User talk:Foroa

Welcome on my talk page

I reply to messages on this talk page on this talk page. For readability, it is preferred to keep the discussions on the talk page where the discussion started, unless specifically requested otherwise.

I can read English, Dutch, French and some German. I'll do my best to reply in the language of the requester (except German, just too rusty) but don't laugh at me.

• User talk:Foroa/archive 2007
• User talk:Foroa/archive 2008

Deletion of category redirects

Why did you delete, e.g., Category:Australian women? That's the name of the category on Wikipedia, but instead of being told that there is another name here you just hit a red link now (and the search results, if you navigate to them, are not very good). Unless you plan to delete {{Catredirect}} itself, I can't understand why you would be deleting specific cases of it.

Please respond on my talk page. By the way, you should archive your talk page, it's becoming very long. Richard001 (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

See from [[#.7B.7Bcategory_redirect.7D.7D}} onwards and the item below. A long talk page has the advantage that one has to repeat less the same things again and again. --Foroa (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I restored this cat : it is useful according to Richard001. Speedy delete a redirect created by an user (not a bot !!!) is really improper.--Bapti ✉ 10:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Category redirects suck

Tired of explaining? Me too. ;) Rocket000(talk) 04:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorie documentatie

Hoi, nog bedankt voor je commentaren in m'n gebruikersconflikt drie weken terug, hier, maar vooral ook voor je ideeen over het categoriseren, en de categorie informatie. Ik vroeg me af of we hier eens met elkaar over van gedachten kunnen wisselen. In dat ene overleg stel je al dat je zelf veel werkt aan het oplossen van categorieproblemen, en ondertussen heb hierover ook ik redelijk uitgesproken ideeen. Maar het is een hele kunst zoiets in goede banen te leiden, vandaar dit verzoek?

Nu zijn er verschillende punten, waarover ik van gedachten zou willen wisselen:

• Ik vind de drie weken terug gekozen oplossing in de Category:Maps weinig duurzaam: De (te) lange categorie introductie is er verplaatst naar de overlegpagina. Nou heb je zelf al een categorie subpagina voorgesteld, wat volgens Timeshifter niet werkte. Zou iets van een "Commons:Category Maps information" hier een optie zijn? Van mij kan die boel ook direct de prullebak in, maar dan heb ik de poppen weer aan het dansen. Het voordeel van zo'n aparte pagina is, dat in de overlegpagina ernaast de inhoud ter discussie gesteld kan worden.
• Meer structureel, het opstellen van een beleid over categorie documentatie.
• Nog radicaler, standaardisatie van de categoriebenamingen rondom de category:diagrams.
• Verder ben ik ook beniewd naar je idee over het nieuwe {{On Wikipedia}} template. Denk jij dat dit een duurzame oplossing is?

Aldus. Alvast bedankt. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bedankt. Ik ben langzaam aan het nadenken over het probleem van category redirects gezien ik er ook een soort van synthese van beloofd heb. Gezien het aantal bedenkelijke reacties hierboven, zal mijn reactie geen vluggertje mogen worden, anders wordt er (weer eens) vijf minuten oppervlakkig gediscuteerd en iedereen doet dan verder alsof er niets gebeurd is. Dit betekent ook dat ik de eerste volgende week (of twee) niet erg veel tijd zal hebben voor categorie documentatie. Toch alvast enkele stenen in de kikkerpoel. Je introtekst hierboven is op een aantal punten onduidelijk/incompleet, maar tussentijds (na edit conflict) verbeterd lijkt mij.

Persoonlijk heb ik mijn reserve bij een aantal van je megaliths intro veranderingen. tenslotte is slechts 15 % of zo nuttig, terwijl "See also", de meest nuttige lijn, als een onbeduidend zijsprongetje overkomt.

• ik heb een hekel aan die categorise vierkante kwak in het midden van een pagina. Zelfs in het begin van een blad nemen die schreeuwerige dingen te veel plaats in en werken zeer op mijn systeem (Ik lijd aan formofobie ;).
• Die vroegere verwijzing naar type, country en documentatie verduidelijking leek mij net goed en efficient en de essentie van de categorie documentatie
• Ik heb mijn grootste twijfels betreffende de {{On Wikipedia}} template om verschillende redenen: Wij evolueren naar meer dan honderd (200 ?) talen, talen zijn geen landen, dubbel werk met de Interwiki's (vermoedelijk ook probleem voor bots), maintenance probleem

Andere dimensies/needs waarover gedacht moet worden;

• erfenis (heritage) in subcategorieen, vooral als die diep zijn en geografisch/taal/land gebonden (heb nog experimenten daaromtrent gedaan met heritage van topcategory templates in Category:Rectories in Belgium, maar die zijn door substitutes vervangen geweest om voor mij onduidelijke redenen)
  • in de Belgische provincies (vb Category:Limburg (Province of Belgium) een mooi voorbeeld van heritage/customisation
• maintenance: hoe kunnen wij dubbel werk met Interwiki's vermijden en zelfs optimiseren

Zoals je ziet, meer vragen dan antwoorden, maar alvast (weer) geen discussie in het luchtledige. --Foroa (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bedank. Er zijn zo al een hoop onderwerpen aangesneden. Enige reactie:

• Mijn intro: Hier heb ik slechts als voorbeeld een aantal punten aangesneden. Je hebt enige punten opgepikt en op de rest zal ik tzt terugkomen.
• Category redirect: Deze heb ik tot op heden zelf niet als problematisch ondervonden.
• Category:Megaliths: Ik ben met je eens, dat de "see also" sectie is/was ondergesneeuwd, met name door dat categorize template!?. Nu heb ik dit template bovenaan gezet? Het kan ook worden verwijderd? Of m'n hele wijziging kan worden teruggedraaid. Aan jou de keuze... Zeg het maar!?
• Ik heb zelf ook zo m'n bedenkingen over het {{On Wikipedia}} template, maar op dit moment geen onoverkomelijke bezwaren.
• Heritage/customisation: ook hier zie ik niet direct problemen (of mogelijkheden)?
• Dubbel werk met Interwiki's vermijden: Welk dubbelwerk...!?

Dit zijn zo mijn reacties. Die Category:Megaliths zie ik als een interessante testcase. Ik ben wel benieuwd wat jou ideaal daar nu is? Of heb je die hier al getoond? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Toch nog een korte reactie.

1. Qua layout en inhoud heeft voor mij Xvdvoort hier voorrang: hij heeft er meest energie in gestopt

2. 80 % van de intro is standaard tekst die niemand leest. Gezien er momenteel wiki's bestaan in ongeveer 250 talen, zal dit zeker niet verbeteren

3. Een verwijzing naar andere wiki's is niet voldoende om de inhoud van een categorie uit te leggen. Voorbeeld Category:Rectories in Belgium, Daar werkt het {{On Wikipedia}} template dus niet, toevallig werkt het wel met "exotische" onderwerpen als megalith.

4. In heel veel gevallen zal de het {{On Wikipedia}} template exact dezelfde lijst bevatten als de interwiki's. Hoedanook, templates en gelijklopende lijsten die door bot's bijgehouden worden geven mij de kriebels --Foroa (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Xvdvoort stem telt zeker. De exacte wijzigingen aan Category:Megaliths mogen van mij op die overlegpagina zelf besproken worden. Ik vraag jou naar jou ideaal daar, en ben benieuwd naar je achterliggende overwegingen, waarop ik later misschien nog eens door kan vragen?

Je laatste bezwaren tegen het {{On Wikipedia}} template begrijp ik niet? het template is ontwikkeld om op category pagina's de link te leggen naar artikelen. Het template is (voor zover ik weet) niet bedoeld voor artikelen/galleries. In categorieen behoren de interwiki's te verwijzen naar categorieen op Wikipedia. Zou zijn het {{On Wikipedia}} template en de interwiki's volgens mij complementair. Of mis ik hier iets. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Policy for category documentation

Een concrete vraag: Drie weken terug schreef je, hier, "there seems to be no clear policy in what can be in categories". Zie jij zelf mogelijkheden voor het opstellen van zo'n beleid? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Exorcism of bad spirits

It is an interesting situation that I am in right now, where I have the perception that I am cleaning up a mess that was made while a stupid idea war between narrow minds was occurring here. The fact that in this same situation, I could write the software to accomplish the task I am asking the software be written to accomplish does not do very much to help the "bad spirits" I often somewhat see here.

I spent some time very recently trying to find where I read about categories being given a lowercase first letter. In that discussion, there was a mention of a "bot" (I assume software when I write that) who would change that and you were involved with this discussion. But that is my memory of something I read and I am not going to spend a lot of time to find exactly where it occurred. Instead I am here offering a view from a human being who can write software that repairs things and a situation where a bunch of undirected human contributors more than likely pasted something with categories that have lowercase first names. It is not unlike the removal of a bad spirit that exists here -- where instead of actually authoring software that accomplishes tasks, a mess was made and the human being who repairs it is dehumanized. Do you want to exist in such a situation? I don't.

So, here is my situation in which a bunch of misguided, poorly directed and "bullied" people pasted an error with lowercase first names included in a category navigation: Dipsacales. I am repairing these mistakes and I am a human being of at least average intelligence who does not want to nor enjoy existing in a situation where a mess was made and the retelling of the cleanup is potentially so dehumanizing.

I honestly believe that a software cannot be written that will make templates and sort through the history of the continual recircumscription the way that me, a member of the human species, is able to. I also honestly believe that the tree can be easy to contribute to, but it needs to have a person who can author software to complete it and to paste the instructions on the talk pages.

The fact that your communication is overlapping with people who should be able to easily write what I asked and occasionally feels dehumanizing to me is the reason that I am here writing about it now. I also understand that you are working on the whole tree, but I also can see that you also have not opted to use a template system to assist you in helping to make the category tree exist everywhere else either.

All of the "states of Mexico" can have the main categorization tree added to them so that the upload software and hotcat and others do not need to know the whole tree to put things in the correct place. That is an example that I ran into and I am wondering how to gain privs and respect here that can cause functional software to be written instead of discussions that tend to be dehumanizing -- carol (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much time now to reply on fairly open question like yours. A couple of comments for now.

1. Uppercase. Folks are so much used to the fact that the system transforms all characters in the beginning of a sentence into uppercase anyway, so it doesn't matter anymore, why bothering ? In the end it works. Remember, "Comfort is the devil's cushion" ...

Paste makes continual waste. This mistake gets pasted into smaller divisions in the tree and also into templates where it is auto-errorred potentially hundreds of times.

Is the patience and self-healing capacity of the system not marvellous ? You can reproduce/paste the same errors over and over, but it still comes out right. Amazing.

2. Are you not trying to solve a problem that is not perceived as a problem ?

Man on the street interview says no, that the amount of research needed to find the part of the tree a new image of a species would go into and make it (or the genus even) is too much for a contributor. I am solving a problem for people not involved in the "talk" community here....

3. "Exorcism of bad spirits": people are all just working too much, which means no time for spirit(s). Instead of trying to get the bad spirit out, trying to bring in a good spirit might be more productive. Don't confuse your own (little) demon with all sorts of good and bad spirits.

The perception that software is being written and to not have the perception that a reliable human being is undergoing a description would be easier to perceive if software was actually being written and the talk of problems I am manually repairing were less. In short, I am wondering lately if there is anyone who is involved here who can write software.

Show me your clear specifications and we can judge the software then.

4. Cat tree's and auto-category generation: I am profoundly convinced that this is the future against our error prone "artisanal" creation and maintenance process. Is the time ripe to release such a powerful ghost out the bottle ?

Is that a ghost? It looks more to me like an adage we have "Hindsight is 20/20" meaning that it is easier to see what should have been done than it is to see what should be done. If a ghost is the shape of things to come (I have a difficult time making that analogy) then sure.

5. It might help us all if you, by the end of your writings, re-formalise in short the questions you want to be addressed --Foroa (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am trying to do that -- I am also attempting to get rid of really bad and wrong feelings. I also have been working with a User name instance here who claimed to have written a list writer. I know more about software than I do about being a bully (an enabled person who is being abusive to an unenabled person and using a lot of strength and talk but without a lot of knowledge) and I can honestly say that software can not dig out the information that I have dug out for what I have been doing. There will be some that disagree with what I have done but not so many as are already online at the sources for this who all disagree and have made their own version of this.

These ones need another couple of hours or so for my slow minde to understand.

Short questions

Hello, I am back :) -- carol (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Are you participating in a discussion of what I am doing as if I am software and not a capable member of the human species?

   I am reluctant and don't want to be associated to that what you probably call software: those templates, magic words... Most of the many pieces of code that I have seen in assembler were clearer than what you see here. Anyway, I often have the impression that for many folks, it is easier to express the problem (or some sort of solution) they are facing in some sort of code than in some sort of human language. Code first and then try to understand. Is that what you need to do ?

   Your answer to this does not seem to be much associated with the question I asked. The person who asked the question (me) was given a situation of impossible tasks and failing to accomplish the impossible found herself in a land far from familiar with no credit for positive accomplishments (not impossible things that had been successfully completed). The refusal to make so many wrong things work or build on an unreal situation should be a good example and one that others should follow. I am on commons.wikimedia filling that time where my physical location is wrong and while I am dislocated from my stuff -- that stuff I collected so I would have personal things to do and tasks to complete when I was given time off from a life made busier with the hourly punch-clock tasks (the "day job"). The amount of wrong that is here is at least equal to the amount of wrong that made me relocate to this place. The work I am doing on commons could have been done from that other location, so doing that and making that work should be not affective in causing any success in this unreal/wrong physical location I am at. This part of the reply has so far been personal about me and also an explanation about the reason that the time spent working on this stuff is so great -- that time would not be spent working on other things. The few books here have been read. Television is that much more wrongness and not a good time-filler; entertainment like that should be a refreshment, and it has been non-existent here since perhaps June anyways so not even available as that refreshment.

   About the wikimedia software -- do you think that comparing it to assembler language is a good way to communicate about ways that it can function now? Is the writing of instructions for a mindless machine -- write the instructions first and then see if it accomplished what you wanted? Is that what you said?

2. Have you considered what sort of category tree should exist at different locations in the great tree; such as in states of countries.

   With a good Atlas or basic geographic description, 99 % percent of the basic geographic categories could be generated automatically (and correctly). But because someone decreted (modern Eve) that we can only create categories when we have sufficient items to put it in, we are condemned to create them all by hand, very often in 3 to 4 times before we get it right. An innocent image provider that want to categorise properly his picture has to find his way in the category jungle with its many outspoken rules to find the correct spot for his image. For the poor people from countries under development, they have to sneek in other countries whenever they encounter their first vocalists, cuisine, food, church, art, sculptors, ... items so they can try to copy the structure from other countries. Anyway, the next two years, we will see that 15 to 25 % category management will go to renaming to avoid ambiguation battles: within 5 years we will be able to generate the Atlas we should have started with. And we will have found the ultimate solution for the question if people/artists/bands/writers are "from" a country or "of" a country.

   Heh, I was looking for a map of a location which had been renamed and the atlas page that is here sent me to English wikipedia which does not collect maps nor guarrantee to point to the collection of maps that are here. I am still kind of upset about that. Heh -- a pointer to the category would have sufficed for helping to find things here. I am actually back here right now for this specific answer you gave and will write about it in a new section.

3. Have you any experience with templates that automatically add categories?

   Only bad experiences, but I think that you should start with a definition of your tree. The rest is hacking or some sort of. Templates are often a bad afterthought because you did not do the things right in the beginning.

   It has been really cool with the plants. A little research, a little switch and maybe a name expansion in the template and then with just a simple paste of a blank template and potentially three different navigational tree exist where the template was placed. I get a really great feeling when I see a complicated to construct template just seem to work when applied and put everything in the somewhat correct place.

Thank you for your reply to my exorcisim of some really bad and wrong feelings, btw. It would be, in my humble opinion, that if what I outlined were happening that this world, this earth had ceased to be able to access those brains that many I knew of had been born with. -- carol (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You keep surprising me: in 26 minutes, you write something for which I need more than an hour to reach a beginning of understanding. On the other hand, if it is mixed up with good and bad feelings, it takes twice that long. --Foroa (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The only parts that need to be taken very seriously (in my opinion) are the parts where there is the suggestion of dehumanization. The species humans could not have built so many logic based systems and things without being a little logical themselves. When I came here, I did not know if you had been participating in the discussion that bothered me that it might be a little dehumanizing. The ability to work logically through things like the plate of spaghetti that the botanists made in the last few hundred years should be celebrated. I suspect that I am not the only person who could have done this, with the exception that not doing the impossible where I had been living put me into a very cruel isolation from loved ones and personal possessions. This one cruel and wrong situation gave me nothing else of similar "fun" to do so my persistence in completing it is perhaps unusual. It is the 21st century and the things that happened to me that caused the vacuum of time which makes this task seem fun simply should not have happened. So, perhaps I am the only person who could have done this. It isn't that difficult though. Also, I have seen some attempts to doing this via phishing information online and also, I have seen where human data entry (not unlike what is being done here) has made similar sites online elsewhere. The first one pulls in problems from online and since it is being done via phishing, problems get drawn in because the phishing script could not foresee it. The dataentry sites that involve real living beings -- I caught a misspelling in one of the best of those sites and this misspelling fanned out in an online world which phishes and makes sites. Such an interesting view of the information flow!!! I can honestly say that I only suspected automated "scientific paper" generators until I saw how that misspelled species was managed by other sites. It is difficult to say if that is funny or sad. -- carol (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Templates know about "of" or "from"

The "of" or "from" problem; you tugged at my heart a bit for that one. How dreary to discuss that for more than a few minutes and the discussion now lasts for years? It is too late for "Born in" and "Famous in" for people who were born in one location and became famous while living in another location. I suggest not discussing the "of" or "from" problem any longer. Rocket000 was able to make a list of all of the plant names that had parenthesis in them. If the same kind of list can be made of "People of" categories and "People from" categories and the longest list wins then set the recategorization bots onto making them all the same. The end of that discussion will almost be at that point; but will seriously end when every place has a "People <chosen preposition>" category, whether it has files in it or not.

The templates:

{{Born United States
| birthdate=
| state=
| city=
| lastdate=
}}
{{Occupation musician
| instrument=
| location=
| genra=
}}

Some of the people-based categories I saw from images uploaded here from English wikipedia had more biographical content (university alumni of was the exact example) in the categorization than it did in the article about the person. Building images can have a similar template, I think. It shouldn't be too bad or easy to write the wrong thing now with so much of the tree in place and over three million images that for the most part are in the right place, considering the situation. Heh.

It is really very fun and interesting to think about how to manage such an amount of information. Weird how surly the people can be. -- carol (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I guesstimate that there are here close to 10000 categories that are by country: people of xxx, artists of, politicians of, churches of, bridges/plants/animals of,... So whenever you manage to make a reasoably accurate count on that, you will have to move/rename anyway many thousands of categories and their contents. Of course, the longer you wait, the worse it gets.

Concerning your structured documentation, you are right, but my simple soul is already reasonable happy if an image has already found its home in a gross category. What is frustrating to know is that all this structured information about locations, species and all classes of human beings and personalities is available on the wiki's and could be autogenerated here. This smells sometimes very much to the middle Ages. --Foroa (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Community of Valencia" versus "Valencian community" versus "Land of Valencia"

Métete en tus asustos. La "Comunidad Valenciana" se traduce en inglés como "Valencian Community". José Luis Abaixo (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry because my Spanish is too limited. As you can see in Category:People_by_country, we never use "American, Spanish, ... people" because this does simplify a lot. Moreover, Valencian xxx would not allow to differentiate between for example Valencian people/cities/buildings from the Valencian city, province, community but neither from the Valencia cities and regios in the U.S., Columbia, Philippines, Pakistan, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela (see en:Valencia). The same applies for Madrilian regio vs "community of Madrid", the latter being more Commons standard. In that respect, all Valencia related names will have to change overtime to distinguish between the Valencia's from other countries. --Foroa (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Métete en tus asuntos"... Translating it, he's saying "it's not of your bussiness" in Spanish and in this language it's a very unrespectful way to disappoint you. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 15:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Flora of categories vs Plants of categories

The Flora of categories belong to a different tree. Those all end at an Category:Ecozones. Will it be possible to undo those category changes? I put a lot of work into them and well, there were a lot of problems with the Plants of categories -- like states in the United States which had no plants (even after all of that time spent and supermanagement of those Plant categories). Poor Rhode Island, here at commons with no plants!! The Flora of categories were made with different land divisions at the end, divisions chosen by people who are more interested in the enviromental conditions than the political "things". Please, please, undo that merge -- they should be merged the other way or left separate!!! -- carol (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also "Flora of" is native plants (the subcategorization is at least). I have no idea what the plants of people were doing other than super strong handed management but those categories are not full of native plants. Three main ways a plant exists, Native, Introduced (for plants that grow and spread on their own) and "cultivated". The differences between these three are kind of important to adaptive evolution studies. Okay, the physicist and mathematician in me has some strong doubts about the way they define these things. If some seeds are on your coat (in this case cloth or leather over coat, I assume) and drop onto the ground and grow, it is an introduced species. However, if you are a bird and eat the seeds on one island and "plant" the seeds on another island, that species is "native". Heh. That being said, it is the biologists science and I have been really careful inspite of my doubts of their definitions when making these new categories. To merge them is not good. -- carol (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong desk: [1]. Cheers! Siebrand 19:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I did ask for several categories that were made in 2006 and less than half made (alphabetically they did not get past C, so arguably 1/8 a project that had been abandoned) without talking about it with the creators of them. Those creators seemed to have opted to talk around the mess and not about the mess. This situation is hardly like that. Thanks for the link. -- carol (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I started this on Siebrand's talk page and was shown that the problem is here. Are you in trouble? Is there a reason that you can communicate about some things and not about others? Is it you who might be mindless (no original thought) software now since getting the privs here? -- carol (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to vote to have only communicative admin? I actually was communicating with you here and you were just what, talking crap? Heh, impressive. It is fairly clear what the differences are between the Flora of categories and the Plants of and the move is being done by people who are not afraid to say that they do not understand the differences. I understand one thing, no one asked me and everyone who is doing it was communicating with me. There seems to be a problem and it is this time, clearly not with me.

Once again, are you in trouble? Don't answer in the next few hours and continue to be heavy handed in your decision making and perhaps this will be treated as a plea for help since it is unlike you for most of your user instance here. Maybe a concerned party will locate you and help. -- carol (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the problem yesterday, but had and still have no time to attend to it, I should have time tonight. In the mean time, the move was a legitimate request to merge a totally undocumented category into a widely used one. The move request was issued almost a week ago. As you are watching those categories and you did not react on that, I suppose you agreed on it. If we are not allowed to execute a merge which is not contested nor from an undocumented category, then we might as well stop this whole move business. I can perfectly undo the move, but it makes no sense to restore the previous situation if within a couple of days/weeks the move will be re-requested and executed for the same reason. You should not discuss the fine differences aboute flora and plants here; you need something like a category scheme, a consensus on it, and above all, an explanation in one or two sentences, which allows a poor uploader to grasp in a couple of seconds the difference and to chose one category above the other. Without the last criterion, it just makes no sense to make flora a top category. --Foroa (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, not necessarily they are not watched. I assumed good faith and that communication would not fail. Also, it is really clear that the Plants of are on a sphere which is divided politically and the Flora of are in a sphere which is divided environmentally. Plants of has been SuperHeavyHandedManaged so that much of what exists in those is strictly galleries (several of my subcategories were unmade simply because they were put there) and I really do not think that this is the way to maintain an accurate tree. That is documented clearly in edit histories of people. When I moved category trees which had been started and abandoned more than a year to years ago, it should be different than moving a mature tree which ends at a set of almost completed image map navigational aids. Or perhaps things work differently in what is known here to be a liberal and non-militant "the Netherlands".

How would you describe the failure of communication between me and you in this situation? -- carol (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me you are not watching those flora categories because you, as the creator of a category, is automatically put on the watchlist. It is a bit easy to blame the others for things which you failed to document and failed to respond to properly. I was inclined to execute the move request immediatly, but I waited a couple of days to give you time to disagree if needed.

