ottoman Empire is not categorized in Category:Old maps of Austria. Because categorization is a way to easy the browsing in the database, not a way to swamp the internaut with a mass of inintelligible informations. --Juiced lemon 23:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems to only be unintelligible to you. Is English your native language? If not, then that could explain a hell of a lot of the problems here. You just don't seem to understand how common these regional names are such as the Balkans, the Middle East, Scandinavia, Latin America, Central America, Eastern Europe, etc..
Category:Old maps of the Ottoman Empire would not be classified under Category:Old maps of Austria. That would be dumb. It would make more sense to classify it under Category:Old maps of the Middle East and Category:Old maps of Europe. --Timeshifter 00:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No. It's inconsistent. Europe is a continent in the 7 continent-model, Middle East is not. So it makes sense to classify under Category:Old maps of Africa, Category:Old maps of Asia and Category:Old maps of Europe (you forget pieces of the Empire). --Juiced lemon 00:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The 7-continent model is just one way of categorizing regions of the Earth. There are other longstanding regions such as the Balkans, the Middle East, Scandinavia, Latin America, Central America, Eastern Europe, etc.. Wikipedia and the commons have many types of regional map categories. No wikipedia guideline or policy blocks using any of them. --Timeshifter 00:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
There are not guidelines preventing each stupid thing an internaut can do. Regions such as the Balkans, the Middle East, Scandinavia, Latin America, Central America, Eastern Europe can be used to find files which directly concern these regions.
In the other hand, we don't go to create categories like: Churches in the Middle East, Birds of the Balkans, Trams in Scandinavia, because these are irrelevant and useless categories.
The Central America and Eastern Europe cases are different since these regions are United Nations regions, which are subdivisions of continents, as displayed on the map in Commons:Territorial division of the World#Continents of the World. United Nations regions, or other regions partitioning continents, could be used to categorize items “by location”. This issue would be discussed. In any case, we'll have to choose an unique system. --Juiced lemon 16:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
From reading other talk pages, and from reading some of your comments, I believe your native language is possibly French. I know it isn't English. I happen to read and write some French, and have lived in France. So I know of the difficulty of a non-native speaker trying to figure out all the nuances of a language they aren't native speakers of. You are being unbelievably uncivil when you say insulting things such as "preventing each stupid thing an internaut can do." By the way, "internaut" is not a word in English.
It is you who is showing his ignorance when you say that categories you don't like are "irrelevant and useless categories." Because most of the map categories you dislike are well-established on wikipedia and/or wikimedia, and are totally logical to native English speakers. Your continued insistence on this issue is only making you look bad. --Timeshifter 21:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I used the term “internaut”, due to the article internaut in the English Wikipedia. Probably, some informations of that encyclopedia are not reliable...
I'll complete may answer tomorrow, but think about that Middle East is mainly a geostrategic region for the Western world: other countries can have different points of view. --Juiced lemon 21:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. And since the wikimedia commons serves many countries we have to be flexible in making sure it can serve as many nations as possible. Each nation will have particular categorization habits. There is no reason we can't have more categories. Wikipedia is not paper. See w:WP:PAPER. By the way, "internaut" must be one of those words that did not catch on much in English, and will eventually be one of those words listed as "obsolete" in English dictionaries. I only found it listed in one obscure glossary when using the standard dictionary search in Google: --Timeshifter 15:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Categories and links via categories are two differents things. Anyway, there are a lot of reasons to do not clutter up application softwares with useless features or datas.
Categories are linked together according to the main connections between subjects, not according to all possible connections. This is an imperative in order to keep a usable and manageable database. Extra links can be established using ordinary links. --Juiced lemon 16:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I am using common English categories. You are using some imagined category system in your head only. You are deleting common English categories. Repeated blanking after discussion can be considered to be vandalism according to this definition:

Quote below from w:Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism policy (emphasis added):

Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.

Please stop your blanking or I will report you to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. It is common practice and considered polite to warn someone before going to a noticeboard. Please consider this a friendly warning. I urge you to self-revert your deletions and blanking that you have just done today. If you do that I will not report you. --Timeshifter 16:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No classication can be made without scheme and method. You have added many links via categories which are out of the current scheme regarding locations, and you have been unable to justify any of your edits, and to propose a scheme matching these edits.
Your actions strive to negative any kind of organization in Commons. I consider that as a deadly threat to the Commons project, and I shall not let you destroy one year of hard work to sort out this pile of informations. --Juiced lemon 16:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been editing on the commons for almost a year. I have been editing on wikipedia for almost 2 years. It is you who is destroying categories, not me. Categories are deleted through category-for-deletion discussions. If you have a problem with these longstanding categories, put them up for deletion. --Timeshifter 17:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't delete or plan to delete Category:Middle East or categories about other regions of the World. I clean the harmful links you irresponsibly add. --Juiced lemon 17:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Please go here, Category:Deletion requests, if you want to propose deletion of these categories:
Category:Maps of the Middle East
Category:Old maps of the Middle East
Category:Satellite pictures of the Middle East --Timeshifter 17:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi, please see my discussion here- I do not believe that all material on the imf website is in the public domain- please see discussion here Commons:Village_pump#Clarification_needed_over_IMF_material. Gustav VH 09:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cultural landscape and archaeological remains of the Bamiyan Valley[edit]

Hello there and thank you for your message. I have started a discussion on that topic to accomodate your concern, I hope that is fine with you. sincerely Gryffindor 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)