No, they aren't automatically put there. I saw a few species get their categories moved that did make it to my watch list. It took me a really long time to notice that categories even can be watched so without (as you dictated) telling you that they are not on my watch list, I would like to mention that I only noticed a couple of species getting category changes. It will be difficult though, if I am unable to tell you about factual situations. -- carol (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty much convinced that the communication problem is on your side. First, you are telling that there is no difference in flora of or plants of, but that the difference in names hides the difference between a political and ecological zone categorisation. Your statement "It is really clear that the Plants of are on a sphere which is ..." is the first time I hear about such a categorisation system (I've seen some bits and pieces of ecozones) but it makes me laugh as this information is not available to an average user. That means that both names are wrong then; you can hardly expect that a user knows that "plants of" means political, "flora of" means ecozones that happen to carry the same area name as the political zones. I am certainly not a perfect communicator, but if you think that we have to try to read all possible talk pages when a contributor requests a move or merge in a category, then you have a quite utopic vision on the commons. I have no crystal ball neither and I don't hear all the gossip.

Yes, perhaps my answer when you questioned me about the difference between Flora and Plants catagories was confusing and probably you did say that I did not give a good answer then. Can you find when that question was asked so I can review it and 1)know when you asked and 2)see how confusing my answer had been? -- carol (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked, and I discovered that in "my preferences", tab "watchlist", the items "add to my watchlists when created, edited, moved, deleted" are not on by default. This watchlist is for me the base of all communication in commons. If those items are not on, I can understand indeed that there is some communication problem. They should be on by default.--Foroa (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So if in a while, someone does again a request to merge the categories flora in plants, and I find no rationale or argument in a category scheme or in the category descrîption itself, I will have no choice but to re-execute the merge again. After all, I consider my main job here to keep the category schemes in an acceptable tidy configuration in which an average downloader can find easily his way to a certain level. A second part of my job is trying to cut down backlogs to an acceptable level and respond to requests in reasonable time frame, as I did with Flora. --Foroa (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with you Foroa. For the basic, average user it is not at all evident that Flora of should associate to ecoregions and plants of should associate with political regions. I have tried several times to raise this issue and related confusing aspects of flora of and plants of categories at the village pump. It has been in vain though as no conslusion has been reached in any case, as the threads have been detoured by irrelevant topics (I won't mention any names). I find this very frustrating. For me it seems clear that there should only be one of the two categories as the two words have similar meanings. I personally prefer Plants of because it is a better known word in a multilingual environment, but basically I do not care as long as we reach community consensus. The contents of the the two categories should evidently be merged. Just to list some recent (July 2008) threads (sigh)

• Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008Jul#Should species be categorized to area-specific categories?
• Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008Jul#Plants of vs Flora of
• Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008Jul#Plants in xxx

-- Slaunger (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Foroa needed to or should of contacted anyone beforehand. Those rename requests sat there for awhile and no one said anything. We expect those that care about certain things to be watching them. Not because it's their responsibility but because they would be naturally. I had no idea flora and plants meant different things in this context (I still don't understand how there can be "Flora by country" if it's not defined by political boundaries. e.g. How can it change the meaning of France?). Normally I would have done that rename request in a second. I did end up doing the fauna to animal ones. I left the flora ones for someone more knowledgeable to do it or at least give it more time for comments. I remember seeing carol make some recently, and I was going to ask her about it but it slipped my mind. So if anyone is to blame, it's me since I was aware of a potential conflict and didn't do anything. This is the main reason why I undid everything. I have absolutely no opinion on the matter except that some kind of discussion/agreement and/or documentation is needed to avoid this from happening again. I'm thinking about making a navigation template for these categories. This will help by the simple fact the flora categories are aware of the plant categories and vice-versa. Users will see that someone consciously made them separate categories for a reason. Regardless of whether or not it should be that way, people will at least know that it is. Rocket000(talk) 05:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

France is a small enough area that there is a Flora with that name. Canada is too big of an area so there is no Flora for Canada. Plants of let the people who know within the political divisions, ie the people who vote in Canada what plants are there. Flora lets people know what plants are native to Subarctic America, an area which includes one state of the United States, approximately half of Canada and the country Greenland. This area has a very different environment and seasonal expectations than Southern Canada does.

Once again, I should be interested to see where Foroa asked me about this (as was mentioned earlier here) so I can see how confusing my answer was. -- carol (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So, and I guess this is a question for Carol, in the case of Jamaica (which is where this all started what with me being new here and unaware of all the ancient history) what is the distinction between "Flora of" and "Plants of"? How does one know which plants (is that the right word?) should go in which category? -Arb. (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As explained above, the whole commons communication system depends on the watched items which works fine except for categories because even when watching a specific category, one can empty it completely and move the underlaying subcats elsewere without leaving a trace on the whatchlist. I will open a CfD in a while to close this endless discussion once and forever. In the mean time, I think that:

• there is a consensus that in general, plants and flora means for most people roughly the same. Alhtough personally I prefer flora as a "wider" definition, plants seem to be the more popular name and anyway that is the "de facto" standard naming used so far. So no single reason to use flora.
• the basic discussion concerns:
  • the fact if and how we can/could separate/indicate real native plants and plants that are just appearing in certain areas
  • how we can organise (geographical) ecozones besides the main "political" plants in xxx organisation.

It is clear that plants in xxx is the natural and main adopted categorisation scheme in commons

This discussion will not be carried further here on my talk page but on an appropriate CfD place. --Foroa (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the original category scheme, it is a political based category scheme. It is not unlike galleries vs categories in which the two actually do exist together and the problems that are "imagined" about them are "imagined". The non-communicative category movements are an example of how to not communicate not unlike the category disembling has been previously by narrow-minded users. The discussion should start where you ask me questions about the new tree on my talk page before you move things and that is where the discussion will start.

A person who has presented him or herself as an expert on a certain idea (in this case, categorization) who is unwilling to answer simple and direct questions and not communicating before moving an active tree should (with self-censorship and abilities in mind) consider also not making decisions regarding movement of those categories. On the other hand, had the "expert" contributed by causing abandoned category schemes to be cleaned up without too much problem -- that person should be communicated with about other new things which the software and the contributors are now able to do. The conflict here, on talk pages and in COM:KISS MY ASS things has nothing to do with reality. If it is a way for you to leave good things alone, then by all means, go discuss it. You had plenty of opportunity to be the kindly expert you present yourself as but you opted to not do that. It is not a leader but yet another follower who works like that.

I will quickly answer any of your questions when you "stoop" to communicating with me on my talk page. It is my opinion that the decision needs to be made by people who can understand that a sphere can (and often is) divided by different definitions into differently shaped parts.

Also, if you can tell me what the problem is about "Plants from the Canary Islands" being equal to "Plants from Russia" you might start to understand the difference between scientific thinking and political thinking. You only seem to be able to think politically. It is a sad half of existance to only live on and not representative of the uploaders here. -- carol (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As I can conclude from the other discussions, you seem the only one in the world that has a problem with the fact that the main categorisation system is politically based. I am offering to reopen the debate elsewere on the plant/flora categorisation system to see how we can find a coexistence with your private ecological categorisation system. I will remove further comments on the essence of that problem from my talk page as you keep thinking that I don't understand the problem which most people do understand.

If there are discussions to be made about a category system, they are to be made on the category talk pages or in a CfD. Commons is a community and these are the rules.

Carol, you can try to challenge me with personal attacks and insinuations, but that will not work with me. I am hardened. --Foroa (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I challenge your willingness to communicate. I challenge your adoption of the ways of the gallery makers. I am suspicious of the colorful nicks of administration since I read that ant article. I expect better from you. I attack the person you are being these last few days not the person from the last year.

Here is a research item for you. Since you are working with such a well defined idea, can you poke around and find the reason that not all of the States of United States have a Plants of category?

There are questions like this that should be answered before the "talk about it" people begin to talk about it. -- carol (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In the end, all the water flows to the sea. Do you know the expression "If Moses does not come to the mountain, then the mountain will come to Moses". --Foroa (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Foroa, on a related issue. I do not understand what is going on here. Do you? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A little Blog

@Slaunger

I think that my mother would have used expressions like queen of Shiba and raped virgins. In Flemish politics, they would use the word caractériel, although they don't use the word correctly, I feel. Strangely enough, though we have more than one million words in Dutch, we often have to use words from other languages as we have no Dutch equivalent with the same nuances. In the end, those imported words start to have their own live and meaning.

Anyway, suddenly, I have seen indeed a vegetation tornado passing by, that reshuffled all the cards. Some would call that Deus ex machina. Some damage indeed, but only minor repair needed. I'll bet that within a couple of weeks, a renaming of all flora stuff to plants will be re-negotiable while the whole eco-region problem is gone. Strange how some poles can influence the logical flux of some thinking and decision making. In some cases, you can only move in the direction of the wind or the rotation of the earth, knowing that you keep running in circles but that you will ultimately cross again the same point where you can settle then.

Just my little blog from today, a "clin d'œil". Slaunger, I can understand that you are obset, but consider this another chapter in your experience on decision making and consensus in a rotating world. I have not been playing Deus ex machina myself. --Foroa (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your blog. I think I agree that once the dust has settled the change is probably for the better. I disagree with how it has been done (I still do not understand what triggered the bot). I guess my frustration about this has not been so much about the move itself, but frustation over that the plant interested users have not been capable of reaching a consensus about this ourselves despite several attempts from me and others. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it triggered by a close minded and small abuse of the word Flora that I personally have seen used only in one place and for closed mindedness and abuse? -- carol (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As is often the case, I am not sure I understand exactly what you mean. I do think your editing has had quite an impact on what has happened, if that is what you are referring to. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Slaunger, my frustration is at least as big as yours. I even agree with the words of Carol, but not necessarily with their order, but this is not the topic of my blog. Lets move forward. --Foroa (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's move on. It is counter-productive to keep on dwelving on how things have been done and should have been done. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It was just a question and the answer to that question could have been a yes or a no or a "kind of" or ignored entirely. There are a lot of communication which perhaps should not be ignored that become ignored, however. Mostly, here, I am uncomfortable as I feel that I could be interfering and for that I would like to leave an apology and thank everyone for the extra time which the asking of that question has taken, time spent that was not actually necessary or productive. -- carol (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Land of Valencia

First of all, the category was initially named as Category:Land of Valencia and all the categories inside there were named also with the name of "Land of Valencia". In the past there were reached a consensus about this category, with a very large discussion. But some users inserted the tag of {{Category redirect}} under another name, with no discussion to anyone, and one of them was not awaiting response from me (see it). I think it's reasonable to restore it to the initian status wich was under previous consens. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 12:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I stepped in the discussion about the Valencia community area and the items around the Castelló(n) province because I was alerted by the improper use of category redirects (sometimes) pointing to non-existing categories. There was a incoherent naming (Land of Valencia, the Land of Valencia, Valencian Community, the Valencian community, ...). I could find no document in the category scheme class, and there was no real response against what I call some sort of vandalisme. If there is only vandalisme or abuse of commons features, I have no other choice than using the English names, the commons naming conventions and consistency with other regios. (such as community (lower case c) of Madrid). So I started to make this naming conherent with the mentioned rules.

I looked up the (unclosed) discussion on the Catalan naming and I will bring back the Land of Valencia category and its discussion provided we can start with a clean system state, finish once and for all this discussion and publish the consensus. Once we find an agreement, we can bring the naming coherent with the conclusions of the discussion. So far, the standard rules as I used them apply.

I will reopen a CFD tonight (or reopen the old one). The commands in the delinker will not be executed as long as this category naming is disputed. --Foroa (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not agree to reopen a CFD only because two or three occasional users from Wikipedia in Spanish dislikes (basically because of political or ideological reasons) to read the names of cities and towns from Land of Valencia in Catalan language, as these are legally recognized as native language. It's not a dispute, but just only a disorder. This category, with no problem, was categorized inside following the scheme using "Land of Valencia" and using the "legally native name" for each Valencian municipality during a long time ago. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 15:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

PD: The Spanish user from above, is talking you in Spanish in an unrespectful way. I've translated you what he's telling you.

PD2: You can see an exemple (and this or this another]) of using "Land of Valencia" name from the Department of Tourism of the Valencian Government. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 15:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I did not need your translation to see there was an insult. But those cat redirects and subsequent reverts are a far bigger insult to me.

I need some more time, but it looks that even inside Spain and even less on the en Wiki, where the name changed again (name of the day is "Region of Valencia"), there is no agreement. People think that they are commercial to try to translate (badly) into English, but to me, the best long term solution is to keep one single own name, such as "Comunitat Valenciana" or "País Valencià".

So far, I am inclined to stop this whole endless debate and to conclude on the situation from long time ago. I will study the problem further and try to take the necessary actions within 48 hours. --Foroa (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you consider some of my actions as an insult to your person, I apologize it. When you asked me for the things I was doing, I've stopped. I hope you see this as a proof of respect. I'm sorry. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 19:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I closed the debate in [[Commons:Disputes_noticeboard/Archive:_Catalonia. We have better things and more constructive things to do than edit warring and spend hours on cleanup. Although I would personally prefer "community of Valence" or "Comunitat Valenciana", I restored to a peaceful situation of 18 months ago. If I see again an edit war without following the proper procedures, I will react more quickly and install the name as I see fit if there is no civilised communication. Personally, I would prefer the Catalan names for the provinces too but the continuous disagreement with other Spanish folks forces us to be even more strict on it.

Note that I am always prepared to listen to people, but edit wars make me very nervous. --Foroa (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there are several categories names that I think there are erroneus. I'm not talking about Catalan or Spanish but, by exemple, the category Category:Cities and villages in Castellón. There are an error of concept, because "Castellón" name alone refers to the city, and... how it would be able to put a city inside of other city? ;). IMHO it should be like this "Cities and villages in the province of Castellón", it means, more specific. And the same to Valencia and Alacant. I've noted that there are the category Category:Cities and villages in the province of Castellón already. How should I proceed?. A {{Bad name}} tag? When before I was more active in Commons, I used to change the category of every item. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 23:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PD: I don't think there were disagreement from Spanish folks. During all this time until now, there were several Spanish users using the categories names in Catalan with no problem (such User:Kokoo or User:Pelayo2). But see it, about the moving made by occasional user (by now) User:Jose_Garzón, when he asks to User:Juiced_lemon (one of the part of the previous conflict) about what to do with Category:Alacant, read what he says to him. It's pushing him. I do not intend to move anything, but the perception of "disagreement" I think it's not true at all, only occasional users pushed from others in a no good faith action. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 00:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

PD2: I've stopped to contribute for now, I've seen the scheme of categories inside Category:Land of Valencia very disordered, specially Category:Alicante (formerly Category:Alacant) where it's a disaster in my opinion. I'm not feeling nice to contribute again at this moment, so I leave here for a while to think about if it's important or not for me to go back to Commons. Have a nice day, and thanks for your patience. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 00:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For names, I personally do prefer endonyms, so initially I was planning to restore the Catallan names. But then, I noticed:

• Through all the edit wars and redirects, including many of yours that you failed to remove, the whole categorisation was (and still is) a mess
• You managed to keep it peaceful on some of the Catalan named items because they where somewhat isolated and not easily visible by Spanish contributors
• In Spain, most people seem to work in their little corner, few seem interested to step in and clean up the country categorisation. I feel sorry that nobody in Spain seems to want to have a properly categorised country. In that respect, it is a country under development.

Therefore, I felt that there was no other choice than to revert the clock, take as naming reference the English Wikipedia (to minimise disputes) and try to keep the Spanish categorisation scheme stable till someone is prepared to do a major clean up. I understand that you, like me, are tired about that but commons is not the place to fight the Catalan cause, with which I sympatise. I do agree that in Spain, there are plenty of mixups between city, province and communities. Although I don't have a lot of spare time, I will do my best to execute move requests that are non-political that you might put in User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. --Foroa (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

lacking personnel

With all of the attention being spent on what one single user is doing (a whole discussion about an active and mature and sensible tree! for shame!). It seems to me to be more of an indication of how much neglect the rest of the category tree is experiencing. Now that there is an idea that empty categories can and should exist (for future uploads) it is too bad that instead of reflecting the larger tree scheme into the smaller parts of the tree (like cleaning up the states of Brazil, or whatever they call them) instead, a mindless group will discuss the work of one person.

Do, go talk and talk and talk about things -- but it is sad, ineffectual and there is more things that can be accomplished with the new mindset. You can vote and vote and vote and it is just a bunch of nothing if no one is actually doing anything.

Do something real. Reflect that all important original tree into the political divisions it and you so blindly embrace and endorse. The software here is so limited by people who it is "more intelligent than" -- make an attempt not to be one of those and do something productive. Please. -- carol (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

a respectful suggestion

Spend a week running your browser without javascript. Make a few categories and see what a barebones run is like. I predict that some of your assumptions will disappear, like that created categories are automatically added to watch lists.

I can find examples where my communication skills were not perfect but a goal of mine would be to say something like "Aren't all newly created categories automatically added to your watchlist?" Instead of saying (which has the very strong appearance of a personal attack, btw) whatever you said about that earlier.

And now, a respectful question. What software have you authored? -- carol (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As I told you, I made the wrong assumption about automatic watchlist additions. This user preference feature however should work with or without Java enabled. These options should be on by default as they are the basic human communication trigger mechanism of the wiki software.

I had Java disabled since a couple of months ago. I have only 29 years of system and software development experience in technical systems, the reason why I take sometimes wrong assumptions. I know that I still have a lot to learn. But I fail to see the pertinence of your questions. --Foroa (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Valencian Community

Esa comunidad autónoma se llama en español "Comunidad Valenciana", no se llama "Comunidad de Valencia". Por tanto, en inglés se llama "Valencian Community", no "Community of Valencia". Es un gran error, que puede llevar a confusiones a mucha gente. Yo creo que no sabes de qué va el tema, y no entiendo por qué te metes en este asunto, de verdad. Veggg (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In English: This autonomous community named in Spanish "Comunidad Valenciana", does not name "Comunidad de Valencia". Therefore, in English it named "Valencian Community", not "Community of Valencia". It is a great mistake, which can take to confusions many people. I believe that you do not know of what the topic goes, and do not deal why you get into this matter, indeed. Veggg (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything can be discussed in a civilised matter. Everything blocks when vandalisme and edit wars start. See equally above, "Valencian community" is not allowed in the commons naming rules and "community of Valencia" has exactly the same meaning as you can see in the french version too. --Foroa (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Category redirects (again)

Hi,

(Again) please stop speedy delete category redirects, as Category:Politicians from Poland or Category:Municipalities of Alicante.

Destroy the work of other contributors without any agreement of the community< (Commons:Category redirects suck is not a rule) is clearly an abuse of your sysop status.

Please stop the speedy delete. If you think that {{Category redirect}} is a dangerous template, feel you free to create Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Category redirect.

Cheers.--Bapti ✉ 14:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Category:Municipalities of Alicante points to a non existing category and is the result of a clean up of an edit war and an attempt to destabilise the category system in Spain.

I keep useful redirects, I make sometimes new ones. I delete only the redirects which are fundamentally against the Commons naming or syntax rules; those help nobody, except learning wrong naming rules. --Foroa (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I delete Category:Municipalities of Alicante.

those help nobody it isn't true : Politicians from Poland is useful for a non-native english speaker (or a newsbie on Commons).--Bapti ✉ 15:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Municipalities of Spain

EN: What happen? I only try to homogenize the categories on the municipalities of Spain, and you sabotage me! Please, you stop reverting, or you devote a reason.

ES: ¿Qué ocurre? Yo sólo pretendo homogeneizar las categorías sobre los municipios de España, ¡y tú me saboteas! Por favor, deja de revertir, o da una razón. 79.151.43.231 17:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The last days, Spain is under attack from all sorts of activists and vandalists. Its category structure is very dispersed and I don't accept reverts and new category schemes till someone defines a proper structure for Spain which we all can agree and on which we can all work together. --Foroa (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

moving categories to non-English names

hi there,

you moved a number of categories in English [2] to non-English names, despite the policy on categories that exists to use English Commons:Language policy. Why did you do that? Gryffindor (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong desk, These requests were not issued by me as you can see in the history. Anyway, the French Cathédral is prevailent in those categories, so I don't think it really matters (and I will not waste energy on such discussions while this move list has to be cleaned up at least twice a year). --Foroa (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that. Gryffindor (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, we are all working too hard and have different priorities. At least, things are moving. --Foroa (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Basque Country talk

Hallo! You made also a change in a comment of Theklan which I think you should undo. I would understand it if you changed country ==> county, but you changed something important. Dank u wel --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I corrected my mistake. I don't know much about it, just trying to get the discussion going and to find an acceptable category tree. Thank you for your cooperation. --Foroa (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Traffic circles

Could you undelete Category:Traffic circles? And I don't suppose you might have any bots handy that could track down and revert all the edits that depopulated the category? There are major differences between roundabouts & traffic circles. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 23:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Restored. I did not know that there was a difference, and the person that emptied the cat probably neither. The easiest to restore is to follow the contributions of the person that did them. Should be fairly easy once you found one of the mover images. Sorry I can't do better. --Foroa (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Set theory

I will be honest with you, I wasn't always so good with this stuff while studying the higher level mathematics. To be even more honest, I might have not been very good at the "teaching examples" though, like I had a heck of a time with and never completed the class who my teacher liked to call "How to do proofs" yet, I was pretty good at actually making proofs for the classes that required them so, maybe I am good at the actual task just not good at the "See Spot Run" portions of the training. What I am about to show you, however, was not from my college classes and I think I first saw it when I was 13 years old (actual years not some psychological profiling of an age).

This is an important idea for category merging. en:Bijective function (just the introduction) every member in one set has exactly one matching member in the second set. An example which is not bijective is the set of the absolute value function with the set of integers (whole numbers which also include negative numbers). An example which is bijective is the absolute value function with the set of natural numbers (whole numbers which are non-negative). I have had about 40 years of experience with |Absolute Value of Things| and the last five years have been a very intense experience with this idea; where there really hasn't been much else -- where the negative and the positive is stripped from the whatever and the value of the message, object, person, etc remains and is seen.

Category moves must be Bijective. Thank you for your time and consideration in viewing this or reviewing this. -- carol (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Foroa (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tusheti

Hello Foroa,

Tusheti is a historical region. The Tush people are the etnic group. Geagea (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked again and indeed you are right. I hate to remove dismbiguation things because we have to add them continuously, but in your case, the risk is minimal. Best regards.

Thaks. Geagea (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Buildings by architect

So whats the "right procedure" to move all the cats like explained on the disc page? TomAlt (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Inserting redirects in non empty categories is the same thing as moving and deleting it without any prior warning nor consensus of the community. This attracts of course vandals and we have to react strongly on that. Moreover, you are making changes that impact the whole world categorisation system. See my comments on Commons talk:CommonsProject Architecture.

For changing, you could go through a Commons:Categories for discussion procedure, a delete request or a move request. --Foroa (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags

Why did you remove these speedy deletion tags such as California State Route 14? The user request answer is mean't to be used for the author who created the page and is requested for speedy deletion. --75.47.212.7 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As I told you already several times on your IP addresses (and which you blanked immediately): once that a page is in the commons community, it belongs to the community and it can only be deleted using the appropriate procedures and when the community accepts to delete it. Speedy delete is only accepted in very special cases and when there is a valid reason. A reason of "User request" is not acceptable. You have no single proof that you are the author of the page neither because you seem to prefer to troll around as an anonymous user. --Foroa (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you obsessed with me if so then quit stalking me. My IP address changes everyday such as 75.47.145.100 (talk · contribs) and now as 75.47.212.7 (talk · contribs). Keep giving me this nonsense talk again and i will report you for trolling. The community doesn't care much of about these pages anyway such as state routes and interstates. --75.47.212.7 21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks!!!!

thanks for your help!! cheersSheepunderscore (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Cycladic idols

Hi, you deleted this cat but gave as reason only "Incorrectly named". Why is that? What's incorrect about the category's name? And why do you believe the new Category:Cycladic figurines is correct? --h-stt !? 06:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This move request was outstanding since 4 months without protest. I have not looked in the problem and executed only the move request. I restored the original and made it a redirect. I don't think I am qualified to discuss its proper naming. --Foroa (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've never seen that request and think the reason is not valid. But I can live with the new (less common name) but have to adjust some links. Thanks for restoring the old one as redirect. --h-stt !? 11:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for yr suggestion

Hello, thank you for your advice. After your last message, though, I'd rather use the old method. It is less open to dispute, anyone can object when I post a warning and wait for the move to be done.

As for the grammar, the correct grammar is in fact Category:Baptistries in Italy, Category:Baptistries in Milan, but Category Baptistry (Bergamo). A big part of the moving I am doing is to change things such as "Baptristy in Bergamo" into "Baptistry (Bergamo)", since I was told by other users that the grammar with "in" only belongs to upper categories, whereas for single monuments I should use "Building, Place" or "Building (Place)", like in en:Wiki. Don't ask my why, things in WikiCommons never have a reason and nothing makes sense. I merely adapted. I hope I'll be left alone with my work to do, which is a lot... Best wishes. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. A couple of comments.

I understand that you have your categorisation system in Italy and I can live with that. If someone disagrees on some moves, he can move it back.

Since two months, I am spending a majority of my commons time to get these damned maintenance (non-empty, move requests, merge request, disambiguation, speedydelete, ...) categories empty so they can function again as they should do. I reckoned to have today at least this move request cat empty. And what do I see ? That you manage to fill it up faster than I can empty it (today, 32 of the 33 requests are yours). So if you are unwilling to take a shortcut and work on the suggested more efficient cooperation scheme, I better stop because it is just hopeless. I have no intention to become a professional category mover. No thank you. --Foroa (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting me in my successful RfB. Cheers, Rocket000(talk) 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and enjoy before you realise what price we will request from you in return. Wait and see. --Foroa (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh. ;) Rocket000(talk) 22:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Statues in Hoeilaart

Dag Foroa. Ik zag dat jij de categorie "Statues in Hoeilaart" hebt gemaakt en ook foto's van het beeld van Nero. Het lijkt mij misschien beter om die categorie direct onder Hoeilaart te laten vallen i.p.v. die van Gebouwen. Ik beschouw standbeelden niet als een onderdeel van gebouwen. Verder vraag ik mij af of de copyright het toelaat die foto's op te nemen. De Freedom of Panorama voor België http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama#Belgium zegt: not OK There is no panorama freedom in Belgium. The modern pieces of art cannot be the central motive of a commercially available photographs without permission of the artwork copyright holder. Ik heb zelf ook een foto van het beeld van Felix Sohie, maar wil die niet in Commons zetten vanwege copyright. Wat is jouw mening daarover? --Wouter (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dag Wouter, twee discussies waar ik mij niet meer mee moe maak.

1. Bij mijn weten is er op commons geen duidelijke definitie van building. Ik definieer building als alles wat met mensenhanden gebouwd is, dus ook bruggen, tunnels, fonteinen, sokkels en standbeelden. Dat is opportunistisch maar praktisch in steden omdat je snel twee of drie duidelijke hoofdcategoriën hebt. Als je een andere definitie hebt, verander je het maar.
2. Freedom of Panorama. Volgens mij is heel dat wettekst gedoe en zijn interpretatie volledig uit onze tijd, vooral als er een textuur of 3D dimensie bij te pas komt. De bedoeling van de wet lijkt mij dat je die dingen niet reproduceert, en met een reeks foto's ga je niet snel een tapijt, beeldhouwwerk, ... namaken. Bovendien is het triestig dat wij het werk van onze kunstenaars van de laatste honderd jaar niet kunnen voorstellen. Back to the future ? Ik heb nog geen enkel geval gezien van een beeldhouwer die klacht indiende omdat zijn werk in een encyclopedie stond. Ik begrijp wel enkele uitzonderingen zoals het atomium en dergelijke, maar om daarvoor alle encyclopediën te gaan censureren lijkt mij nogal dark age-achtig.

--Foroa (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Memorials in Coburg

Hallo Foroa, wat is voor jou de aanleiding om de categorie te ontlinken. De verdedigers van de redirect Category:Denkmäler in Coburg hebben het toch volkomen bij het verkeerde eind. Er zijn t.a.v. sculptures in Germany slechts twee cats Denkmäler en dit volkomen ten onrechte daar zo'n Duitse term toch absoluut niet op Commons thuishoort. Je gaat locaal gewenste termen toch niet belonen op de Engelstalige Wikimedia. Bovendien, er zijn reeds vele tientallen Memorials in ... ( in alle deelstaten)m.b.t. Duitsland. Ik had liever gezien dat je reageert op mijn bijdrage op de overlegpagina. Graag je commentaar. Groetend--Gerardus (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oei. Betreffende Category:Denkmäler en niet Engelse categorienamen geef ik je volledig gelijk. Alhoewel ik een stuk meertaliger en toleranter ben dan de meeste wat betreft dat aspect, denk ik dat er ooit gaat moeten drastisch ingegrepen worden (met globale bot acties zoals onlangs gebeurd is met de werelwijde renaming van plants in xxx naar Flora of xxx..).

Een redirect wordt per definitie gebruikt voor een secondaire (transit)naam die de weg toont naar de echte naam, dus geen enkele reden om hem in andere categoriën te tonen. Beelden die in een dergelijke cat zaten werden gewoon niet getoond en dat waren er toch vele duizenden op een bepaald moment. Eindelijk zijn ze er in geslaagd om een systeem op poten te zetten die die zaken uitkuist (honderden beelden per week) zoals je kan zien in Category:Non-empty category redirects. Dat er hier en daar redirects zaten die toch in categorieën zaten was niet erg. Het systeem is ook vandaal bestendig omdat het ook zou kunnen gebruikt worden door vandalen om massive moves en merges te veroorzaken.

De laatste tijd stellen wij vast dat er meer en meer bots de diepst mogelijke categorien proberen te vinden, hetgeen maakt dat ze dikwijls belanden bij de redirects met een categorie. In jouw geval gaat de ene bot dus beelden " dieper" categoriseren op Memorials in Coburg en een andere ze dan weer terug zetten naar de plaats waar de redirect naar wijst. De snelste oplossing was dus om bij redirects de supplementaire cats te verwijderen, hetgeen dus ook aansluit bij de logica van de redirect.

Je kan natuurlijk foeteren op die bots, maar dat zijn nogal experimentele ontwikkelingen. Hoedanook, met ongeveer 300.000 beelden die totaal niet gecategoriseerd zijn, en weet ik veel hoeveel slecht gecategoriseerde beelden, is iedere verbetering, hoe miniem ook, welkom. --Foroa (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicolò dell'Abate

Hello :) the correct name of this mannerist painter from Modena (as I am) is Nicolò dell'Abate, and not Niccolò dell'Abbate with 2 c and 2 b, and even the catalogue of a exibithion says so: http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/scandiano/UtPicturaPoesis.htm Bye bye :)--Icco80 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are most probably right. I cannot afford to check each and every name. I mainly try to improve naming coherence and avoid double naming. It is easier to change the name of one coherent group than have to merge all sorts of different names. Some of it should be corrected by the time you read this. --Foroa (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Moult versus moulting

It seems that you think that the words moult and moulting (molting) have different meanings. Also categories should be used according to their names (not the actual content or intention of some Commons users). Please see my comment Category talk:Molting#Moult versus moulting (molt versus molting). Thank you. --Pabouk (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I answered on the same place as not to splinter the discussion. Regards. --Foroa (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Loop

There is a loop in Category:San Salvatore della Scala Santa and Category:Scala Santa (Rome). Can you look at it? Greetings, Havang(nl) (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Removed circular link but strange construction anyway, will probably need more work. --Foroa (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Via Regia

One name for all: prehistoric Sweden, Royal Prussian train, Roemerstrasse, Way of St. James in Germany. How to solve this? Havang(nl) (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No idea yet, maybe start with a small (informal) category tree(s) on the talk page. Just to have an idea about the relations as I am somewhat lost there. --Foroa (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Iglesia de Copacabana

Thanks for deletion! ~~×α£đ~~^es 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Deer

[3]: huh? There is no such word as "deers", at least not in English. "Deer" is both singular and plural, and is the most common English word for the Cervidae. (Several similar animals also have the same word for singular an plural: "moose" and "elk" for example, although in the latter case "elks" is acceptable.)

Mind restoring the {{Seecat}}? And there is no reason for a Category:Deers, unless you think it is useful for possibly confused non-native speakers of English. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been too hasty in cleaning up. Restored by now but I leave the deers for non-natives. --Foroa (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

VI organization

Hi Foroa,

I consider you a good partner in discussing the organization of images. We are working on organizing the VIs better (á la QIs). I was wondering if you would have the time to look at Commons talk:Valued image candidates#VI categories organisation proposal and tell us what you think?

Best wishes, -- Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Cities and villages in Greater Poland

Hi! I see, that you removed template {{Speedy}} from this category. I think, that this cat. in current form is useless. Greater Poland is a historical region in Poland and contains area of three voivodeships (see map). I'm making cleaning in Category:Cities in Poland, so I want to clean subcategories first. I suggest to make two categories: "Cities in Greater Poland Voivodeship" and "Villages in Greater Poland Voivodeship". Yarl ✉ 08:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, but I had/have little time. I answer in more detail tonight. Anyway, I am reluctant to delete geographic related categories if there is no description on how the cities/villages/cities and villages/municipalities in country/regions/provinces/districts in country xxx are organised. I noticed that in many countries, each regions/district try to do it their own way without any sort of concertation which results in continuous deletion/emptying/recreation/moves and sometimes edit wars. Examples are in Commons:Category scheme France and Commons:Category scheme Italy which are incomplete but at least, there is something. --Foroa (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Regions of Poland and en:Category:Regions of Poland show something completely different. Category:Villages in Poland by region and Category:Cities in Poland by region doesn't look very consistent neither. --Foroa (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I'll try to fix this. Yarl ✉ 15:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't fix it alone in your corner. Try first to make a short description and/or simplified category tree explaining what goes where. Then you can discuss and cooperate with all Polish contributors, there are many overhere. --Foroa (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Plateforms

Thanks a lot for your patch :) ~ bayo or talk 16:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the commons community: a bit from here, a bit from there ... --Foroa (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How to merge?

I am not sure about the procedure for categories to merge. Till now, I put the template on both pages; but others don't do that. Tell me, how to do. Greetings, Havang(nl) (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Not too sure. I would say:

• Merge one cat into another where there should not be too much discussion, such as Folded bikes, Vélo dépliant into Folded bicycles: Just an ordinary {{Move|category:destination cat}}
• Merge from into another where the source and/or the destination might be contested: {{mergeto|destination}} and {{mergefrom|source}}. (Only the mergeto pops up in Category:Articles to be merged)
• If the destination is not likely to be contested, then you can forget about the destination information (less work to remove it)
• When not too sure what should go where, use {{merge|:category:other cat|:category talk:destination}}.

Not too sure about syntax as it seems to inherit the name space of the page where it is on (mergeto and mergefrom seem to have the easiest syntax). See en:Help:Merging and moving pages. --Foroa (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

category redirect bot

Responding to your message on User talk:RussBot:

1. Would it be possible to run the category redirect checking/repairing once a day ?
   • Certainly.
2. Would it be possible to run the image move over redirecy a couple of times per day ?
   • The way the script is written, both functions run at the same time. I'll try running it once a day for a while and see how that works.
3. Do you have an idea why the empty redirects don't disappear from the not-empty category list, while they used to disappear in the past ?
   • Not entirely. I don't know how that category gets populated in the first place! However, someone could just run a "touch" script over it periodically to clean it out. --R'n'B (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Foroa, Siebrand runs commons_category_redirect.py four times a day and it removes checked categories from Category:Non-empty category redirects. So it takes care of all your points. Multichill (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that since a week or so, it is rare to find non-empty categories in the list (there remain on average 10 to 20 empty categories). But it is not cleaned out regurlarly (until an hour ago), meaning that the same empty categories stay there for several days. It used to go away when I did one or two dummy edits on the category redirect template or after a Siebot run, but not any longer. I appreciate the detailed reporting of the converted hard redirects and the categories that are redirected to galleries from each RussBot run. --Foroa (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Foroa, i modified the bot. Now also categories in cooldown get a null edit (and are being cleaned out of the category). Multichill (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but there are still quite often inconsistencies such as empty cats that are on the list, wrong counters and empty categories that say that they are not empty. I have been monitoring this list for two months now and did spend significant time per day to keep it at an acceptable level (why I put it on the Category:Commons backlog). Now that the bots are working properly, I still monitor it to prevent hidden moves and vandalisme, but hopefully, I will spend less and less time on it. --Foroa (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Cuisine by country changes

Hi. I was trying to follow the edits you did on Category:Cuisine by country. Until Category:Food by country gets merged into Category:Cuisine by country, it seems logical that the two categories should cross reference each other. Once Category:Food by country is cleared out, then it makes sense to remove Category:Cuisine by country from it. Don't you agree? Please respond (or at least notify me) on my talk page. Thanks! --Willscrlt (Talk) 09:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that you reverted a lot more than just that one category. You basically undid all the work I started on the merge of Food into Cuisine. Why? Food is the less populated one, they totally overlap, though Cuisine is broader in scope, and it is silly to have two such nearly identical categories in place. Not to mention, all the empty categories that Food has in it. Cuisine is by far the more popular and populated choice. I agree with the other people who suggested the merge and started doing so on the smaller categories. Categories that were largely populated, I'd discuss it first, but there's surely no point in having two categories for the same country, when there are so few files to go within them.

At the very least, please do not revert the change to the Chilean food categories. I am currently doing a reorganization on them, and I don't appreciate having to go back and redo all those changes again. It was my work on the Chilean ones that pointed out to me what a mess the others are. If you don't want me to touch the other countries, that's fine. I won't. But I am going to reapply the changes to the Chilean foods and move them to Cuisine where they belong. I won't get into a revert war with you, but I would have greatly appreciated it if you would have discussed what you did with me before reverting my hours of work. It's not like I am a new user here, or a vandal. You may disagree with my changes, but as a long-time contributor here, I at least deserve at least a chance to discuss things before you unilaterally wipe them out. --Willscrlt (Talk) 09:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

On top of that, you REVERTED the changes I made. That was completely counter-productive. If you were upset with the change from Category:Food of Chile to Category:Cuisine of Chile, you should have edited the category names, leaving the rest of the changes alone. For example, in several cases, the categories appeared in the middle of the article instead of at the end of it. I added sort keys on all of the photos that provided me with a possibility, rather than having them all sort under IMG000XXX or something useless like that. I occasionally did other minor cleanup to the articles, too. Did you check any of that? NO. You just reverted EVERYTHING as if it was vandalism. I see that you are an admin here, and that is very surprising behavior for an admin.

I also don't under stand the edit summary that you left "updated since my last visit". Does that mean that you automatically revert all changes made to an article since your last visit? Is that why I fell afoul of your revert button? I just do not understand your actions. I would if I was a new account with a very short edit history. I still wouldn't think you acted appropriately (well-intentioned edits meant to be constructive should always be discussed before mass reverting), but I would understand how you might think it was the act of a vandal. There is no such excuse you can use for someone who joined in 2006, has over 850 edits here on Commons, and cumulatively over 5200 edits across all the projects.

As I said before, I am undoing your changes on the Chilean articles. You messed them up, and you broke some of the new categorization structures that are being built for that country's information. I am not touching the other categories, except to add the cross links between Food and Cuisine. Those need to stay, since without them, people who browse won't find a significant number of related photos. You're welcome to disagree, but if so, it needs to be discussed on the Talk pages (and it was because of prior discussion on the Food talk page that I even started to make most of those changes) or at the Village Pump. You may like the status quo, but I think that a lot of people would prefer consolidation. I could be wrong, too. I'm not afraid to find out. Sincerely yours. Willscrlt (Talk) 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that, by the lack of documentation, cuisine and food by country can be quite confusing. They are however two complete different but related categories. (why it is indeed useful to make food of ... a subcategory of cuisine of ... as already done in a couple of countries). I am sure that you will understand that categories and their structures that are used in 100 to 250 countries, and further herited in many country subdivisions, cannot be changed lightly. There is a procedure for that in COM:CFD and I plan to propose to make this procedure even more stricter for top level categories as too many people and categories are involved with such changes. It is not because there is little discussion somewhere on a lost talk page that there is a support for major changes. Because I had little time yesterday, I could only do the strict minimum to avoid further damage. I will explain and document further in the coming 24 hours, and I am sure that you will have by then the understanding about the meaning of those two categories. --Foroa (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Category redirect

You reverted my edit to Tropical Storm Kyle, stating "Only redirect of empty categories allowed". This is incorrect. Non-empty category redirects are allowed, and are automatically corrected by bots in due course. See Category:Non-empty category redirects. Superm401 - Talk 23:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not true. There are the cfd, the move and the merge procedures to announce a move request on which users can react and which can take two weeks in theory, so users have the time to respond or object. This time is often shortened for obvious moves (spelling changes). A redirect has a cool down period before it effectively moves precisely to be able to prevent unannounced moves and vandalisme. The redirect cannot be used to bypass the move procedure. It is impossible to monitor hidden moves and vandalisme if we accept the bypass of the move procedure as you did; we could as well throww away the move procedure. --Foroa (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you know about rendering?

Experience with templates and pre-rendering?

The file was deleted by an administrator who has almost a year more experience with deleting files and administration than you do. Do you think that experience increases understanding and qualification? -- carol (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter of long standing experience or know how. I just checked on a couple of the categories that where linked to the linked template (restored now) and they showed up in red. For the other template from which I removed the speedy template, I checked the linking (inclusion) categories, and they all showed up as speedy delete too. Templates have to be handled with care, especially their deletion, so I don't think that linked templates should be handled through a speedy delete procedure. --Foroa (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I clicked through on one and it was linked to the new article which is in the template. I am very thorough, much more thorough than many of the admin are about this kind of thing. There is no way that the taxonomy navigation template can be linked to that article unless my changes to that taxonomy navigation article were changed. It is too a matter of experience and understanding and know how. Or perhaps you are correct and the longer the recent administrators are administrating the less they know. It becomes difficult to know how to explain things and how to agree or disagree (so I agree here) and I am so not interested in explaining things to a voted in superior who often since then does things kind of thoughtlessly or too thoughtfully but without real understanding. Since you typed an agreement with me about bijective sets, have you considered how to undo the changes that your user instance made at near September 1 this year?

I don't care about talk page links. -- carol (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And you are not telling the truth. That was a link on a template and that template has changed. For whatever reasons that you are not telling the truth, it seems kind of silly as this is just a wiki. -- carol (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Template deleted since all linked categories are disappeared now after my dummy edits. It makes no sense to discuss things you don't want to understand.

Right, since I am not telling the truth, I strongly advise you to stop discussing here and filling up my talk page. --Foroa (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Foroa

I have responded on my talk page re the castles question - the terms are in fact separate. Cheers and happy editing! Ingolfson (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Category redirect

Hello,

by the way thanks for deleting my old template.

My question: You removed the category redirect template ([4]) I had added. I chose this template because when I used it some time ago, it seemed to be right for non-empty categories. What should I do instead?

Regards, --MdE ^{✉ [de] [com]} 12:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the template. The problem is that with the redirect template, as you used it, people could change the names of all the categories they want without real knowledge from other people. If I decided for example to change all the church names in kirche and all town halls in radtskeller, only the happy few that watch the categories would notice it. Therefore, to move/rename a category, one has to issue a {{Move}}, {{Merge}} or a COM:CFD so that the community is informed and can respond. Of course, for minor changes or correct spelling errors, we can proceed quicker. But anyway, the monitoring of the non-empty redirects is for me a major observation point of potential vandalisme, why I prefer to keep it clean and (almost) empty). So, in conclusion, redirect is only a way to route "misplaced" imaged to the good categories, not to execute renames. (There are 11600 redirects, and thats only the beginning) --Foroa (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I moved the few files by hand now because this was really a minor change.

Discussing in the community surely is good to prevent vandalism, but in the past I made the experience that those people who would know which name to choose don't care for the discussion. Also, I noticed bot-supported moves to new categories with absolutely bad names. A consequence of this was that many links to Commons in de.WP were wrong. And there was no discussion before. Regards, --MdE ^{✉ [de] [com]} 15:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that very often, bad names are chosen. But on the other hand, with the delinker, renames are rather quick. We still have to find the equilibrum between good naming discussions and rules (that converge quickly to a decision) and the quick bot changes that can be easily undone or redone if needed. For the latter, we should find some sort of elegant system.

I don't care about the category to category connection between commons and the various wikipedia's. I consider a category system as internal kitchen and the connection between the two worlds should happen through galleries (and gallery redirects) in the proper languages as to isolate/buffer the internal naming and categorisation systems. --Foroa (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there are no category to category links between de.wp and commons, the systems are really too different, you are right. But it affected links to commons categories in articles on de.wp. In many cases they are prefered there because - it's the same problem with the names - galleries get no ot not enough attention, while categories are often maintained. --MdE ^{✉ [de] [com]} 15:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Guide_to_layout#Gallery_pages

Hi Foroa, on Commons:Guide_to_layout#Gallery_pages a template is included, which is not updating the content as on Commons:Guide to layout/Gallery pages, i tried [[Template:etc, but that isn't working, how can i acces it ? thanks Mion (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is typical a problem with nested/included subpages (both references point to the same thing but a different level). I think that you have to do a flush or so to force an update but anyway, I guess that those shortcuts work only at the top page level, not at the subpage level. --Foroa (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the flush. Mion (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

*wappert stofdoekje*

Hey - Bedankt voor je bericht & gefeliciteerd (denk ik!) met het adminship! Goed wat bekende namen te zien :) -- Deadstar (msg) 06:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bedankt. Ik wou vooral niet denigrerend doen, maar een beetjes sarcasme kan ik toch moeilijk laten. --Foroa (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Loop

Category:Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana (Venice) and Category:Libreria Marciana (Venice) form a loop. Can you look at it? Havang(nl) (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Question transmitted to Giovanni. He is very good in categorisation. --Foroa (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I tried and clarify the point, see whether it is ok now. "Libreria Marciana" is the building, "Biblioteca nazionale marciana" is the library housed within the building, quite as the Louvre is the building and the Musée du Louvre is the museum housed within the Louvre. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If two categories point to each other, one has a loop which can be very frustrating for the users and impossible for bots. I took the "forward" reference Category:Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana (Venice) away to avoid that. --Foroa (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Law enforcement agencies of Canada

Dit is nog de enige categorie die afwijkt. Ook omzetten naar Police of Canada? --Stunteltje (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Voor de Canadezen lijkt mij dit inderdaad aangewezen (samen met de Chinezen, het rijmt). --Foroa (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Klusje voor vanavond, veel te mooi weer om niet naar boord te gaan en daar te schilderen. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Politicians from Italy

Hi! I noticed you deleted Category:Politicians from Italy, which was a redirect to Category:Politicians of Italy. Is there any particular reason why such redirects should be avoided? I never know whether to use "by" or "from" in category names (for example, it's Category:Actors from Italy), so I find it quite useful to have both versions available and let a bot or HotCat do the correction. If such redirects do need to be deleted, there are 59 other categories starting with "politicians from". Pruneau^talk 13:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for annoying you with my deletion. The problem comes from the fact that there is no clean commonly redirect strategy as you might read in some items here higher up and Commons:Category redirects suck. As for your case, I delete several newly (and mostly not properly categorised) created "politicians from xxx" and "xxx (Italian, French, ...) politicians" per week that are created in parallel with the right "Politicians of xxx". I think that the reason comes from the fact that people suppose that because of "Politicians from xxx" of "French/American/... politicians" work, the categories they want to have still needs be created. In this case, I feel you should have:

1. At least all the naming "Politicians of xxx" uniform within the family, by preference uniform for all classes (either banning the 'from" or the "of").

2. If you want to have redirects for the alternate solution "Politicians from xxx" then you have to create them for all countries ensuring they are properly redirected and not exist as parallel categories.

Moreover, if one uses Hotcat or type "category:Politicians" in the search box on the left, the first suggestions you will get will be the "Politicians by ...", then the "Politicians from Axx" but never the correct "Politicians of xxx" ones. Personally, I feel that for obvious lower/upper case errors, obvious errors in singular/plural, errors in of/from, and errors against "french politicians" against "politicians from France", redirects should either be forbidden or should be there for all the cases (I guesstimate between 10 and 30000 categories). This is indeed an educational problem: do you learn the right basic rules or are you autocorrecting mistakes. Anyway, one way or another, we have to try to be coherent, so in a first intstance, we should try to make the whole from/of naming consistent and in that, we progressed significantly the last couple of months.

Anyway, suggestions are welcome because no matter what I do, some people are happy with it, a few are complaining. It should be noted that almost every day, I verify the botmoved redirects to check if there are not categorisations left that attract the bots even more and if they are justified. I add regurlarly redirects to help with translation and typical mistakes, such as sheep/sheeps, aircraft/aircrafts, ... --Foroa (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Violent crime rates

Hello. I created Category:Violent crime rate charts only a few days ago. I decided that there was no justification yet to create a separate category from Category:Violent crime rates. That is why I removed the parent categories from Category:Violent crime rate charts.

Someday if there are both graphs and charts then there might be a reason to separate out 2 subcategories for charts and graphs.

Category:Violent crime rates is a subcategory of Category:Violent crime statistics which is a subcategory of Category:Crime statistics and so on. I try not to create subcategories until there is something to put in them. Otherwise people see lots of empty categories and can give up trying to find something useful. This really messed up map categorization for awhile. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I had no comment on your intention for deletion but on your blanking of a page. If a category (or any other page) is blanked, a couple of days later it appears on the Special:UncategorizedCategories list. When cleaning this list, we are trying to examine what happened (vandalisme, editwars, unmotivated moves, reduction of subcategories, ...) and we are trying to find out what the intention was and what the best solution is. All this takes quite some time. In your case, it would be much more efficient if you mark the page with {{Speedy|No longer used, Overcategorisation, ...}} or (preferred) {{Badname|Used category name}}. Those deletion request pop up immediatly in Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion which we try to keep empty all the time and require much less investigation energy. --Foroa (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I did not know. Maybe a note should show up when people blank a category so they know to add in something like {{Speedy|No longer used, Overcategorisation, ...}} or (preferred) {{Badname|Used category name}}. I don't normally preview such category removals on already empty pages, so I wouldn't notice a note that only shows up in the preview. So the note would have to show up after I blank the page. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why I reverted your blanking ... It worked ... --Foroa (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

disrespect for the ToL project

Too difficult for your understanding?

User_talk:Orchi#Overcategorisation <--??

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AOstrya_carpinifolia&diff=15136392&oldid=14923424 <-- They call "Europe": "Lebanon; Syria; Turkey, Azerbaijan; Georgia, Ciscaucasia, Austria; Switzerland, Albania; Bulgaria; Former Yugoslavia; Greece; Italy [incl. Sardinia, Sicily]" http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?26162

In my mind, just because I do not understand what the Plants of categories contained does not mean they do not have a meaning. Apparently you know what those categories are and in that knowlege you also must know they are not the same as the categories that I made. The history of their maintenance was also impressive. That they do not communicate is a choice that they opt for but not the option that you choose.

While I respectfully put those Plants of categories back, you disrespectfully revert my changes. Or do you really think that Lebanon is in Europe and Spain isn't?

I remember some aggressive maintenance of those original categories.... -- carol (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely because nobody was able to tell the difference between plants in xxx and flora in xxx, someone, not me, activated a merge between them and installed the necessary redirects. So it makes no sense to revert them back in plants of xxx and/or to sabotage the bots by inserting {{Nobots}} in the redirected "plants of xxx" categories (see Category:Non-empty category redirects). I take no position in this plants of xxx or flora of xxx debate. I'm just trying to keep the system in a clean and consistent state. If you are not agreeing on Tol related situations, you have to open a debate on the appropriate place, not here. --Foroa (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

{{tl|template}} is the syntax to not get the template to be used here. (Just a little assistance with this complicated wiki stuff for you, I had a difficult time remembering how to use that long before you became a knowlegible administrator here, such is my patience with this.)

What user instance did you ask? Please be very clear about this, providing user instances and where you found the names of the user instances who were asked. I remember a discussion here with you where there was the appearance that you assumed "Watchlists" would be your communicator.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20080901124025&contribs=user&target=SieBot <-- When I asked who (the user instance) did this, your user name was there. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CommonsDelinker/commands&diff=13884082&oldid=13882717 Are you able to communicate using user names and not "nobody" or "somebody" which are not proper names? -- carol (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A few comments:

1. The moves that I initiated in http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CommonsDelinker/commands&diff=13884082&oldid=13882717 where a result of non contested move requests from various users that I simply executed. After your complaints, the flora/plant moves have been completely undone by Rocket000.

2. There has been no single action from me that caused the moves you are suggesting in http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20080901124025&contribs=user&target=SieBot and that happened almost one week later than my bot commands you are referring to in previous section.

3. So before accusing me, you might better check the facts first. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The plants of categories where in a constant maintenance of such that I assume there is a reason for and a definition of their existenance and what they are to contain. I think that any person with a junior high education could have easily seen that there were incredible differences between the two trees. With all of the respect and understanding you have of and for the ToL project here -- could you paste the section of their documentation here that defines what is to be included into the "Plants of" categories that you followed when you really did authorize this move?

I will not take lightly the time between 2004 and August 2008 that the "Plants of" categories were maintained and I am very sorry that you seem to have taken this lightly (lightly -- without due respect, as if it did not matter to others). -- carol (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Due to the fact that nobody was able to provide formally a precise definition of "Flora of xxx" and "Plants of ..." on the category talk pages, Cfd or pump, and even less a definition of their differences, it is completely normal that someone decided to merge them. Moreover, since the merge happened, I have seen no request, besides from you, to split them again. But again, this should not be discussed on my talk page. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What user instance did you ask? -- carol (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what a user instance is. What should I ask to whom ? People express themselves quite openly without asking. I think that I am perfectly capable of reading all documentation without having to ask, even if 80 % of the discussion is not to the point. --Foroa (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"User instance" is User:Foroa or User:Botchill or my user instance User:CarolSpears.

I have found user names like this in the edit history of documents and categories and image pages. Often, before making any big decision about things (moving categories or maintaining a move as examples), I look to see how long ago categories were created (as in the case of the plant categories which had the (Indexed) in the names and which user instances were involved. I did not ask anyone when requesting and moving those (Indexed) categories but they had been started (alphabetically and not completed through the "C"'s in the plant names) and abandoned years before I moved them. That and one other case which I did not ask the users who were involved (and need to soon move them back into a more uniform system -- much research had been done for some of those) -- I consider this to be a sign of intelligence and the ability to work with a community, especially one which contains various experts on several things. I also make no claim of understanding what the "Plants of" categories contained enough to have initiated or to maintain a move of them.

I am here, requesting that the "user instance" of User:Foroa share the understanding of what the "Plants of" categories contained that should be the motivation for the repeated maintenance.

 Support The user instance: User:Foroa detailing their personal knowledge and understanding of what was not different between "Flora of" and "Plants of" categories. -- carol (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki takes Manhattan project

Thanks for your patience with everything we've been doing. I did try to improve on April's event, and in recent days I've been sketching out an even more sophisticated system for the next event, which should be easy to adapt for different places. Hopefully we can get that up in a month or so; I plan on developing it at Commons:Photo scavenger hunts. I think it might make sense if for the next event to upload everything with a "light" template, which will only give the team name and the event information, but where we can be assured that all of the fields are filled in and that we can upload all the images that night (currently, the remaining images scattered on half a dozen people's laptops). Then, we'll mark the tags for the location codes on-wiki (I would obviously do most of this work). What do you think of this idea?--Pharos (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons is supposed to be a growing community, so we have to stick together to make it happen. A project as yours, which I envy, is not the same as a commons server that has to serve thousands of providers and hundreds of projects. But in the end, it has to work all together. A bit more discrete templates may be a good idea, especially the slogan for improving Commons categories sounds a bit pompous; after all tens of people are working here very hard and every day to improve commons without leaving any marks on their improvement work (one of the causes of some resistance I guess). In terms of naming, you might consider the following:

• File naming: target spot + team name (+ nr) (files can be easily renamed in groups using Picasso or even Explorer).
• Description: a target spot (location code) template that is substituted by a bot when all things are settled
• User: just a standard user name that you create and document, so every thing remains normal, documentation on the user page (should be no problem for your loader to use that name as well)
• Categories: Same technique as for description

I think that if you prepare that carefully, it will not require more work and in the end, the pictures will fit in the system like any other picture. If you try to stand out from the crowd here, you will attract more problems. You might consider using Commonist for easier batch uploading. After all, many users here uploaded here more than thousand of images that fit in perfectly, so avoid privileges. Keep up the good work. --Foroa (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoi Foroa, i just noticed this message please take a look at User talk:Pharos#Improve WTM. I've been playing around with templates to have everything fit in one default template which can be substituted. Multichill (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the cooperation. As I see that Pharos is proficient with AWB too, I think that he can manage the current situation but it would be a good thing to prepare and discuss together the next scavenger round. --Foroa (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we'll be able to follow most of your recommendations in the next round. I've already made the improving Commons categories hidden. I'm not sure how easy renaming will be; can files be renamed after uploading? I'd also want to be careful about substituting the descriptions for the moment, because I'm not really sure everything is in the ideal categories yet, and that's why I've made a quick study of AWB. BTW, ideally, we really should try to coordinate these issues at Commons talk:Photo scavenger hunts as we progress. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting categories

Ik weet dat Stunteltje bezig is met een omorganisering, en dat dat waarschijnlijk de oorzaak is dat je category:Electric motor is verwijderd. Maar dit veroorzaakt een probleem op alle wikipedias die een commonslink naar deze categorie hebben. Zoals ik al in de Kroeg geschreven heb, volgens mij zijn dit soort kosmetische wijzigingen niet zo'n goed idée. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ik verander tientallen categorieên per week en er komen 1000 tot 2000 categorieën per dag bij (ongeveer één per minuut). Dus moeten wij strenge regels hebben (en ze zijn nog niet streng en duidelijk genoeg volgens mij) om dat in de hand te houden. Het commonscat argument is een slecht argument omdat categorieën onze interne organisatie aangaan (en core backbone van de commons) die dagelijks moet kunnen evolueren en gereorganiseerd worden. Een commonscat daaraan verbinden is dus een bijzonder slecht idee. Het beste in uw geval lijkt mij in commons nederlandstalige galleries te maken met dezelfde naam als het nederlandstalig artikel en die dan te linken of the redirecten naar de interne categorie. Zo heb je meteen een vertaling en een eenvoudige regel in iedere betrokken wikipedia. Categorieën direct linken tussen verschillende wiki's is hachelijk omdat ook op de normale wikipedia's de categorieën sinds ongeveer een jaar versneld ingevoerd worden en aan iedere kant hun eigen dynamiek kennen. --Foroa (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Dit klinkt wel erg arrogant, vind ik. Commons is een service, een media-bank voor andere wikipedias, en dat moet men hier goed in het oog houden. Er bestaat groeiende onvrede over de administratie van commons. Men vindt steeds meer dat er hier niet goed wordt omgegaan met wat men naar commons heeft overgedragen. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ik geef m'n Commonscat bot wel weer eens een slinger, Foroa, je laat redirects toch wel even staan zodat m'n bot ze kan oppikken? Dan is er geen probleem. Multichill (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Als er categories gemoved worden dan wordt er omzeggens altijd een nieuwe category aangemaakt en worden de IW's erin gecopieerd. De meest universele oplossing lijkt mij bij iedere nieuwe category (na een paar dagen of zo) de interwiki's te gaan nazien en dus ook hun retour (commonscat). --Foroa (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again

There is no "Flora of the United States" a category whose purpose is unknown. Flora of categories are of a certain land area and environment.

The "Plants of" categories were very carefully maintained for the years between 2004 and 2008 and most certainly have a different meaning -- I respectfully request that you provide the intentions of those categories before reverting my changes.

I was unable myself to find what those "Plants of" categories were supposed to contain. In my experience attempting to work the logic back to their meaning, I was unable to find any point to them nor any documentation supporting their contents. It is one of the reasons that I did not request a merge.

Since, I in fact know that the two trees were not equal, I am curious as to the section of the ToL documentation which you found that describes the contents of those original categories enough to give you the self-assuredness of being able to revert my changes. Please paste the relevant portion here to prove your research and knowledge of this. -- carol (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is my last comment on the flora/plants saga. I will not repeat over and over again the discussions as in #Flora_of_categories_vs_Plants_of_categories, the referenced discussions therein and the following pointless discussions and accusations. There is no documented definition what precisely is meant with plants of xxx and flora of xxx. From the discussions, it is clear that they are considered roughly the same, and will so interpreted by 99,99 % of the uploaders, and why there have been redirects installed from the one to the other. This is the system state right now and it has to remain coherent like this for the time being. If you don't agree with this system state, and you seem to be the only one, then you have to open a request for change, not sabotage the redirects.

Invitations are given to you. When the merge first occurred, no one mentioned it to me and you said that I must have known that things were occuring because of my watchlist. Yet, I see you getting invitations to things. It should be a golden rule thing. Where when people don't invite the obviously interested they also do not get invited to discussions they are probably interested in. Excuse my strong dislike for this user instance when the person at the keyboard refuses to use the indentations; it is the reason for the big text that I used which should not be interpretted as shouting but instead as highlighting author changes in the text. Many reasons have been for this merge but for instance, the pointer to the discussion is shown to me now, ~two months after the merge. When you are kicked and kicked and kicked and kicked when you are down, please remember me and your enjoyment of this. -- carol (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with you that the flora in xxx are making macro-zones that can be used to constitute political zones and ecoregions that are not necessarily a perfect overlap. Well defined alternatives and solutions will be certainly appreciated on the proper place, not here. But before you make further diversions, I would strongly advise to forward a definition of plants of xxx and flora of xxx, so at least people have a chance to understand what you are trying to say. --Foroa (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The proper place would possibly be where the merge was initially discussed. Do you enjoy being invited to discussions? Of all the claims you have made of discussions of the original merge, you have never shown any discussions of it. Thank you for agreeing with it -- please desist in reverting my changes especially those that violate the over-categorization thingie that you and Multichill tout so very often. -- carol (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I am asking you nicely over and over again for the definition of "Plants of" categories. I say over and over again that I can not determine this definition. I cannot find anything online that collaborates with the stuff that was found in those categories. You have taken it upon yourself to undo my changes so the task of defining what those "Plants of" categories were is upon you.

The claim you make that you were not a part of the move is an easy claim to make, in spite of the evidence that I showed of the history of that move. As instigator and as a user instance which is trusted -- do provide the definition of the "Plants of" categories that enabled you to make this merge.

"Flora of" categories were made and maintained by one person. That person is willing to provide the any details that following those categories to their origin (original origin) fail to display. There are two to four online sources for the information that the original categories provided.

I look forward to understanding what you know that causes you to continue to revert my changes. -- carol (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I repair these problems, the bots and idiots unrepair them. - carol (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC) -- Ecoregions and political regions are two top level parallel categorisations that overlap each other. This has nothing to do with overcategorisation. --Foroa (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Plants_of_South_America&curid=55866&diff=15378742&oldid=15378287 The bot is ignorant as is anyone who just reverts this without knowing what the "Plants of" categories mean. If you look at the contents of the article that I do not think should be moved from there -- you will find that the bot is moving things from whatever "Plants of South America" used to be and into "Flora of South America" yet, the category is already subcated to many finer divisions of this land area. It says of the user instance who undid my changes that this "User instance Foroa" knows what the "Plants of" categories meant and yet was unwilling to follow that over categorization thing.... -- carol (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you are saying that "Flora of Argentina" is not a subset of "Flora of South America"? Please restate what you are saying very clearly using an example like this. Or, leave things be until you know what is the intentions of both trees. -- carol (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop shouting here. Questions already replied several times (some in bold now). Obviously, I don't have the intelligence to explain you what all the other people seem to understand. Over and out. --Foroa (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not shouting, just attempting to work with your non-indenting occassional ways. I find it interesting that people invite you to discuss things they think you might be interested. Is this a good way to work and is it something that you can receive but cannot do? Once again, it was not shouting, it was making my text stand out from yours and you were able to see where my text started and yours ended? -- carol (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Commons:Photo scavenger hunts

Hi Foroa. I'd like to let you know you can now sign up as a participant in this new WikiProject. The WikiProject's talk page should be a good forum for future discussions. Thank you.--Pharos (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

on car repair and snake oil

There are stories in the culture of my country -- one about the turn of the last century about salesmen selling "snake oil" -- mixtures that were promised to cure ailments and that would make good things better than they were. Often when people "bought" these tonics it hurt them. Personally, I have bought a few ideas and devices which were not as promised and it has hurt me and I learned from it. (And keep learning and keep learning and keep learning enough that I am anxious for others to learn what I have learned since I do not think that I am the only person to make these same mistakes and it seems so wrong that I should get all of the learning from them....)

There is another idea about car repair. Sometimes, when a vehicle without problems gets "repaired anyways" the vehicle no longer works as well as it did before this repair. The rest of the machine might start to make noises due to the repair which was not needed.

About kicking people when they are down. I will never kick a person who is down, yet I am unable to prevent this from happening. Whatever enjoyment that has been gained from that merge, from the discussion in which I was uninvited to and to the people who still strongly (or weakly, your choice for this) have no understanding of what the "Plants of" categories were -- I am sorry for all of those who were involved in it. It was wrong and it still is wrong. -- carol (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

something different

You often delete my mistakes when I mark them; it is a good feeling that I am not leaving a mess and that you are helping with that.

Your bot hack for one of the too long lists of genera was very thoughtful and an interesting "hack" also. -- carol (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up and rendering the system consistent is my major activity here. I must say that cleaning up requires often some investigation to check if there has been no conflicts, vandalisme or dependencies. In general, I trust your speedy requests almost blindly, except when there are still linked items.

While you are at the genera, you might be the most proficient "user instance" here to create the genera categories you did asked for in Special:WantedCategories or here. They will not need dummy categories. --Foroa (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, I was frustrated with the APWebsite stuff long before I asked for its deletion and even longer before I displayed my continued frustration with it here. You were undeserving of this frustration at the point that it reached you -- to me, the deletion would have only left the same kind of red links that other deletions that have occurred leave; which is also a frustration which did not previously involve you. It is with much less frustration that I was and still am removing similar spam from the taxonomy categories (in my defense but not for the frustration I shared unwanted and undeserved here).

Second and currently, that list is really nifty; I hadn't seen a list like this before. Those red links in that list are categories which were added later and an indication of how versatile the templated categories can be. Having them in one list like this is very helpful, I was wondering how I would find them. This is a good task for those hours when I my body is awake but most of my brain is on vacation or whatever it does. I also concur that I am the best "user instance" to subcategorize them, especially since I created those red ones in about 2 to 10 minutes....

Third, and sadly, the request that list display 250 only shows entries "Aba" through "Lav"; only about halfway through the english alphabet. It is an indication of how much fun and real life there is where I am. The kind of fun and real life that makes making these categories seem like it is good to be alive and able to accomplish things no matter how incredibly wrong wrong wrong other things are. I suggest to any who read this that I could have accomplished this and enjoyed the life I had made also -- just not so quickly. This third entry here probably has little to do with you with the exception that you showed me this list, heh. -- carol (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Frustration is not only frustrating, it is the seed for many conflicts and tends to produce tunnel sight and communication problems. Open communication opens up the horizon. --Foroa (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Street or street

In e.g Category:Streets in Szczecin or Category:Streets in Lublin Street is used. I have no preference. Havang(nl) (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons rules state no title case, but most use title case. Another incoherency in the naming rules. In this case, I will maintain Street with capital, but this is fiddling work. --Foroa (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Check this

Orphan new Category:Rusałka Lake in Szczecin with 2 images,one is Image:Rusałka Lake in Szczecin.jpg -- Havang(nl) (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Because you have put {{Move|Rusałka Lake in Szczecin|distinct from Rusałka lake in Poznan}} in stead of {{Move|category:Rusałka Lake in Szczecin|distinct from Rusałka lake in Poznan}}, so by clicking on it, I created a gallery and not a category. --Foroa (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Info about deleting Category:Churches in Landkreis Lindau

Dear Foroa, I initiated a speedydelete for this cat after having moved the remaining content into the already existing Category:Churches in Landkreis Lindau (Bodensee) which respects the right naming of the Landkreis. Thank you --Fredou (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dear Foroa, for the message above. I quite misunderstood the email that I received when you deleted the cat. Everything allright. Thank you once again. --Fredou (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect deletion of category

Hi, you deleted "Category:Old Supreme Court Building, Singapore" incorrectly. The outcome of the discussion at "Category talk:Old Supreme Court Building, Singapore" was that "Category:Old Supreme Court building" should be merged into "Category:Old Supreme Court Building, Singapore". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I noticed that there was an agreement, so I executed the move request as indicated. Too hasty, but should be corrected by now. (By the way, I prefer that name too as there is little chance that it has to be moved again) --Foroa (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought too. There might be lots of "old Supreme Court buildings" elsewhere in the world. Have all the images that were in "Category:Old Supreme Court building" been moved over to the new category? I had the impression there were more images. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked the moves, but there has been some system/bot blackout during the first move, so not possible to verify the 11 image moves. I checked the gallery and searched with ""Supreme court" Singapore" and that added a significant number of additional images. Does it look better now ? (and yes, in Ottawa and Norway, there is an Old Supreme Court) --Foroa (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, thanks! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Dear Foroa I would like to thank you for your constant tries to reach a consensus in the talk about Basque Country and your constructive attitude. It is a pleasure to discuss with people like you. Thanks again, and see you at Commons!--Balbo (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Same to you. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

I reverted you recategorisation of this as the category includes more than just people from the United Kingdom, all Commonwealth Countries have the medal. Gnangarra 00:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake, a bad habit for categorisation work that is most of the time not "deep" enough. --Foroa (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

More suggestions

Hoi Foroa, ben bezig met wat nieuws. Zie User:Multichill/Category suggestions2. Ik weet nog niet helemaal hoe het gaat worden, maar misschien vind je het leuk om ook mee te denken. Het is voor de laatste loodjes in een uncategorized categorie voordat ik CommonSense ga aanspreken voor suggesties. Multichill (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Begrijp niet meteen wat je hiermee bedoelt. Natuurlijk staan wij altijd klaar voor verbeteringen. --Foroa (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Eskerrik asko!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your patience in the basque affaire... Dank u wel! Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ez horregatik. Thank you for your cooperation too. --Foroa (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

for this. Cheers. Dorieo (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Foroa (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Municipalities

Foroa, ¡basta ya! ¿Qué pretendes? Yo no soy una vándala. Yo no hago vandalismo. Sólo intento homogeneizar todos los municipios de España, y todas las categorías. "Cities and villages of xxxx" es mucho más ambiguo que "municipalities of xxxx". ¿No puedes ver que estoy haciendo un buen trabajo? Patricia Rios (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In English: Foroa, stop! What do you claim? I am not a vandal. I do not do vandalism. Only I try to homogenize all the municipalities of Spain, and all the categories. "Cities and villages of xxxx" is much more ambiguous than "municipalities of xxxx". Cannot you see that I am doing a good work? Patricia Rios (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I am not able to write in proper Spanish. 70 % of Spain is categorised in "Cities and villages in xxx". As I told you already, I am tired of all the Spanish moves and edit wars back and forward from "municipalities in xxx" to "cities and villages in xxx" and vice versa. Moreover municipalities is not equal "cities and villages". Unless there is a clear definition how it will be organised in Spain, I will block and revert any move at that level. I gave you a warning for that because I explained that already. Moreover, you keep removing useful Interwiki's and categories. --Foroa (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You are very short-sighted. I try "sanear" (saneado = select(Tax-free)) the categories on the municipalities of Spain, and you are sabotaging me. Spain divides in nineteen autonomies, these divide in provinces, these in "comarcas" (regions), and these in municipalities. The municipalities can have several nucleuses. My intention is of categorizing all the municipalities, and the rest of villages will be categorized in the categories of his municipalities. But you do not stop getting for way. Leave me alone!! Find out, and you will see since you do not have reason. 79.145.126.145 13:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is perfect, and this logic is applied in most countries: autonomies-> provinces--> municipalities->villages--> Hamlets ...

But in many countries, as is done in some provinces of Spain, they register all their villages and cities equally in "cities and villages in xxx" as this allows to categorise and find villages without knowing to what municipality/district/province they belong. So, unless there is a clear consensus, it makes no sense of destroying the work from the others. In some other countries, they have separate categories for villages and another for cities.

So my "sabotaging" is avoiding that you destroy the work from the others because you have another meaning how things should be categorised. After all, they got a good reason to use Cities and villages in xxx, and not municipalities in xxx. --Foroa (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Navarre

Please, do not vandalism any more. Navarre is a Spanish autonomous community, and it does not form a part of the Basque Country. Your ignorance —on this matter— is very big. 79.145.126.145 13:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see Category talk:Basque Country/Category scheme Basque Country for the agreement on the Basque Country structure. You can discuss it further on Category talk:Basque Country. I'll try to get hold of a Spanish administrator to ease further discussions on Spanish categories. --Foroa (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocks

Can you please try and be sure to give a reason for any blocks you place - it is helpful to the user & others who look at such things. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I normally document a reason. This time, I was in a hurry as I don't really have time. --Foroa (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Category redirects

I notice that you seem to be manually replacing a lot of code. Can't you get a bot to do this instead? It seems too automatic a task to waste a human on. Does it even matter if a redirect to the template is used? Richard001 (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I did so in a hurry because some of the auto-categorisation bots have a problem with some of the redirect syntaxes, and I wanted to eliminate quickly a potential auto-categorisation error source for further checking. I requested a RussBot change to do that automatically. Thank you for your concern and it is certainly not my intention to do that on a regular basis. --Foroa (talk) 06:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

By country opruiming

Hoi Foroa, m'n bot is nu de by country cats onder handen aan het nemen. Er wordt echt een heleboel gevonden. Multichill (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Had ik al in gaten. Mooi werk dat om de week eens mag draaien. --Foroa (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dat is wel het plan ja. Kom een hoop rare dingen tegen zoals Category:Basketball teams, Multichill (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

my user page

I don't understand what is the problem to reply to my request. דניאל ב. (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We normally don't delete user pages unless there is a very special reason. --Foroa (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to vanish. Daniel B (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User pages need only be deleted if they contain personal information AND the user requests deletion. None of these conditions are met. --Foroa (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

the page does contain personal information - my full name in hebrew. the user (me) did requests deletion. Daniel B (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted now. I couldn't guess that the page contained personal information and the deletion request was not motivated (reason field was not filled out). --Foroa (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough from the beginning. please Delete the talk page to. Daniel B (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. 80 % of the problems here boil down to communication problems. If you ever forget your real name, I can always restore your user pages ;). --Foroa (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

:) Daniel B (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for deleting the misspelled Sphingidae pages. I retagged Sphecodina abbotti‎ because it is a misspelled duplicate of Sphecodina abbotti‎i and the image with Sphecodina abbotti‎ in the title is tagged to be renamed. --Kevmin (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

catalan-spanish war?

Je ne suis pas espagnol ou catalan (je suis argentin). Le catégorie c'est répétée. C'est la même, et il faut corriger ça, c'est tout. Si vous pouvez faire le catégori en anglès, pour moi c'est tres bien. Salut. ferbr1 (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, mais je passe pas mal (trop) de temps avec des edit wars en Espagne. Category mergé dans la plus ancienne. --Foroa (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Unwanted changes

Seeing you've had a bit of history with this user, I've just noticed (s)he's been modifying some of my work as of translating headers from English to (just) Spanish, changing official placenames in Catalan for those in Spanish and either deleting proper categories or replacing them with nonexistent ones, so I'm adressing to you as administrator to keep an eye on this, revert all those editions or even re-consider blocking its account, since all its changes solely imply a political point of view; or, may I rather adress to a local administrator to sort it out? --Llapissera -> talk 17:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC) P.S: dank u wel!

This user does a lot of good work but she seems to be rather Spanish-above-all and I did not managed to establish a dialogue with her. Moreover, she seems to have little community sense and damages quite some work from the others. I blocked her already for a short while but then she pops up as an anonymous user doing even more harm. I can only try to limit the damage. It would be clearly advisable that a Spanish speaking administrator steps in to try to calm it down (which I requested but without response), but I think that the Spanish community should step in too to establish a more cooperating constructive dialogue. I noticed already on several occasions (with the Basque Country as happy exception) that it is not easy to mobilise a community in Spain that tries to communicate and cooperate. Hopefully, the contrary will be proven real soon. --Foroa (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK then, I'll adress user Rastrojo instead: he's more open-minded than regular Spaniards in these matters. Tot ziens! --Llapissera -> talk 14:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

He is from a very good region, so that cannot go wrong. ;) --Foroa (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:País Valencià

The real and official definition for The region of Valencia is Comunidad Valenciana and not Pais Valencia. --Ravave (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You watch the article in Spanish Wikipedia [5]. Please, can you move the title of the category?. --Ravave (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, so far, the endless discussions about the Category:País Valencià, which is, like Category:Comunidad Valenciana, a redirect to Category:Land of Valencia, have never terminated in a fully agreed solution (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Land_of_Valencia).

If you look in Commons:Disputes_noticeboard/Archive:_Catalonia and towards the top of this page, this discussion never ended. As we have seen with the Basque country discussion, even when the discussion is closed, there is always one or more other editors that try to force another naming or start with an apart parallel category system.

Moreover, because of the disputes between the Spanish and Catalan names, we are forced to be even more strict with the English name rule of Commons. Some moment in time, I suggested Autonomous Community of Valencia, which was rejected too. The name "Valencian Community" is, like Spanish writers, French sailors, ... not acceptable for the Commons naming rules as this does not allow for disambiguation: there are many en:Valencia's.

So in Spain, I avoid to accept any major changes as they unavoidably start new discussions and edit wars which consume a lot of wasted energy for many people. Of course, if there is a major community requesting changes or new agreements, I will not stop it. But please don't expect from me to start such an action, my Spanish, nor my knowledge about your lovely country, is just not good enough. --Foroa (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On this matter, to sum it up: conservative and Spaniard nationalists support the use of «politically correct» Comunitat Valenciana (officialy, in Catalan!), while leftists and sovereignists prefer cultism País Valencià, mainly used in local literature; anyway, we all say Valencia on a day-to-day basis, so I'd rather go for this historical, common, simpler form, seeing that possible confusion with the city (or, for name's sake, with the province) is already avoided. Just a contribution, though... --Llapissera -> talk 23:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC) P.S: do you dig Antwerp's own dEUS?

Well, if you want even more problems, then you can call it en:Valencia. I am not from Antwerp and I might be twice your age. I can appreciate en:dEUS but I would greatly prefer en:Ozark Henry, en:Zita Swoon and en:Absynthe Minded. --Foroa (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that's exactly what I wanted to hear read from you: then I suppose you may not like Captain Beefheart or Brel; and any artists singing in Vlams or else? --Llapissera -> (chalk) 14:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Bach, en:Jacques_Brel, Edith Piaf, Django Reinhart, Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong are my alltime favorites. Vlaams (dutch) is not a very good language for singing indeed. Arno cannot sing properly but I like his music. I don't know Captain Beefheart but I am kind of a cultural barbarian; spending too much time on work and wiki's ;). --Foroa (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Frank Murphy

Thanks for correcting the Commons article. I'm new to the Commons, and don't know what I'm doing. 19:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Stan

You are welcome. You could move the stuff you made in category:Frank Murphy to a gallery with the name Frank Murphy. --Foroa (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Koehler1887

I am uploading stuff to Category:Koehler1887 almost every day lately but the descriptions I put on most of the images say 1883-1914 (an example is from today: http://www.illustratedgarden.org/mobot/rarebooks/library.asp?relation=QK99A1K6318831914B2).

Category:Köhler's Medizinal-Pflanzen might perhaps be a better name for it and pasteable from most sources. The thirty-one years makes more sense for the amount of information and illustrations available from these volumes. It is one of the plants super-categories which I have only a little idea of how to diffuse (is that the word?) and no desire to tackle that. A name change would be (in my opinion) a good move before diffusion.

The 1887 in the category name bothers me more and more each new day though. Thanks. -- carol (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this name does not seem right. I'll have a look to it in a couple of days. I added the Iw's but I have to look around for potential conflicting categories. de:Köhler's Medizinal-Pflanzen en:Köhler's Medicinal Plantsit:Koehler's Medizinal-Pflanzen ru:Köhler's Medizinal-Pflanzen --Foroa (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a large task and the category has been there as it is for a very long while; I brought it to your attention with the intention to add it to your list of things to do with no intention for you stopping your current projects for this. Had I undertaken this task, I would have opted for the first few words from the actual name of the publication(s) (as every wiki in your list did with the exception of en) without the research. It is at least possible to move the category mechanically so it makes it not so large of a task as finishing my own "Genera of" mess that sits there waiting for me.... Thank you for looking into this, I appreciate the research you already did that I probably would not have done. -- carol (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a very large task, but when renaming, we better get it right:

• There are hundreds of famous Köhlers, so potential conflicts might pop up. As happens often, later versions might be issued by other authors or his children.
• It looks as if he issued one book in three bands: should we have a separate category per band (and is it realistic ?) Do you have the whole set or one band ?
• "Medicinal Plants book by Köhler" might be a better name if there are several versions, volumes and similar books from other authors. --Foroa (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sadly unable to confidently answer any of these questions. My knowledge of them starts here "Koehler1887", heh. Most of my thoughts have been in the ways that the inks might have been made then and how they might have degraded over time as well as the paper and the effect that would have on that. Many of the commons plant illustrations have been given PD-art license, however, these drawings should have been made for scientific purposes more than art. Science and truthful representations can also be beautiful which even for me can be confusing at times. My assumption is that they were painted as true to the actual colors as possible.

There seems to be three different sets of scans available, some are larger and some are great scans but not so large. One of these sites put the scans of the blank pages that were facing the illustration pages where the inks had bled into them. So, more technical inks, papers and color repair possibilities in my thoughts and no understanding of how things politically and economically came to exist in the publishing structures in late 18th century Europe.

• http://www.illustratedgarden.org/mobot/rarebooks/title.asp?relation=QK99A1K6318831914B1
• http://caliban.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/~stueber/koehler/
• http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/koehler/koeh-eng.htm

Only one site seems to print the volume number and that information is presented in the library format which does not provide the year of the single tome or I am simply not understanding the information which I have occassionally been pasting from these sources. The diffusion of the super-category might be impossible with only the online sources and the idea of it makes (for me) thinking about the storage and age problems far more appealing. It is one of the reasons I dumped the problem here and you are asking many of the same questions I did.

Let me know if the ink problem becomes more appealing for you to think about so I feel less badly about dumping these problems here. -- carol (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "Churches of" categories

I noticed you've been deleting the "Church of" categories that I am in the process of moving. You might want to get these others too, most of which I redirected earlier:

1. Category:Medieval churches of Denmark
2. Category:Medieval stone churches of Norway
3. Category:Churches of Buskerud
4. Category:Churches of Aust-Agder
5. Category:Stave churches of Norway
6. Category:Wooden churches of Norway
7. Category:Churches of Akershus
8. Category:Churches of Wales
9. Category:Churches of Northern Ireland
10. Category:Churches of Rutland
11. Category:Religious buildings in Sheffield

The last few were from Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/05/Churches in the United Kingdom. Thanks! —Wknight94 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems to be a major cleanup. I will delete most of the moved categories when I have some more time. --Foroa (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Churches in Gotland sounds very strange. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

But Churches of Gotland sounds even stranger, more like Church of England a.s.o. What about the alternative: Churches on the Isle of ....Greetings--Gerardus (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotland is a province on an Isle, so what is the correct name ? "Gotlander churches" might even cause people think that it concerns the landing area for God. Anyway, they seemed to be happy with Churches of Gotland, so Churches in Gotland is not that much different. --Foroa (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hanover / Hannover categories

Hallo Foroa, ik ben bezig met het beter categoriseren van sculptures in Lower Saxony en kom nogal wat foutjes tegen t.a.v. Hannover = Hanover, Region (duits) i.p.v. District en Churches of ... De 3 ergste zijn vooralsnog:

Category:Region Hannover moet zijn Category:Hanover (district).

Category:Churches in Region Hannover -> Category:Churches in Hanover (district)

Category:Churches of Hannover -> Category:Churches in Hannover

Kun je daar iets aan (laten) doen? Groetend,--Gerardus (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In Hanover / Hannover, there is a strange mix. In stead of doing some small partial patches, it might be better if a German commonist tries to harmonise it all (personally, I would favor Hannover over Hanover as this is a more elegant way of doing disambiguation). Anyway, I would not dare to move Category:Region Hannover to "Hanover (district)" without consensus. Long move lists can be placed in User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Maybe a topic for the German café ? --Foroa (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ik bedoelde deze mededeling als een signalering. Met de sculptures heb ik werk genoeg en café's, pubs en kroegen bezoek ik nooit, dus ook hier niet. Hannover oogt inderdaad mooier dan Hanover, maar die keus heb ik niet gemaakt en wordt al breed toegepast. Groetend--Gerardus (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Cities in Spain

Thank you for stopping the enthusiastic user because that warned me about all the moves she was doing. We'll see what happens but anyway, I'm afraid it's going to be a complicated change as there is a big chaos in the categories and little homogeneity. Cheers. Anna (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is probably now or never; people are aware about the problem and the chaos has to be adressed one day. I would suggest to start with a list that indicates per province (which are not always homegeneous neither) how the cities and municipalities are handled. I had already some thoughts in Category talk:Gipuzkoa. Only when one start to see clear at that level, you can add the regional Catalan, Basque, ... dimensions, but I feel that you should have it first right at the province level. I would insist too that any village, even very small, has to end up by having its category (In Belgium, we created most of them systematically, even when empty, as this is much more efficient and uniform) while detecting naming problems quite early and avoiding "amateur" category creations. --Foroa (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading and untangling your texts in the Café, and I must congratulate you for the good work. --Foroa (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

US Navy ships and US Naval ships

I only noticed the discussion after it has closed, and which anyway seemed to run for only 10 hours, but there is a distinction between the two. US Naval ships are those with the USS designation and are commissioned warships of the US Navy manned by naval. In addittion there are ships with USNS designations which are not commissioned warships.92.1.174.25 03:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)KTo288 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. Those differences are not apparent from the category name nor from the documentation in the categories. Only a few world citizens will know the difference, so with the actual description, there is little or no chance that categorisation would be correct. The best solution is to add subcategories with clear names so that specialists can categorise it deeper when the images arrive at the top level US Naval ships category. Sorry that I closed the cfd so quickly as it seemed so obvious. In general, one has a response the first days or never and I am working very hard last months to cleanup all sorts of backlogs. --Foroa (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right few will know and few will care. Just me being a pedant I guess.09:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the way it should work:

• The big public categories that allows for gross categorisations (I am already happy that I can categorise a church in the right village category and proud if I can state that it is for example a gothic church, but that is about my limit)
• The finer specialist work to deepen the categorisation work, by preference with very difficult (but documented) category names as not to attrackt mainstream categorisation (dropping, Commonsense). You see, Commons need pedantic people too ;). --Foroa (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Venerable people

Please restore the category you deleted as it does have images in it. Evrik (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was probably too quick and did not notice the interwiki's in it. I try to keep the list of uncategorised categories close to empty. As I had no immediate idea where this category belongs and since this uncategorised category with only one element in it was there since 5 days, I decided to delete it. Restored by now. --Foroa (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. Evrik (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

cat suppression and cat redirects

Hi, I see you delete quite a lot of categories. As a simple user, I generally use {{cat redirect}} in the cases where you'd probably delete the category. Is cat redirection ok? Should I sometimes ask for cat deletion, and if so, in which cases? Doesn't category deletion potentially break interwiki links? I'm just curious about the right way to do things. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As you can see in #Category:Politicians_from_Italy and Commons:Category redirects suck, there is no clear rule. I just try to get rid of the redirects that are (very) obvious spelling, capitalisation and plural errors. Moreover, I generally remove redirects that are using the wrong "xxx in/of/from yyy" as this has a very positive impact on harmonisation. Finally, (when I stumble on them) I remove newly created "American xxx", "English xxx" as the rule is "xxx from/of country" and most of them are even not correct (American points to North, South America, the Americas, the United States ?, English or British points to England or the United Kingdom ?) Moreover, because people see that there are already categories like French actors, French politicians, ... They continuously add French xxx categories because they think that this categories don't exist yet, causing all sorts of redundant categories and additional merging work. There seems to be some confusion about the difference of helping people that don't know English very well and compensating for downright spelling errors and errors against the naming conventions.

Concerning the interwiki links, yes there is a problem. The Commons categorisation is quite different from wikipedia's category organisations and they all grow quickly and reorganise constantly. We move hundreds of categories per week. Personally, I feel that there should be some worldwide matrix referring to places/topics but that category organisation should be internal to each wikipedia project. I feel that on commons, there could be galleries (even empty ones) in each possible language that link to their corresponding article on the wikipedia's and refer to the internal Commons categories. But as you know, there is no consensus. I think that the debate is biased because most people think that categories are fairly stable, which is the case for species, but growing very fast (up to 1400 new categories per day on Commons) for most other subjects. --Foroa (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations, thanks for the links, thanks for the time you took. I have a better overview of the issue. --Eusebius (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bildlöschung

Hi, wollte das Bild "Image:Lago de Tenno Italien.JPG" wegen falscher Bildbezeichnug löschen lassen. Habe das richtig beschriftete Bild (etwas beschnitten) erneut hochgeladen "Image:Lago di Tenno Italien.JPG"..... kann man das falsche jetzt löschen? wenn nicht, warum?... naja, ist ja auch nicht schlimm, ebend nur doppelt :-)...bin noch nicht so mit den Abläufen hier vertraut..... falls nötig könnte ich dir auch in englisch schreiben, aber nicht wirklich gut :-) ... wer kann mir übrigens den Unterschied zwischen den Kategorieseiten und den Galerieseiten vernünftig erklären?? mfg Diether (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems reading German. Writing correctly in German is a problem. I think that most help files exist (COM:G and COM:C) in German, there is a German help or café/pump/bistro forum. The best solution is reading a little bit, looking around and doing a lot of things. A gallery is the Commons name for an article in the wikipedia's.

Once you have "donated" an image, you cannot retract it without a very valid reason as it might be used on various wikipedia projects (Commons is a medium server for hundreds of projects). The fact that the file name is correct, almost correct or an incomprehensive number such as DSC2000326, or even in chinese idioms, does not change really its usability. If you insert {{Rename|Better name.ext}}, a bot will eventually rename it and make sure that all wikipedia's that use that image get updated, but personally I would not bother to change from de Tenno to di Tenno. --Foroa (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

okay....thank you Diether (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Church in Doubice?

Volgens mij ging je de verkeerde kant op. Het moet zijn van Category:Church in Doubice naar Category:Churches in Doubice, niet andersom. Multichill (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Het was een specifieke niet gecontesteerde request van iemand die lastig kan zijn (er is daar maar één kerk). gemakkelijker toe te geven dan zaging te hebben. --Foroa (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dat is niet helemaal waar. Als er maar een kerk is dan zou ik de categorie de naam van de kerk geven om verwarring te voorkomen. Multichill (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your diligence and cleaning up categories, images and related bot work. Dank u wel! Gryffindor (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Duplicates

Hello. I think you made a mistake when replacing Image:Maria de Medici portrait.jpg with Image:Alessandro Allori 003.jpg. The first file has been here for a much longer time, and the filename is at least as descriptive as the newer file since it says what is in the painting. The newer file contains the name of the painter, but instead of saying what is in the painting it only has some arbitrary number. /Ö 22:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you are addressing the wrong counter. AFAIK, I have never been involved with those images or replacements. --Foroa (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. For some reason CommonsDelinker said it was you who ordered the replacement. /Ö 16:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You are probably looking at this one. There can be a substantial time lag between the order and its execution. And because there are many users of the delinker, it is not always easy to trace the "pilot" back. --Foroa (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Castles in Silesia

Hi Forora,

The category "Castles in Silesian Voivodeship" is not covering the historic region of Silesia in Poland. in the attached map you can see the red line which marks the former border of Silesia. Other Voivodeships are as well covering just partially the former Silesia, which are Opole Voivodeship and Lower Silesian Voivodeship. And a small part is lying today in the german state of Saxony. So at least it is not possible to categorize the castles of Silesia by Voivodeships. They only could be categorized individually, but then you schould know exactly the former Borders. Next Problem, which former border? before 1945 or before 1918... greets, --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For Silesia, I assisted only when there was an edit war whether Silesia should be a Polish-only or a transnational region. Since that has been settled, I did not saw a lot of recategorisation in that area and I connected a couple of categories to set the tone (but not necessarily correct). As I have seen with the Basque country, it is often touchy to define a region border because many people interpret a subcategory as belonging to, owned by ... and get nervous. If you want to really distinguish various region border definitions according to past and present definitions, then you are in for a long discussion and a lot of edit wars and very complex parallel categories. In the Basque country (so far), we managed to settle down for one global category that includes hierarchic (belonging to), historical and cultural/language links in one single top category. The best thing is to document it as you see as your current compromise (and include as far as possible complete Voivodeships subcats for increased comfort) and categorisation rule and go for it. If you don't document it properly, you will have fights sooner or later. Good luck. --Foroa (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Kopjes afbeeldingsbeschrijving

Hallo Foroa, ik zie dat je hier de laatste tijd op commons een stukje actiever bent dan mij, daarom even bij jou informeren:

De Upload forms van commons plaatsen toch voor de overzichtelijkheid standaard de kopjes ==Summary== en ==Licensing== op de pagina's (artikels) met afbeeldingsbeschrijving?

Dus dit [6], namelijk het weghalen van die kopjes en overzichtelijke indeling, lijkt mij niet meteen de bedoeling? (zie ook tientallen andere edits van de gebruiker [7]). Of heb je recentelijk wat weten veranderen of een andere richtlijn ergens tegengekomen? Het omgekeerde (toevoegen van kopjes waar ze niet staan), zou met zelfs logischer lijken... --LimoWreck (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoedanook zijn er verschillende upload forms in verschillende talen en iedere bot en hotcat tooltje heeft zijn eigen manier om alles te herschikken, zodat het onbegonnen werk is om daar een systeem in te krijgen (en te houden). Ik vermoei mij dus niet meer met zulke details en als die kopjes er wel of niet staan tussen al die schreeuwerige boxen maakt voor mij niet echt veel uit. Ik ben wel bezorgder voor die subcat classering in de Belgische kastelen. Ik weet nog niet hoe ik het ga aanpakken, maar misschien moet ik eerst een mini category standaard schrijven voor België zodat die discussies voor eens en voor altijd opgelost zijn. Wat denk jij ervan ? --Foroa (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

de subcategorie "Kastelen volgens gemeente" vind ik volslagen overbodig. Het is érg zeldzaam als er al meer dan een per gemeente staat, en meestal klasseren we niet volgens gemeente, maar wel volgens dorp of deelgemeente of kern. Ook in de praktijk associeert men kastelen meer met dorpen of kernen en gehuchten, dan met administratieve gemeenten. En als er dan al eens 2 per gemeente staan, dan kan het wel zo goed in "Buildings in dorp xyz", hoef je m.i. geen overbodige tussenlaag voor te maken (voor pleinen, gewone huizen, etc zou je dat wel kunnen).

Samengevat:

• We klasseren in België nauwelijks volgens gemeente, dus municipality-subcategorie past nauwelijks in dit plaatje
• Meer dan 1 per gemeente (of indien gecorrigeerd, per dorp) is te zeldzaam, dus m.i. een overbodig tussencategorie.

de subcategorie "Kastelen volgens naam" vind ik ronduit absurd. Natúúrlijk zijn dat kastelen naar naam, immers: alles op commons wordt geklasseerd volgens naam, dat is nu eenmaal de aard van het beestje ;-). Een artikel- of categorietitel IS nu eenmaal "een naam". What's next: alle zangers in Category:Vocalists from the United Kingdom verplaatsen naar Category:Vocalists from the United Kingdom by name ? Onzin natuurlijk op dit moment. Die horen gewoon in de hoofdcategorie, zowel de gewone losse media als de subcategorieën. Idem voor kastelen. Er is niets mis met een categorie specifiek voor 1 kasteel, maar dat hoort m.i. gewoon in de hoofdcategorie "Castles in Belgium" zelf. --LimoWreck (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In één woord: onzinnig. Ik ga de komende weken een mini category standaard schrijven voor België en dan een botje langs sturen om die kastelen weer samen te trekken. Beste groet. --Foroa (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Voilà, ik heb er alvast eens de borstel door gehaald:

• de subcategorie naar gemeente was niet alleen ongewenst, ze was bovendien fout. Het merendeel van de categorieën ging om dorpen of deelgemeenten, niet om gemeenten
• de subcategorie naar naam was gewoon absurd. Bevatte een paar tiental kastelen die gewoon tussen de rest horen, in de hoofdcategorie. Immers, alles is naar naam genoemd op commons, zoals hierboven al aangeven.

Ik weet niet of die pipo daar nu met zijn poten gaat van af blijven, ik vrees ervoor. Blijkbaar is hij niet geremd door gebrek aan kennis, en is het een zoveelste gebruiker die als een bezetene zit te categoriseren zonder te weten wat hij doet.

Ik heb trouwens gezien in bewerkingsgeschiedenissen van foto's dat hij al meerdere gebruikers heeft zitten reverten het voorbije jaar. Ook heeft hij ergens een toevoeging van jou domweg gerevert met als uitleg dat er "geen commons-wide consensus is" voor een bepaalde verduidelijking die jij had gemaakt. Wel, als hij nog eens zit raar te categoriseren of dingen weg te halen, dan geef je maar als repliek dat er "geen commons-wide consensus is voor zijn edits", en dat er integendeel zelfs meerdere gebruikers die beter thuis zijn in de materie het anders zien ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Een geval van categoritis inderdaad. Na een poging om per provincie te rangschikken nu dit onzinnig classement. Ik blijf bij mijn standpunt, en ging op dezelfde manier met een botje alles weer samen ge-"rangschikt" hebben. --Foroa (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yups, heb ik gelezen. Maar goed, ik kwam gisteren zo'n paar categorieën tegen tijdens het categoriseren van nog andere afbeeldingen die verkeerd stonden, dus had ik meteen maar alles in een trek meegenomen ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Molentjes

Hoi Foroa, ik ben in het kader van het grote molenproject de molencategorieën aan het nalopen. Ik probeer als naamgeving aan te houden <naam molen> of als er meerdere molens zijn met dezelfde naam <naam molen>, <naam plaats>. Je zal dus nog wel wat molentjes gaan tegenkomen in Category:Requested moves. Een van de molens die ik hierbij tegenkwam is Category:Molen De Weert. Dit lijkt me geen goede naam, Category:De Weert leek jou geen goed plan, wat zullen we er van maken Category:De Weert, Meppel of Category:De Weert (windmill)? Kom je trouwens wel eens op irc? Ik ben regelmatig online op freenode in #wikimedia-commons, dat bespreekt soms wel handig :). Multichill (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

IRC is op veel plaatsen voor mij niet toegankelijk en ik ben er ook niet echt voorstander van, hoewel het inderdaad handig kan zijn, maar niet meteen de meest efficiënte tijdsbesteding (commons ook niet hoor).

Ik ben ook tegen "Eigennamen" zoals De Koe, Het Zweerd, De Weert zonder dat er bij staat wat of waar het is. Of er nu molen of windmill bij staat maakt voor mij niet uit, maar als je in het oostblok kijkt, dan zijn die onleesbare namen wel een probleem. Eigenlijk zou De Weert molen, Meppel de volledigste oplossing zijn, zelfs als er andere De Weert's in Meppel (boerderij, molenaar, melkboer, ...) opduiken. Je mag niet vergeten dat wij op commons uiteidelijk veel dieper gaan categorizeren dan op gelijk welke wiki omdat ieder onderwerp, zelfs als het niet de moeite loont om er een artikel over te schrijven, verder kan verdiept worden met media. Van vele molens kan je honderden details gaan fotograferen. Ben wel verbaasd dat er in Nederland nog geen standaard bestaat voor de plaatsnaam; tussen haakjes of na een comma. Ik verkies zoals jij (denk ik) de comma voor plaatsnamen. --Foroa (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

De Hoop, South Africa is ook te algemeen; ik ben er vele De Hoops tegengekomen. Zelfs in mijn dorpje zijn er geloof ik, twee. Beter een complete naam en uniform systeem dan alsmaar te moeten verschuiven en plaats maken voor nieuwe gelijkaardige namen. --Foroa (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Bij gebrek aan feedback ben ik alvast begonnen met de move's en met een uniforme regel: "naam, gemeente". Waarom je het er het woord molen er niet bij wil begrijp ik niet. --Foroa (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nog even niet aan toegekomen. Ik gebruik trouwens gewoon de standaard naamgevingsconventies van nlwp en enwp als basis. Toevoeging van molen daarin hoort niet tenzij het deel uitmaakt voor de naam. In die naamgevingsconventies is de toevoeging van de plaats alleen nodig als er meerdere dingen zijn met dezelfde naam. Om dat te besluiten gebruik ik nl:Lijst van windmolens in Nederland. Op welke naamgevingsconventies baseer jij je eigenlijk? Multichill (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

De gewone commons naming conventies, behalve dat ik heel wat stricter ben voor eigennamen. Er zijn veel plaatsen/groepen/dingen die De Hoop, De Koe, De Bataaf, de Korenbloem, De Weert, Concordia, Aurora, ... heten (heb ik wel gecheckt met google). Zoals jij de naming voorstelt, moet er telkens als een gelijkaardige naam opduikt, van alles gaan verschuiven en hernoemd worden (eenvoudig voor artikels, heel wat ingewikkelder voor categories). Neem nu nl:De Hoop: deze lijst is zeer onvolledig en ook in België en zuid-Afrika bestaan er tientallen dingen (molens, cafés, restaurants, firma's, hotels, producten (olijfolie),instellingen, boerderijen, wijngaard, boerderijen, lokale verenigingen, ...) die De Hoop heten. Dus beter voor eigennamen meteen een duidelijke eenvormige systematische regel maken die ook meteen aangeeft wat het is, en in geval van molens, ook waar hij staat. Tenslotte is dat ook zo met de meeste kerken en molens die een samengestelde naam hebben. --Foroa (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Vermits er weerstand blijkt te bestaan om het woord molen in de naam te hebben, heb ik alles geuniformiseerd naar naam, plaats, ook voor ogenschijnlijk uitzonderlijke namen: beter één simpele regel.

Reversion of deletion

Dear Foroa,

I think there is a misunderstanding.

Colchicum brachyphyllum is an obsolete name for Colchicum szovitsii subsp. brachyphyllum.

The page Colchicum szovitsii, the content of which is the same as that of the page Colchicum brachyphyllum, is thus an obsolete duplication, the reason why I asked for its deletion.

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 08:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a misunderstanding indeed. I reverted primarily because I noticed the {{speedy delete|duplicate category}}, which makes no sense in a gallery. Moreover, often galleries are getting merged before the "bad one" is deleted, which seemed not the case, until I discovered just now that the Synonymum was already there. Deleted now. Sorry, but I try to be careful with speedy deletions of galleries. --Foroa (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Category names in vs. of

Hey Foroa! Kanonkas directed me to you in IRC. There has been quite a wave of category renames from thing of place to thing in place. In most cases these seem justified and gramatically correct. After talking to some native speakers I think that the in version refers to generic objects of type thing at the location place. I.e. Gardens in Vienna is a category of all the various gradens in the city of Vienna. However there are exceptions. Category Gardens in Schoenbrunn was brought to my attention. This category is not about arbitrary gardens in Schoenbrunn, but about one specific place, which is named either Schoenbrunn Gardens or Gardens of Schoenbrunn.

Do you know if there is any discussion regarding these renames? A note should be added there to caution users who want to rename a category of these exceptions. --Dschwen (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The "wave of category renames" is mainly an action to harmonise things, and you are right, in most cases, they are correct. I have no knowledge of recent discussions on that issue.

Personally, I feel that we should use instead of "in" or "of" a symbol, such as @, OF, IN, ... In short, anything that is computer pars-able to open the way for multi-language category names. But I stopped to make myself illusions on that. I started some of those harmonisations, but I am by no means the main actor: you can clearly feel that many people seek for harmonisation and if possible simple rules. One of the other reasons why we have more harmonisations is that the "move requests" are now handled mostly in a timely manner, so it is getting more used.

So far, we use "Churches in xxx" and "Church of xxx", which is a more simple, less arguable example of what you claim. Similarly, you could state that "Gardens in Schoenbrunn" mean all the gardens in Schoenbrunn and "Garden of Schoenbrunn" would mean the one and unique garden of Schoenbrun. I guess that one can argue about the plural/singular form of garden, another subtle complexity.

The point is that what you are claiming is right, but is quite confusing for the hundreds of non-native English participants that don't have the time or knowledge to investigate the subtle differences. How can we get a uniformity that avoids the random mix of in/of/from's without adding substantial complexity.

Another way of naming could be "Schoenbrunn Garden", but this opens the way for Schoebrunner Garden, Schoebrunn's Garden, Schoebrunns Garden, ... variants.

Frankly, I don't know a general way out for the small percentage of exceptions, I know only that during the last months, we made significant harmonisation progress and yes, we need to address the exceptions. Restoring the special cases to their correct form is no real problem (as we did with some churches on Islands as for example churches in an Island is almost ridiculous, but that supposes that you know that the location is an Island) , but they might be victim of another "harmoniser" quite quickly. I doubt that a note with a caution will avoid harmonisation renaming: if one is working through lists of tens and even hundreds of wrongly named categories, the note of caution will not be seen. Suggestions welcome. --Foroa (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hallo. Blijkbaar heb je ergens op commons over de "in"/"of" bezig geweest de laatste tijd ? Ofwil misleidt bovenstaande post me ;-)

Wat er ook van zij: ik persoonlijk heb niet echt een voorkeur hoe het moet. Of het nu allemaal "in" moet zijn, of een meningvorm. Of gewoon geen voorzetsel, of wat cryptisch.

Recentelijk heb ik wel individuen stukjes uit een categorieboom zien hernoemen (of laten hernoemen) van "of" -> "in". Met als gevolg dat er categorieën bestaan waarvan de oudercategorie "of" heeft, de subcategorie "of", maar de categorie zelf "in.

Het zijn vooral geografische entiteiten waar "of" gebruikt wordt (bergen, rivieren, meren, etc). Waarom? Geen idee juist, wat ik wel weet is dat ik in het verleden nog oude discussies heb zien passeren op commons, en ook discussies heb zien staan van voor ik hier ooit actief was. Nu weet ik niet of er ooit een consensus was om het zus of zo te doen, al dacht ik wel dat men ergens wel overeengekomen was voor de "of" ivm geografische zaken. Maar misschien vergis ik me.

Wanneer bepaalde categorieën met soorten gebouwen van "of" -> "in" worden hernoemd, lijkt er mij geen vuiltje aan de lucht. Maar recentelijk zijn een paar enkelingen ook op de geografische categorieën gesprongen. En daar maak ik me een beetje zorgen om... niet omdat ikzelf het zus of zo verkies, maar wel het feit dat ik niet weet of daar recentelijk een consensus op commons is ontstaan om het zo te doen. Het enige dat ik weet is dat vele gebruikers er in het verleden hebben over gediscussieerd, en dat men toen alleszins blijkbaar de huidige naamgeving is gaan gebruiken... Wanneer er dan een hoop hernoemingen gebeuren op het initiatief van een paar individuen, dan riskeert men natuurlijk wel dat men al een jarenoud doordacht systeem zomaar overhoop te gooien. Gesteld dat men indertijd ooit die consensus heeft bereikt tenminste.

Tenzij het natuurlijk recentelijk gewoon ergens overeengekomen is om alles te hernoemen, en gezien we uit het verleden (zowel op commons, als op de wikipedia's in de verschillende talen) al genoeg geleerd hebben omzichtig om te springen met het zomaar omgooien van categorieën waar tientallen gebruikers in het verleden hebben over nagedacht, ben ik dus wat dat betreft wel wat bezorgd. (Maar niet echt om het uiteindelijk gebruikte voorzetsel zelf, zolang het maar duidelijk is). Enig idee of er recentelijk daar ergens een uitvoerige discussie of consensus is geweest op een van de commons talk pages? Het zou wel zo netjes zijn dat mijn bij hernoemingsverzoeken daar minstens naar kan verwijzen ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The meeste moves ware harmonisaties, niet echte moves. Hopelijk brengt de discussie die je op gang getrokken hebt wat meer klaarheid in de zaak. User:Mircea is gewoonlijk zeer voorzichtig an bij het minste teken van onrust verdwijnt hij, met alle voor- en nadelen. Het is trouwens hoogtijd dat die zaak wat uitgehelderd wordt en iedere steun hierbij is welkom.

Beste groet. --Foroa (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation of your message

Dear Foroa: this is the translation of the message you left in Lmbuga's page. Feel free if you want to add it to the former. I offered to translate the messages from/to Lmbuga, in the hope that it will solve the main communication problems. Cheers! --Balbo (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Primero, tengo que pedir perdón por no ser capaz de comunicarme contigo en tu propio idioma. Eso no significa que no sea capaz de apreciar el valor de tu trabajo y más específicamente tus esfuerzos para encontrar un consenso en el debate sobre municipios en España y las necesidades de los diversos grupos lingüísticos en España. Siento que estás concluyendo demasiado rápido en lo que yo considero pequeños errores y unos cuantos problemas de comunicación. Por favor: tómate tu tiempo y reconsidéralo. Commons necesita gente como tú." End of the translation. --Balbo (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Balbo, I noticed your efforts and I thank you for it. Anyway, I am under the impression that Lmbuga has no problems whatsoever in reading English, but that he feels frustrated to write in English. I could be wrong though. --Foroa (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

19th Century photography in Brazil

I had a lot of work scanning and putting all those images in Commons and even more work on creating categories for each one to make things easier for anyone who would like to search for such images.

And now not only the category was erased, but also the sub-categories (Pedro II, Cities, Military, etc...).

Was that really necessary? Because it´s frustrating when you do something and then another person undoes it for no necessary reason.

Anyway, thank you for your time. --Lecen (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is a misunderstanding. You created the category:19th Century photography in Brazil as a gallery. I just moved the gallery part into 19th Century photography in Brazil, a real gallery as indicated in the edit summary (log) (See COM:G and COM:C). So there where no real subcategories, but a gallery with several sections. And anyway, because the system keeps a history, nothing disappears permanently. Don't hesitate to ask for further questions. --Foroa (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation

Wrong translation, please change

• Guipuscoa : Français : Province de Guipuscoa, en Espagne into Français : Province du Guipuscoa, en Espagne
• Álava : Français : Province Àlave, à Espagne into Français : Province d'Àlava, en Espagne

Please add

• Biscay : Français : Province de Biscaye, en Espagne

cause I do not have permission to edit this page. Thank you --Muturzikin (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Done and unprotected again. --Foroa (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Álava, Biscay, Guipuscoa, Basque Autonomous Community, Navarre and the Land of Valencia

Haz el favor de desbloquear momentáneamente las categorías de: Álava, Biscay, Guipuscoa, Basque Autonomous Community, Navarre y Land of Valencia.

Sólo quiero darle la misma apariencia que el resto de categorías de las autonomías y provincias de España (por ejemplo: Galicia, Extremadura, Almería o Alicante). Hartelijk dank! Patricia Rios (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

With pleasure. Hopefully, they can remain unlocked. --Foroa (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again

Now he/she/it's been reverting valid editions and deleting select interwikis; guess he/she/it doesn't like a taste of his/her/its own medicine. --Llapissera -> (chalk) 12:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC) P.S: sorry to bother you again; I take it's a war you cannot step in but as an observer...

In such a war, nobody wins. There is sufficient place for all of us and all perspectives. She evolved quite a lot last months in the positive sense. Apparently, there is still a long way to go... --Foroa (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right: sad news is that user could do a great task, but instead she (?) chose to be deliberately partial instead and now's started calling me things, as if we couldn't see yet what their true colors are; digging one's own grave, though... --Llapissera -> (chalk) 01:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC) P.S: on the category you just protected, there's still a couple of interwikis missing that were consciously obliterated after your previous revert; I just didn't notice them after my edition.

Land_of_Valencia unprotected again. --Foroa (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ya lo decía filósofo griego: Nada hay en el mundo tan común como la ignorancia y los charlatanes. Eso es lo que eres, Foroa, un pobre ignorante y charlatán, que se deja guiar por una manada de cínicos nacionalistas anti-españoles. Y pese a tu severa ignorancia, tienes gran parte de culpa del circo en el que se han convertido las categorías de algunas comunidades y provincias españolas, al "meter las narices" en temas que desconoces por completo. Pero bueno, ya se sabe que la enfermedad del ignorante es ignorar su propia ignorancia... Ojalá muy pronto logres ver el error en el que estás. Más trabajar en lo que uno sabe, y menos tocar los cojones al personal. Patricia Rios (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am honoured and touched by your verbal virtuosity and the fact that you seem to know most things better than the rest of the people of Spain altogether. I, I limit myself in an exercise of cooperation, democracy and protection of the Commons community. --Foroa (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not the Spanish who better knows Spain, but I know him better than you. You are, undoubtedly, the worst of the vandals, because apart from being "the accomplice of the thief ", you are "policeman" too. But you are an incompetent "policeman". Patricia Rios (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I am a bit of a Belgian idiot. I have only a little experience in a country with three official languages, I can only fluently read five languages, I have a limited background in latin and I am useless in Spain. The only thing where I try to be really good at is helping a colloborative community to make progress. One day, hopefuly, you might understand that. --Foroa (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added almost every language interwiki to Land of Valencia in Wikipedia I could find but for the ones written right to left (didn't know how to make them work), so even a dunce could see every short line's taken from each version's page. Then I think that might better have been placed in category Land of Valencia instead, or perhaps in both. You can keep it protected for now, if there's no further betterment to be made... --Llapissera -> (chalk) 01:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC) P.S: thanks again; hope we haven't to discuss anything more (save for Flemish music or linguistics, of course)!

Where to discuss deletions

Hallo Foroa! (In English because of possible Swedish interest.) Although I objected at Category talk:Members of the Riksdag for the Social Democratic Party, you deleted the category. The deletion is no big deal in itself. What I am wondering about is where one discusses these things. The proposition came from a person who does not react at User talk:Vogler#Kategori-flytt, and who is hardly active on commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The request has been made on 5 december. my understanding was that several of the politicians belonged to another party anyway. The request has been passed to the delinker on 9 december at 9h31 and executed in the evening at 22:29. Your request from clarification came on 9 dec 21:42 without a response. Several days after the transfer, I transformed the category to a redirect.

On 12 december, you transformed the category back to a move request, which made no sense anymore, so I deleted it.

We have daily people that feel that they should add deeper categories, others that are trying to collapse several categories into into one single one. Not always easy, but for a category with few elements, the reverting takes relatively little effort. It is difficult to keep the move request list manageable, especially because there is little reaction on comments and even if there is opposition or comments, people don't react and leave them "hanging" in that category.

It is clear that for "big" discussions and deletions, more formal discussions have to happen at another level: move requests are only for categories which should encounter little or no discussions (and are easy to restore).

--Foroa (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The category was a bit of a remnant from the time that member photos from the Riksdag were on commons. Mayby more than a hundred images of social democrat members had been uploaded, but those needed to be deleted. You are right that the little that was left could have easily been done by hand, and I can also easily revert it by hand. But I do not like to do that without discussion. Maybe a week is too fast for people that are not regulars on commons? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The move request category can only be maintained and remain responsive when the content and delay is limited and there are not too many requets. Right now, it is too big. If there are really (big) discussions, they have to move to Cfd or deletion requests. --Foroa (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bedankt voor "undoing" de bot-edits van Sz-iwbot

Hallo Foroa,

Bedankt voor "undoing" de bot-edits van Sz-iwbot. Nogal irritante bot, die orchideeen-galleries zijn een hoop werk en ik zie ze niet graag weer verdwijnen. Ik wilde ook een blocking-request op Commons:Administrators' noticeboard zetten, maar zag dat U dat al had gedaan, prima!
Vr. gr., maarten Sepp (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ja, werkt al maanden op mijn zenuwen, heeft al een of twee keer beterschap beloofd, maar zijn source blijkt niet veranderd (het Python framework vermoedelijk wel). Probleem is dat hij slechts sporadisch tussen schijnt te komen, dus moeilijker te traceren. De eerstkomende dagen vooral goed opvolgen om te zien of het effectief geholpen heeft en zoniet, blijven aandringen. --Foroa (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for adminship

Hi Foroa, I'd like to tell you that I have recently made a request for adminship. You might want to express your opinion about it. Best regards, --Eusebius (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Cities in Spain

Hello Foroa, yes, I suppose it can be done, but first I think a category scheme should be proposed for Spain with the results of the discussion. I may do it this weekend and then I'll let you know. Cheers. Anna (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Lion key Augusta Raurica 1.JPG

hi there,

thanks for your concern. I just received an email from the museum in Augusta Raurica explicitly stating that photography is allowed in the museum, just as I thought. I think some users are still not familiar with the Commons rule Commons:Image_casebook#Museum_and_interior_photography. Merry X-mas. Gryffindor (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Christmas review!

Hi Foroa. I would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in my request for adminship, and for the time you have taken to review my profile. As a Christmas present I've just been given the admin tools, for which I'm thankful as well. I have understood all the remarks that have been made during the review period. I will take them into account and begin using the tools with much care, until I gain more experience and self-confidence. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas! --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Images taken with...

Thanks for the info, did not know this. --Martin H. (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as you can see in Category:Non-empty category redirects, typical problems with templates that include categories such as user templates and the ones of the German librairy. --Foroa (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Upload forms

Dag Foroa. Ik zag dat je ook hebt gereageerd bij Commons:Village_pump#Vandalism_of_images. Ik heb het nu aangekaart bij Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_&_protections#How_to_change_the_protected_upload_forms.3F. Uit zijn reactie blijkt dat hij niet begrijpt wat ik wil en dat jij kennelijk drie maanden geleden ook al hebt willen aangeven. Het gaat mij er om dat de auteur direct ziet wanneer er iets verandert (vandalisme, aub categorie erbij, verbetering van omschrijving, anderen voegen een categorie bij). Zolang default bij uploaden "volgen" niet is aangekruist, wordt er juist door degene die nieuw is of weinig ervaring heeft dat niet aangekruist. En dat zijn waarschijnlijk juist degenen die het meeste kunnen leren van een feed-back. Misschien kan jij ook nog wat toevoegen. Groeten, Wouter (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouter, ik heb geprobeerd. Maar de laatste maanden is er hier niet al te veel plaats voor subtiliteiten; gebruikers achternazitten, uitschelden en uiteindelijk blokkeren lijkt voor nogal wat mensen de grootste prioriteit te zijn. Bovendien zien wij hier, misschien om dezelfde reden, ook hoe langer hoe minder mensen met echte systeemkennis. --Foroa (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouter, zie daar een jezuieten truk om er van af te geraken. We proberen maar, misschien proberen om er eens deftig in te shotten. Iedere hulp welgekomen. --Foroa (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bedankt voor de support. Sommigen proberen met veel moeite dingen niet te doen die je met minder moeite wel kunt doen. Ook nog bedankt voor de support om het deleten van een aantal Expo58 foto's tegen te houden. Waarschijnlijk heeft de persoon dat gedaan uit racune omdat ik foto's van een kennis van hem had genomineerd voor deletion vanwege copyright omdat er een watermerk met copyright van de auteur in de foto was opgenomen. Groeten, Wouter (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzieligheid schijnt hier dikwijls belangrijker te zijn dan een echte commons geest. Niet opgeven dus. En voor sommigen is het belangrijker om foto's eruit te zwieren dan er content bij te krijgen. Een pluim trouwens voor je Belgische FOP verdediging, we laten ons echt te veel doen door de comma muggezifters. --Foroa (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting old versions of renamed categories

Hello Foroa - I'd like to thank you for working on the "Requested moves" category. I have recently added a lot of stuff there, and it's great to have all those things shifted.

Can I ask however why you delete the old categories? The description in the "Requested moves" category implies to me that unless the old version was simply nonsense or a very unlikely misspelling, it should be retained, with a "seecat" redirect. This makes sense to me, as sometimes, people will continue to use the older form - or make it up again! - and if it exists as a "seecat", then that takes care of this issue automatically, as anything accidentially placed in a wrong category that is also a "seecat" to correct category X, will be moved by a bot.

In short, it seems sensible to leave the old names of the cats as "Seecat", after stripping them itself from any other contents or categorisation. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes Ingolfson, the indestructible worker from the other side of the world. There are many reasons why I am against category redirects as you can read in #cat suppression and cat redirects and its referred files and discussions. This is a never ending debate, but in the first place, I would not encourage people to learn bad category names (and motivate them to make similar bad names). Moreover, if for each category, you have ten different variations and each of them in 100 languages, then I feel that we will end up with a monster that we cannot manage. Nowadays, the system grows on average with 1000 new useful categories per day. But indeed, there is no simple rule. It is important that the move request is on the first line of the category, so people can find out from the deletion log where it went to. --Foroa (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I agree with some of your points, but since there is a bot moving stuff to the correct cats, I am somewhat of a different opinion on the "French actors" -> "Actors from France" part. Surely, it is better to have images sit hidden in a "Seecat" until the bot moves it - rather than have a parallel structure be created (and recreated, and recreated...) for us to constantly have to set a bot at moving and deleting this - by hand. The user who SORTS images wrongly into the "French actors" category in my mind is more likely to eventually look INTO the cat after the second or third image... and see the "seecat" note - and thus learn - rather than learn from having his category deleted much later, when he may not be uploading anymore... or may recreate "his" category. So I am still for the seecat rather than the delete version. As the seecat is hidden, we are not really training anyone to do it wrong.

This is a matter of opinion. I think that the red category shows immediatly that something is wrong and most people try to correct it (I am convinced that category redirects train the users in bad habits). Some people however, even very experienced commons users, don't bother to correct and just create quickly a category to get rid of the red thing. Anyway, I don't bother anymore with French xxx, German xxx, Enlish xx categories. I just do what wastes the least of my time.

Lol, indestructible? I just spent over an hour clearing up a muck-up when "Category:Narrow gauge railways" contents were accidentially moved to "Category:Rail transport by type". What a drag... I am done for today. Ingolfson (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is much more involved with category moving than what one would think at first sight. --Foroa (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Arte

Hi Foroa, before re-adding the TV-cats to cat:Arte [8], did you realize the problem of the cat? IMHO, this cat name is not understood (as 99% of the files sorted therein show) and this problem will continue. The TV channel Arte is known in France and Germany and hardly anywhere else, whereas the generic words arte is probably understood by most uploader as similar to art. --Túrelio (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I stumbled on the undocumented Category:Arte when cleaning up uncategorised categories. I know Arte myself and on w:Arte on the English and other WP's, there seems to be no naming conflicts, except on the Spanish where Arte means art. Most items in the Arte category are there since several months and are indeed originating from loozy categorised "art" files from Spanish speaking people. Exactly like the Category:Art that attracts general "artwork" related rough categorisations (591 by now).

I don't know what the best solution is:

• redirect the arte category to art (or delete it)
• create a new category:Arte TV as more specific name for the TV channel ?

Anyway, using category:Arte GEIE makes no sense as this GEIE is unknown for most peope and is not generally associated with the broadly known TV channel. Removing the categories from the Category:Arte is no solution neither. What's your preference ? --Foroa (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Foroa, stumbled on the undocumented - the same happened with me. Actually, even today I don't know what GEIE means. To me, your proposal of Category:Arte TV is the best idea for all ARTE-related media (actually the Arte GEIE cat interwikis to :es:Arte (TV) ). In addition, we might totally remove or redirect the current arte category. Cheers --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

category:Arte GEIE: Arte est un "Groupement Européen d’Intérêt Economique" (GEIE). This is the actual company on which we can hook the actual channel and the various programmes (different per country). I will clean that up one of these days unless someone "steals" this job. --Foroa (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please check this out

SieBot recat feedback based on your command[9]. Cheers! Siebrand 15:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your change structure Military of Germany

Hi Foroa! Excuse my bad English, I better read than I write.

Various kinds of structure about military are possible:

1. One structure only by point of view of military and another besides by point of view of history, so it was till December 2008. In this case some subcategories must be in both structures, to find pictures from a different way of seeking. For example: Category:Military of Germany -> (sub)category:Wehrmacht -> [ (sub)category:Wehrmacht (Heer) ] <- (sub)category:Military history of Germany <- Category:History of Germany, like as one picture can be in ’’Catagorie:history by country’’ and in ’’Catagorie:history by period’’. I think it is the best way for searchers from various starting points.

2. Only one structure point of view of history and military themes are a substructure of history. Problem: until to what point continuous history, on what point begins present? For example: What pictures of Bundeswehr are ‘’History of Bundeswehr’’, what present ’’Bundeswehr’’? Problem: Some former historical periods have no special name.

The kinds should be discussed like here before anywhere begins to change! But, now the new structure is installed and I tried to life with it.

Some notices by the present structure:

• ’’Category:Military of Germany by state’’ is not exact, because states are BRD and DDR and Deutsches Reich = exact name = Weimarer Republic + Drittes Reich (both were by law of nations one!) too. I think in this structure ’’Category:Military of Germany by historical states’’ is better.
• Many pictures were and are in the old structures correctly in ’’Category:Military of Germany’’ and also correctly in ’’Category:Military history of Germany’’, but in the new structure the correct place is only one. Who corrects the double categories after your change?

--Milgesch (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, I did not do the category move request; this was done by an anonymous user. I only executed the move request after a long wait, mainly because the category name "Alte Heere vor 1919" was not a correct name.

I have no intention to interfere with your discussions, but I can help you if needed. I would suggest you to formalise your needs more precisely on Category_talk:Military_of_Germany (not here) in the sense of:

• Category:Military of Germany

• Category:Old army before 1919
• Category:Reichswehr and Wehrmacht, 1919 - 1945 (das sind auch international bekannte Bezeichnungen)
• Category:Nationale Volksarmee, 1956 - 1990 (Move from category:Nationale Volksarmee ?)
• Category:Bundeswehr

• Category:Bundeswehr units and formations

• Category:Deutsches Heer (formerly Category:Alte Heere vor 1919)
• Category:Luftwaffe
• Category:Deutsche Marine
• Category:Streitkräftebasis
• Category:Sanitätsdienst = Category:Central Medical Service Bundeswehr ?

When you agree on the structure, I can implement it and do the necessary moves. Where possible, please add links to articles or categories to the German Wikipedia. If a category need be renamed, I suggest to use the following example notation:

• Category:Sanitätsdienst (move from Category:Central Medical Service Bundeswehr) (In this case, the second name is better to me)

--Foroa (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Foroa! Excuse me, when I supposed you changed the categories. I don’t know so exactly all finesses of Wikipedia/Commons.

Generally I agree your structure above.

But if we use german expressions, so it should be called

• Category:Zentraler Sanitätsdienst instead of Category:Central Medical Service Bundeswehr. It may be explainde in the head of the category in Englich too.
• Category:Alte Heere vor 1919, or may be in English Category:Old armies before 1919 instead of Category:Old army before 1919 because there where various armies of various states in different times. Then

• Category:Old armies before 1919

• Category:Deutsches Heer (Kaiserreich)
• Category:Military of the German Empire
• Category:Military of Baden
• and so on, the others in the present Category:Military of Germany by state

Category:Deutsches Heer as subcategory under Category:Bundeswehr ist not the formerly Category:Alte Heere vor 1919, but the present (official term) Deutsches Heer. Unfortunately the Heer of the German Empire had the same name in his time. Therefore I think, this old army should have the Category:Deutsches Heer (Kaiserreich), so it is called in the German WIKI here.

Category:Bundeswehr units and formations between Category:Bundeswehr and Category:Deutsches Heer I don’t regard as necessary, because in German ’’units and formations’’ means companies, batallions, … corps and so on. In the structure of the Bundeswehr Heer, Marine and Luftwaffe are Teilstreitkräfte (I don’t know an English expression for this), Streitkräftebasis and Zentraler Sanitätsdienst are Organistionseinheiten (parts of organization) (this difference is a speciality of the german language ;-) ), there is no German common word for all five. In the strucure it is not necessary to give them a common head besides Bundeswehr.

When you implement it so, the Category:Old armies before 1919 and all subcategories should be categoricised in Category:Military history of Germany also.

Another question: Why doesnt appear Category:Reichsfestungen in the Category:Military history of Germany like Category:Bundesfestungen? I think, I have it correct categoricised?

--Milgesch (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have little time the coming days. I suggest that you edit the structure on "Military history of Germany" on Category_talk:Military_of_Germany so that other contributors can participate to the debate and the structure is documented on the right place.

To see Category:Reichsfestungen in the Category:Military history of Germany, you have to switch to the next page, but I added something in the right corner to ease access. --Foroa (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome template in basque language

Dag, Foroa! I have translated the Template:Welcome into basque here. The Template:Welcome/lang page is blocked, so could you please add the Euskara (basque) link? Dank u wel! Groetjes! --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the code you can add:

<!-- eu -->[[Template:Welcome/eu|{{#language:eu}}]] |

--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be OK by now. (almost forgot it, there are so many things to do ...) --Foroa (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank's! --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?

Hello Foroa - could you please consider changing your oppose on the following cats after my modification of my rename requests. It seems we have simply a misunderstanding here what we are trying to achieve.

• Category:Fauna of New Zealand South
• Category:Flora of New Zealand South
• Category:Flora of New Zealand North
• Category:Geography of New Zealand North
• Category:Geography of New Zealand South

I had simply considered that since Wikipedia uses non-disambiguated articles to point to the NZ versions of en:North Island and en:South Island, this would be acceptable here too. But I have no problem with a disambiguated form, and have changed my rename requests accordingly. Ingolfson (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is no misunderstanding. The original category names needed improvement. Whenever there is a chance on disambiguation, we have to solve it before aligning subcategories to them, otherwise we keep renaming the same subcategories again and again. Why I prefer to be proactive on disambiguation. In the long run, it is the only stable solution. Moved now. --Foroa (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that you opposed the move instead of correcting it to what I did now - which caused Siebrand to fail the request and remove it until I found it again. But you may have done that (opposing the move) because technically, such a modification (of the move request to the disambiguated form) could be seen as subverting a users move request? Anyway, its sorted now - thanks. PS, please have another check on my talk page re the railway stations, would be great if you could clarify something for me. Ingolfson (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I try not to touch the move destination as it makes no sense to discuss about a possible destination when it is changing all the time. I correct however spelling/capitalisation/plural errors in the move request, or potential move destinations which I feel are blatantly wrong. For other cases, I remain silent (and execute) or oppose. It is not clear who concludes (I don't move when there is too much opposition) or proposes a new destination. --Foroa (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

re: regional categories

Thanks for your comment & the heads-up about the category scheme. I was going by the category scheme used on English Wikipedia's regional LGBT cats, but will check out Commons' cat scheme to make sure I'm staying within Commons' standards. Thanks again, Outsider80 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A few minutes ago I checked Category:Culture and Category:Society ... one (society, i think) only uses country scheme (like you said), but culture uses both countries and continents (with countries underneath). I created a by-country category for the root LGBT in (country) categories, but was thinking of maybe trying the dual (one "by country" tree, and a simultaneous by-continent tree (like in Category:Culture)) scheme for the LGBT rights in (country) categories. reasoning being that some of the LGBT rights maps are for whole continents. This situation doesn't exist for the root "LGBT in (country)" categories though, so only having a "by country" tree wouldn't be hard there. thoughts? Outsider80 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The dual is probably the best; as I said, here the main "world level scheme" is per country. --Foroa (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, will do. thanks again. Outsider80 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Kategorie - Umbenennung

Hallo! Ich habe gesehen, dass Du die Category:671 umbenannt hast. Warum? In der Kategorie sollen nur Files der Maschine Nr. 671 gesammelt werden, aber nicht alles über die Serie 23. Abgesehen davon laufen alle Unterlagen über die "671" als Serie 29. Diese Umbenennung ist nur verwirrend und nicht sinnvoll! --Moschitz (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can see in the history, I did not made the request, I only executed it, but without hesitation. A category name must be unique and explain what it contains. You can hardly say that Category:671 is a meaningful name. Simularly, I am sure that acronyms such as GKB, LTE, TEM, ... will be renamed sooner or later as they not comply with the basic naming rules.

Thanks ..

...for the RFB support. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My RfB

Hi Foroa! Thanks for giving me your opinion about me in my RfB, and because of some opposes of really trusted commons-users (including you) I withdrew. Now I have got the best 'crate-coach I could think of and I might possibly retry in a few month. To improve my behaviour/editing habits here on commons till then I'd like to hear what you want me to change in detail. Especially examples you're not happy with would be great. Feel also free to e-mail me if you don't want to say this in public. Thanks for your help, abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 14:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not my style to waste time and critic old conversations. Just have a look at the discussions from most other bureaucrats and you will see that they are just more constructive than yours. Next time I see conversations from you that could be improved, I'll try to chime in. And yes, most browsers do have a spell checker; a detail in normal conversations, important if you want to be convincing. --Foroa (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change allowable scope of userpage content

I have made a proposal to specify more clearly what is and what is not allowed on usepages. You have expressed interest in this issue, and you may wish to comment at Commons_talk:Project_scope/Pages,_galleries_and_categories#The use of userpages to advance personal political opinions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Non-empty category redirects

Hoi Foroa, kijk jij nog wel eens in Category:Non-empty category redirects? Valt me op dat het nog wel een mis/gebruikt wordt om categorieën te hernoemen. Multichill (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaat nogal, soms zijn er tientallen per dag. En sommigen, zoals Evrik, willen inderdaad niet inzien dat dit niet de juiste manier is (is ook nergens beschreven). Sommigen wachten ook gewoon tot ik protesteer/revert voor ze de move zelf doen of laten doen. --Foroa (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Het staat zo te zien op Commons:Rename a category. Ik weet niet welke grapjas dat bedacht heeft. Wordt het trouwens niet tijd voor een archiefbotje? Multichill (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Naar aanleiding van het onderwerp rename category een vraag. Wanneer een category van naam verandert en de oude naam wordt verwijderd, in hoeverre wordt dan tegelijkertijd de {{commonscat|XXXXX bij de diverse Wikipedia's aangepast? Wanneer ik bij een categorie "iets te doen heb" en er staan verwijzingen naar Wikipedia pagina's, dan loop ik de meeste langs om te kijken of er een Commonscat verwijzing is en zoniet er een te plaatsen. Wouter (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Op dit moment loopt dat helemaal in de soep. Zoals je bijvoorbeeld in het log van Foroa kan zien, nemen de meeste admins niet de moeite om een linkje naar de nieuwe category achter te laten. Iemand moet daarna de moeite nemen om een van de Commonscat links te herstellen en daarna pikt m'n bot het vanzelf op voor de andere wiki's. Als admins standaard een link zouden achterlaten naar de nieuwe categorie dan zou dit alles volautomatisch kunnen. Multichill (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Zie onder andere ##Deleting_old_versions_of_renamed_categories maar er zijn meerdere discusssie daaromtrent (waarom ze nog niet in de archieven zitten). Ik move doorgaans honderd tot twee honderd categories per week. Checken of die elders gebruikt worden met een toolserver die meer faalt dan werkt is onbegonnen werk. Bovendien ben ik compleet tegen het linken van categorieën. (kan wel in verschillende talen via galleries/artikelen, die veel stabieler zijn). Ik heb voorgesteld dat de move bot de nieuwe cat in de deletion log zet, maar geen nieuw daaromtrent. Indien de nieuwe gemovede categories IW's hebben, dan is er geen enkel probleem die links te gaan restaureren. --Foroa (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ik zal die bot aanpassen en een lekker lui delete linkje aan move toevoegen. Multichill (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Lekker lui inderdaad. Het belangrijkste lijkt mij dat wij die move request category overzichtelijk kunnen houden, hetgeen sinds juli 2008 lukte, maar de laatste weken niet meer. Je ziet, iedereen doet zijn best, maar dat is niet altijd genoeg. --Foroa (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ik heb gezien dat bij het uploaden van een nieuw bestand, evenals met Hotcat bij een bestaand bestand, zonder probleem de redirect categorie - bijvoorbeeld "Bike shops" als keuze mogelijkheid beschikbaar is. Wanneer dat voorkomen kan worden worden die categoriëen minder makkelijk gevuld naar mijn idee. Wouter (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Inderdaad. Wij hebben geprobeerd om de geredirecte cats (zoals in op de nl:wiki in een ander kleurtje/italic te krijgen omdat ik vermoed dat de meeste mensen de cats aanpassen tot ze allemaal netjes blauw zijn (zonder te checken wat er achter zit). Bij Hotcat (user Lupo ?) hebben wij dat ook geprobeerd en de compromis dat uit de bus gekomen is dat wanneer je OK zegt, HotCat dynamisch de cat vervangt door de bestemming van de redirect, maar weinig mensen weten dat of beseffen dat. Beter dan niets, maar ik vermoed dat het probleem niet echt begrepen is. Je hebt ervaring hoe moeilijk een simpel probleem uit te leggen valt (defaults voor watch), en nog moeilijker om het aangepast te krijgen. --Foroa (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoi Foroa, als je even een blik wilt werpen op Template:Nuke en het sjabloon aan wil zetten dan krijg je een handige link op afbeeldingen die zijn voorzien van {{Move}} en {{Category redirect}}. Multichill (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dank je, dat is handig maar niet strict noodzakelijk: gewoonlijk staat de move of redirect op de eerste lijn in de categorie en wordt dus hernomen in de edit summary (anders corrigeer ik die meestal), zodat je een gelijkaardig resultaat krijgt. Het probleem is voor de massieve moves/renames/harmonisaties (en via de delinker talk pages) waar geen rename of redirect op staat, en waar de nuke ook niet helpt. (zie verder) --Foroa (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ziet ernaar uit dat ik de bot niet hoef aan te passen. De standaard deletion summary is Robot: Category was moved to %s. Of mis ik iets? Multichill (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ik weet niet waar je die summary vandaan haalt omdat de bots bij mijn weten niet deleten. Wat wel zo is dat bij iedere "moved" cat waar een nieuwe cat wordt aangemaakt, een dergelijke summary bestaat bij de creatie van de cat, en als je die kan oppikken heb je de meeste renames.

Voor moves naar bestaande cats zou de bot ook een dummy write kunnen maken met een gelijkaardige edit summary (of vb "merged from category xyz") op de destination cat. De meest globale oplossing lijkt mij dat na iedere move, de bot automatisch een redirect maakt van de source cat (en al de rest uitkuist). Als die alsnog gedeleted wordt heb je meteen ook de juiste edit summary. Dat zou ook een aantal problemen oplossen in verband met move requests via de talk page. Ik heb dikwijls geen tijd om die moves uit te voeren omdat er achteraf nogal wat cleanup werk is (0,3 à 1 minuut per move). Ik zie dat er anderen gewoon die move lanceren en zich er verder niets meer van aantrekken, hetgeen ook maar een halve oplossing is. Een bot move met de optie delete (per move (vb {{move cat d}} of {{rename cat}}) of per batch) after move zou ook handig zijn voor massieve harmonisaties. --Foroa (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bots kunnen gewoon deleten hoor, maar het gaat natuurlijk niet onder het botaccount, maar onder het account waar het sysop bitje aan hangt (voorbeeld). Het is helaas niet mogelijk om de summary van de nieuwe cat op te pikken. Mijn bot komt een link tegen naar een categorie op Commons. Neem bijvoorbeeld Category:Egyptian antiquities in the Museo Altaemps. Dan kan mijn bot nooit achterhalen waar deze categorie naartoe verhuisd is, dat kan alleen als er in de edit summary de naam van de nieuwe categorie staat. Al die moeilijke oplossing waar je mee aankomt hoeven niet, gebruik gewoon het nuke knopje wat ik nu in de sjablonen heb gezet, dan staat de edit summary in een keer goed. Multichill (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Zoals je wilt. Hierbij een aantal delete logs. Voor een aantal maakt het geen echt verschil uit indien de gewone delete of de nuke delete gebruikt is. Voor de andere is er gewoon geen nuke beschikbaar. --Foroa (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nuke alleen mogelijk in een kleine helft van de gevallen; comfortabeler, soms betere edit summary, maar helpt de category counters om zeep. --Foroa (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

category move

Ik heb tot nu toe alleen een category verplaatst met een spelfout en eentje met een grammatica fout. Maar waar kan ik alle regels dan vinden, zover ik weet had ik nog niks fout gedaan. Abigor talk 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Geen probleem. Normaal moet er twee weken gewacht worden voor een move uitgevoerd wordt. Vermits ik de enige was die mij geregeld moe maakte met de moves (discussies, onderzoek, move, opkuis) was er niet echt behoefte aan regels. Nu ben ik wel een paar weken achterop geraakt. Alvast enkele simmpele reges voor onmiddelijke moves:

• Manifeste fouten tegen spelling, woord split, hoofdletters, upper/lower case kunnen direct uitgevoerd worden
• Idem voor categories die een disambiguity probleem oplossen

Zwaar gecontesteerde moves worden afgevoerd, dat is werk voor COM:CFD. Ik probeer dat later wel nog aan te vullen, maar in de eerste plaats ga ik een reeks moves gaan onderzoeken en deels contesteren vermits de nieuwe namen niet altijd goed of consistent zijn. --Foroa (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Alles tot en met de "G" can gemoved worden. --Foroa (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ik moet even wachten op mijn botbit, maar daarna zal ik dermee weer beginnen. Ik zal in het begin vooral die categorieen doen met de duidelijke fouten erin. Abigor talk 17:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Category for discussion closure from a couple of months ago

Hi, Foroa. here, you closed a category discussion, but provided no summary of the discussion and apparently the category was never deleted or merged. Can you clarify? Powers (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Concluded, cleaned and deleted by now. --Foroa (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons_talk:Categories#Overcategorisation_of_CATEGORIES

Hi Foroa - could I again ask for your comment on an issue that grew out of the recent issues I had with Multichill's "by country" template. In short, he is arguing that overcategorisation is not an issue / not prohibited by rule / etc... when applied on CATEGORIES. I think this is a rather strange argument, as I have set out.

Sorry if my requests for you to weigh in bother you (I noted that while you did respond, you deleted my note here on your talk page?). It's just that I feel rather strongly about this, especially when it involves bots changing many thousands of pages - and even the above category in which I am asking for discussion seems pretty dead, so I am unsure how many responses there will be. As I said before, Commons, unlike Wikipedia, can be a bt of many people working alone in the dark. Ingolfson (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. However, I try to avoid splintered discussions (here) and keep my talk page primarily for (recurring) discussions, why I remove messages for attention. I keep all concerned discussions on my watchlist and I try to follow them. You are right about "working alone in the dark", but strangely enough, people come closer together when they have conflicts or similar problems. --Foroa (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Beek - disambiguation

Hey - ik zag dat je op de disambiguation voor Category:Beek, de "Category" had weggehaald? Het idee is dacht ik dat mensen niet "Beek" gebruiken als categorie, maar de juiste specifieke zoals bv Category:Beek, Limburg? Het lijkt me logisch die dan te noemen daar ipv de pagina. Alvast dank. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry en vreemd; het ziet er naar uit dat ik op de vorige versie gewerkt heb zonder dat er een edit conflict message kwam. Nu zou het moeten hersteld zijn.

Persoonlijk zou ik een category:Beek (disambiguation) hiervoor aanmaken: de Category:Beek zal continu opgevuld geraken.

Blijft er een probleem dat een beek in Nederland een "stream" is en in België een "creek". Zie en:Stream#Types. --Foroa (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nadat ik had geschreven dacht ook al aan iets van een edit conflict, vreemd dat er geen bericht was?! Nu ja, het is geregeld - daarvoor dank. Een "Beek (disamb)" heeft geen zin volgens mij, "Beek" zelf zal nog steeds opgevuld raken. En nu komt het in ieder geval op de lijst van "non-empty disamb pages". En ik zal dat van die streams/creeks eens nalezen. Groeten -- Deadstar (msg) 13:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Beek (disamb)" heeft wel zin. In dergelijke gevallen delete ik gewoon de meest evidente cat, in dit geval Beek (en ik zie ook meteen indien iemand die probeert te creëren). Iemand die Beek zoekt denkt hoedanook dat de eerste "Beek" die hij tegenkomt "zijn" Beek is en kijkt niet verder. Daarentegen, als er alleen maar meer complexe "Beek (xxx)" cats bestaan kijkt men doorgaans iets nauwkeuriger. En die "non-empty disamb pages" werkt meer niet dan wel. --Foroa (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha... en nu kwam ik het zelf tegen met "Borne"... de "gewone" cat bestond niet en ik werd gedwongen beter te kijken zoals je hierboven beschrijft. Misschien toch wel zin dus. Zal ik het dan maar zo regelen - Beek verwijderen & Beek (disamb) aanmaken? Weet jij of een bot dan ook "Beek" overslaat (want in dit geval waren het eigenlijk allemaal files die een bot had gecategoriseerd). Dank! -- Deadstar (msg) 15:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ( Done Ik ga er vanuit dat de bot inderdaad dan "Beek" niet meer gebruikt)

Sommige bots zijn niet dom en nemen alleen maar echte (en niet geredirecte of disambig) categories, geen redirects (tenzij zij ook naar een cat verwijzen). Manske en commonsense daarentegen zijn heel wat "ruimdenkender". Hoedanook, hoe precieser de categorienamen, hoe minder kans dat de bots die verkeerdelijk nemen. Dus Bergen, Beek, Kapel, Limburg ... zijn beter te mijden als je er geen permanent opkuiswerk wil aan hebben. --Foroa (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories and Galleries

Hi, Foroa: I'm new in Commons. I'm traslating the documentation to spanish. I'm trying to understand the difference between categories and galleries. The documentation in spanish is confuse and the english documentation that I find is very old. Could you tell me what's the diference and what's better to do? Thanks, --Marsilio (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The commons COM:C and COM:G should still be up to date. There is no "best" way. But a less abstract description can be found on Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2007Oct#FLOWERS. OK, I understand that better because I wrote it myself, but who knows, it might help you. --Foroa (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe have a look at very good galleries such as William Lyon Mackenzie King visual chronology, Kölner Dom and Brugge to better understand the potential of galleries. Thank you for your participation. --Foroa (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right. In english is Ok, but in Spanish is confusing and the Gallery page is not translated. I would try do to the translation to spanish and I'd try to fix the other one. Give me some days to work and I will be back to give you my impressions. Thanks a lot,--Marsilio (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dogs in English or German?

Pieter Kuiper suggested I run this by you. Shouldn't "Category:Deutscher Schäferhund" be name-changed to "Category:German shepherd dogs" with a redirect from the German title, so we don't have to be multilingual plus overly imaginative to find the pretty important page with lots of really lovely pictures in it? Best regards EmilEikS (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am under the impression that Ltshears uses mainly the FCI standard naming standard, so I guess that it is using the naming language of the country of origin. In that case, it is better to use an international standard than just trying to make all sorts of non-standard translations. Translation sounds easy for category:German shepherd dog, but there will be many other cases where translation is quite hard.

I think that the (proper) formal breed names are all spelled in singular, not in plural, again to comply I guess with the standard. Anyway, I think you better ask Ltshears who did a very nice categorisation job in the dog breeds. --Foroa (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thought I saw somwehere that Wikipedia Commons requires unequivocally that English be used as the standard language. If I am wrong then I bothered you for nothing and apologize. If you still think I might make a valid point with Ltshears I will write to him/her, but I do not want to be writing silliness if my point is way off base. If I didn't know German, I never would have found that category. Quite a few people don't know German. EmilEikS (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right about English in commons, but if there is an international standard with proper names, then it is normal that this one is followed instead of using non-standardized and often bad translations. But I would certainly suggest to make a point with Ltshears because all this is my interpretation. There should be at least a documentation stating all this and the fact that dog breeds are proper names and nou in plural. I don't believe that you would not find category:German shepherd dog.

Timber / Wood

Perhaps we could come to some conclusion in discussion before you just go ahead and change cats for "wood" ... TomAlt (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reversion please

Foroa, can I please ask you to relook at your actions on Category:Miniature rail transport, / Category talk:Miniature rail transport which you merged against my oppose (I was the only one who commented at all, and I had given good reasons against it). You also merged this without any further comment or discussion, and even though the merged proposal by user ŠJů was not argued for by anyone.

Also, on Category_talk:Heritage_rail_transport you had just a few days ago agreed on exactly the same issue that a "concept" category sitting above the "railways" cat makes sense!

A "merge", sadly, is pretty much impossible to undo except by moving all the elements back by hand. The bot doesn't keep a list of what it chucked into the other cat. Thankfully, this wasn't a cat with dozens of subcats and hundreds of pictures. Ingolfson (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I have been too hasty. It is difficult to keep track of all those category schemes, especially when immediatly after a move, you have a counter-move request. Although, with the current category population, a merge might be in order, in the long run it is better to have a consistent structure. I will revert that later. --Foroa (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Railways

Hello Foroa - I am really sorry (including for myself, I would prefer to "get on with it") but can I ask you your opinion on something before I go raring off and again butt heads with user User:ŠJů again? Said user has just "Seecat"ed a number of categories like Category:Railways by country and subcats like Category:Railways in Germany. He has effectively "sneaked in" an inofficial move of the contents of these cats to "railway lines by country".

And that after he just recently fought pretty bitterly with me to keep pre-eminent such categories like "Heritage railways" when all I wanted to do was place a concept category above them! Inconsistent of him to now try to remove "railways" cats, but then I sometimes I do wonder whether he appreciates the distinctions between the terms fully. I have done my own mistakes, but at least mine were (mostly) with fully open-for-discussion move proposals and merge proposals rather than this way through the back door.

Now apart from the fact that I believe such changes should be discussed, I am also asking whether that is something that we should support at all. A "railway" could be either a company OR a railway line. A "railway line" is a much more specific thing. By moving all the companies categories into the subcategories, I think we are lumping things incorrectly.

Sorry if this constant wrangling is frustrating you as much as me. But I wasn't going to go off after ŠJů without sounding off others this time. Ingolfson (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed yesterday some weird things but did not have time to look into it. I had several disputes with that user. Although he is very much involved, he is stubborn (sometimes an advantage here), not very communicative and lacks sometimes an overall international, community and long term view. To avoid escalation, I think that in the long term, we better have a small category scheme (basically a small tree) in the family of Category:Commons category schemes. Once we have some agreement, we can take a more strict position. I reverted the most important changes and left him a warning. --Foroa (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a category scheme direly needs to be created, or we (or someone else) will end of in a constant fight with ŠJů (or someone else)! As below, he has now proposed such a discussion. Ingolfson (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Railways

Category discussion notification

Category:Railways 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!

There are discussed the subcategories too. --ŠJů (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:World War II artillery of the Soviet Union

Hi there, I created this category and Category:Soviet Union in World War II because Westerners, especially young westerners, are not familiar with the Great Patriotic War. Hence if they look under categories looking for the Soviet Union in Category:World War II by country or Category:World War II artillery by country they will not find it, they will just see Great Patriotic War and not realise it is what they are looking for. That is why I created the Category Redirects to G P W. But if you insist in removing the category Category:World War II by country the redirect is useless as it does not appear anywhere. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand the problem. The reason why we don't want categories in redirects is that it attracts all sorts of (re)categorisation bots (and commonsense) and trains people on the wrong names (you will find many discussions on redirects on this page). I disagree that a redirect without categories is useles: HotCat captures it (too) easily, it pops up in searches and when doing a preview with such a category, it will show blue (although I would prefer a special colour).

In your case, the best solution is to add the needed galleries with the name you want (and a short text and a picture) or simply redirects to the associated category. Another solution might be to use a more descriptive category name such as "Great Patriotic War (SU WW II)".--Foroa (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Farnetella

I'm afraid I did not understand your question. What kind of potential damage? --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. remember to sign your posts, when you write. It's easier to answer, this way.

Sorry, I was too much in a hurry. Have a look at Special:Contributions/82.57.125.136 and you will understand better. --Foroa (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Little change in Category:Cities and villages in the province of Valencia

Hello. This category is blocked for edition by you. Please, could you mind to make a little change for me? Is to set the following categorization:

 [[Category:Cities and villages in the Land of Valencia|Valencia]]

And to change as shown below:

 [[Category:Cities and villages in the Land of Valencia|#]]

The goal is to grouping categories of province level into Category:Cities and villages in the Land of Valencia. Thanks. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

With pleasue Joanot. Unprotected by now. Enjoy Commons and the weekend. --Foroa (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of a category without discussion

Wish you would have discussed the deletion of Category:Belgium "Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests with me first, before deleting it. Please take a look at Category:"Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests by place. Every single other category has the location name, first, for ease of category sorting. Please delete the category you created and restore the other one, for uniformity with all of the other categories in this parent category. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

All of the other categories in Category:"Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests by place use the same naming conventions - for ease of sorting. For example, United Kingdom "Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests, and not British "Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests. Please undo your changes, as I already requested, above. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it was highly inappropriate of you to perform an administrator action, and delete a category with zero discussion about it whatsoever. Perhaps you do not understand: Take a look at the entire categorization sorting setup of all of the categories contained within Category:"Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests by place - and all of the subcategories contained within, and all of the hundreds of images already categorized as such. It makes things very easy to maintain as far as sorting issues. Please undo your changes. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but when I noticed the category with a spelling error and against the Commons naming rule, it was the only category existing then. Blatant errors and commons naming rules are changed without discussions. For the "De facto" standards, see Category:Categories by country. --Foroa (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We are moving hundreds of such blatant syntax and commons naming violations per week. The quicker we do it, the less damage there is. --Foroa (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How much time would it have taken you to drop a note to the talk page of the user that created the category - before performing a unilateral administrator action and deleting it? Cirt (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I should have done that indeed in this particular case and I apologize for that. Just too much behind my schedule. --Foroa (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Now can you please respect that every single sub-category within Category:"Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests by place is organized a certain way so as to have ease of category-sorting, and every single file within those categories is already categorized as such, and please undo the changes you made? Cirt (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I can only repeat that the names are a blatant syntax error and against the basic Commons naming rules (topic of/by/from location) and that the other categories will be renamed sooner or later by a bot. --Foroa (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the Commons rules that states this? Cirt (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Commons:By location category scheme
• Category:Belgium "Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests is a syntax error against English. --Foroa (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons:By location category scheme explains it, thanks. Cirt (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Test page deletion

Hi Foroa,

I noticed you deleted 一-j/nobarasha with a message recommending users to use the Commons:Sandbox. This test page was not to test markup, but transclusion in order to help organise content on the COM:SOP. As the sandbox is a general purpose scratchpad for everyone, it won't do.

This page may well be deleted in the future, but is useful for the current discussion. I'd, therefore, like to ask you to undelete it. Cheers, --Swift (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I try to keep the blanked and uncategorisaed page list empty. Too many peope leave galleries and categories in some sort of empty state. I delete about 100 to 200 of them per week, mostly because people changed idea or name. If you put a category to it, you will escape from my cleaning. --Foroa (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Will do. --Swift (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons category vs. gallery

Please see the talk page. Category_talk:Requested_moves#Category:TAM_Linhas_A.C3.A9reas_needs_to_be_moved_to_Category:TAM_Airlines - Also please be aware I am referring to the category, not the gallery page (although I don't see why moving the gallery page is not kosher - is there a policy or guideline that states that the original author's decision is proper?) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For the category name, I will respond later on the referenced page. For the gallery names, for which there is no language rule, I have seen here too many language related gallery moves back and forward. You would be surprised how many areas have three or more languages (3 official ones in Belgium + English), so you would be surprised how much problems this can produce. So I consider that the person that does the effort of creating a gallery has priority for the naming. I consider it rude of trying to hijack other people's work into a language that suits better his taste/needs. It is even more rude to change it when the name of the gallery corresponds with the name of the mother company under which it is known in most countries and by almost all wikipedia's. --Foroa (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On EN there is a saying that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." - So it is expected that other people can alter what the original author states. I do not know if this maxim is implied on Commons, but I wouldn't see why it wouldn't. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously living in a unilingual country where you don't have language problems. Most people are already very frustrated that they cannot use categories in their own language, so you should not take away the last little language freedom on Commons. And you have probably not been involved in edit wars where articles and picture descriptions have been moved back and forward between various languages. Just have a look at the history of en:Basque Country and the surrounding articles, and you might understand the problem better. Or try to rename the Köln or Brugge gallery. --Foroa (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Foroa, the paragraph above was not a response to how languages should be handled; it was a response to the idea that what the original author does should be preserved. I was saying that on EN (which has people around the world) there is a reminder for people telling them that their work will be edited somehow. The original authors of anything on a wiki know that generally their work will be edited.

Now, as for how languages should be handled, I think that discussion is best continued here: Commons talk:Language policy - So far there is no policy, just practice. If you feel that original language categories and/or other practices are the best way to go, this talk page is the place where your voice will be heard and others will listen to you. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference of editing files and renaming them. EN:Wiki is not an international project, it is an English speaking project that is open for an international English speaking community; here we have to serve all wikipedia's in 200+ languages, even when they know only 20 words in English. If you sustain your idea, then you should have no problem that we will rename the galleries in Houston in French or German or even Japanese and Arabic. And for some strange reasons, you can live with Swissair, AlItalia, Lufthansa, KLM, ... But his is indeed only part of the answer.

I feel no need for another language debate, I have my fair share. Suffice to say that technically, we are limited to the roman characterset on one hand and companies/institutes that have only a non readable name (for me) in for example japanese/Chinese/Hebrew/Russian/Araboc/... characters, well they don't probably care that their name is (badly) translated. --Foroa (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach inkblot test

I was just about to report this, and ask for the page to be protected. Thanks for saving me the trouble! --Tryphon (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This one was for free. Next one will cost you a good cognac. I will end up by loving vandals. --Foroa (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you would drop dead (and me ruined) by the end of the week with that kind of deal... but I'm willing to try :) --Tryphon (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A generic thank you

No less sincere for being non-specific ;-) I find you are doing lots of very useful work (especially considering I see only a fraction of it) and I've found you a reasonable person to deal with, even where we disagree. Keep up the good work! Ingolfson (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but there are so many reasonable persons here doing very valuable work. Most of them are not seen as they avoid any possible conflict. Anyway, you are certainly belonging to my top of the contributor list, but cleaning up and uniformisation is not always a very visible nor grateful work. --Foroa (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Helping categorisation

Hi, it might be a good idea to discretely give a helping categorisation hand here. With your expertise in the domain, it should help the user to find his way in war related categories. user:Foroa 08:27, 4 February 2009

This person appears to have uploaded a load of images just for the sake of uploading them, with no understanding of how anybody could/would use them.. without data about what, why, when, where, images on Commons are worthless. We really need to have the Upload facility tightened up to force users to provide this info before the upload is accepted. I'll put a note on his talk page... Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, but whatever system we have, this problem will be recurrent: we can not slam the uploaders till we have all the questions answered. And frankly, for most people, the Commons category system is something barbarian. So the best weapon we do have is to help new uploaders, in the first place to categorise their uploaded images. In this case, I think that with your expertise in that doamin and a little investment from your side, you might educate the user to become a valuable image provider. --Foroa (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put a friendly note on his talk page... I'll expand the note with some examples. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That user did already do some good work by creating the Category:Military decorations of the United States Army tree. --Foroa (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Helping a user can indeed help. I do it sometimes depending whether the user has sufficient useful images or asks for it. See for example talk:Weglinde. A teaching video as they sometimes give with certain software may be useful. Wouter (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Military of Taiwan and Republic of China categories

As the main creator of this nest of categories please allow me to explain the reason for doing things this way. (If you can't be bothered to read the long version, the short version is that it is done this way to both respect reality as it is whilst attempting not to upset the political sensitivities of all sides.)

The long version:- The Republic of China existed as the main recognised political entity in China from about 1912 to about 1948 so any files related to the Chinese military of that time can be legitimately and almost uncontroversially be included in categories titled the Republic of China. After 1949 according to the PRC the RoC ceased to exist and today there is no political entity called the Republic of China whatever the authorities on Taiwan may chose to call themselves. Of course the reality is a little different with many nations continuing to recognise those on Taiwan as the legal government of China until the mid to late 1970s. After this point most nations recognised the PRC as the government of China. Today very few countries,not even its closest ally the USA, recognise the RoC as a sovereign state. The PRC has alsoworked hard to pressurise international organisations not to recognise or use the words Republic of China, in order not to offend PRC sensibilities it is now usual to refer to Taiwan rather then the RoC, for example there is no Republic of China at the Olympics but there is/was an entity called Chinese Taipei.

There are four ways to categorise files with regards the military of the RoC/Taiwan, which reflect the different positions taken.

i)There is one China called the PRC, the RoC no longer exists and the forces there are the remenants of a warlord faction which will be integrated the PLA as soon as the malcontents there see sense.

ii)There is one China called the RoC, those calling themselves the PRC are rebels who will be crushed when the beloved homeland is liberated.

iii)There is a nation called Taiwan which exists, its culture, people and language are distinct and independent of that of the mainland. In 1948 its people were brutally invaded by forces fleeing China, who in the intervening years used military force to supress the local people and culture. The nation of Taiwan will throw of the shackles of these invaders and their desire for a single China and will one day chart its own way in the world.

iv)The status quo is a mess of names, interests and sensibilities and is far from perfect, however its the one people have gotten to know and accept so lets turn a blind eye to its inconsistencies and try not upset the apple cart.

The existing cats are organised in such a way as to reflect the fact that an entity called the Republic of China existed between 1911 and 1948. That an entity exists in Taiwan with many of the trappings of a nation state including a military, however these categories are nested in such a way so as to reflect the fact of a single China whilst at the same time trying to maintain the differences between the two.

In my opinion any attempt that implys the continued existence of the RoC after 1948 is likely to inflame those who lean towards the PRC. Any attempt to deny the existence of a polity in Taiwan that sees itself as the legitmate government of all of China will inflame the majority of those in Taiwan. Any attempt that there are two soveriegn nations one called China and one called Taiwan will inflame both a majority in Taiwan and China.

Like the world we live in the status quo with regards these categories here on Commons has natural inconsistencies, and cannot satisfy the opinions and hopes of everybody. However thus far the status quo seems to have worked so lets not upset the apple cart.KTo288 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Kerken - episode zoveel

Hallo Foroa,

Er is - voor de verandering - weer eens een gebruiker die denkt het licht gezien te hebben m.b.t. de Belgische kerken; maar blijkbaar weer niet weet waar hij mee bezig is. Ditmaal is er ene bezig alle kerken van deelgemeenten in de kerk- of gebouwencategorie van de centrale gemeente te zetten.

Dat zou een optie kúnnen zijn, ware het niet dat we ALLE Belgische foto's op commons zo strikt mogelijk gescheiden houden per deelgemeente. Dat betekent dat dat we inderdaad wegen, bruggen, kerken, mensen, voetbalploegen in de subcategorieën van de deelgemeente zetten. En aangezien de centrale deelgemeente (hoofd(deel)gemeente) die zijn naam geeft aan de gemeente evenzeer een deelgemeente is, plaatsen we daar over het algemeen daarom maar enkel die foto's die betrekking hebben op de hoofd(deel)gemeente zelf. (Strikt genomen zou je 2 gelijknamige categorieën kunnen maken: een voor de gemeente zelf en een voor de hoofd(deel)gemeente, maar goed, dat lijkt nogal overkill op dit moment). Maar uiteraard is het NIET de bedoeling dat men dus allerhande foto's van de deelgemeente in de subcat's van de hoofd(deel)gemeente gaat gooien, of men heeft geen enkele categorie meer die enkel en alleen de hoofd(deel)gemeente omvat. De categorisatie per dorp (en dus vaak deelgemeente) lijkt op dit moment trouwens te volstaan.

Ik probeer eens vanalles terug te zetten (hier en daar heeft de gebruiker categorieën aangemaakt die wel OK waren, voor gemeenten waar een kerk of 4 in de hoofd(deel)gemeente zit). Maar als je deze week tussen de soep en de patatten even tijd hebt, wees zo vrij om te kijken of hij er niet verder een zootje van maakt ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ook dit ( Category:Churches in Belgium by city ) blijkt trouwens een blunder. Deerlijk, Kuurne, etc.. zijn bij mijn weten nog steeds geen steden ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Het is wel zo dat de categorieën "kerk in gemeente" en "Sint-blablakerk (gemeente)" bijeenzitten als subcat's van de categorie:Churches in Belgium. Misschien zou het zinvol kunnen zijn Churches in Belgium by city or village te maken, dat weet ik niet....

Trouwens, het probleem werd zelfs erger dan alleen deelgemeente/gemeente. Zo bleek de gebruiker plots de gemeente Schaarbeek binnen de gemeente Brussel te leggen; wat al helemaal te gek is. Wel moeten we misschien eens een deel oudercategorieën maken voor het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest (maar dan in het engels), want er zijn heel wat "Brusselse" foto's die helemaal niet tot de gemeente Brussel behoren, maar die ik bv. niet meteen goed kan lokaliseren (en anderen ook niet blijkbaar...) --LimoWreck (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Misschien moeten we eens ergens op enkele overlegpagina's samen heel duidelijk opsommen hoe de categorisatie ineen steekt. En bv. heel duidelijk uitleggen dat categorie:Harelbeke als oudercategorie op de hele gemeente slaat, maar dat je daarna voor gebouwen, kerken, bruggen, etc... specifiek naar de deelgemeente moet. En dat bijgevolg, de subcategorieën van categorie:Harelbeke énkel op deelgemeente Harelbeke(-centrum) slaan. (op enkele categorieën, zoals die met kaarten of politiek na bv.)... Op die manier zouden we mensen die het niet snappen makkelijker naar zo'n uitleg kunnen doen verwijzen. --LimoWreck (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Voilà, inhoudelijk zouden de dingen weer wat moeten goed staan niet. Al doende kwam ik jouw naam trouwens ook af en toe tegen, blijkbaar had je zelf al opgemerkt dat er wat niet snor was ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Het is inderdaad al maanden dat ik denk dat er een documentje moet gemaakt worden betreffende de Belgische categorisatie. Met een beetje geluk kan dit binnen twee à drie weken omdat ik niet over één nacht ijs ga voor dergelijke dingen. Je moet je niet inhouden voor mij ;). Hoe meer ik de Nederlandse cats zie (met weinig gemeenten maar wel veel provincie tussencats, afhankelijk per topic), hoe meer ik zeker ben dat wij op goede weg zijn. Voor België en cat-freaks denk ik dat wij er nog "topic by location" kunnen bijplakken; dan is het probleem van city, commonality, village en gehucht ook opgelost en uniform met de basis geachte. --Foroa (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bedankt voor terugzetten van het wissen door Patricia Rios

Jij ziet kennelijk ook alles Foroa. Bedankt voor het terugzetten bij de Huétor-Tájar en Alcalá_la_Real. Bij mijn systematische werk om goede plaatjes zonder link naar een categorie van een link te voorzien geeft ik bij veel categorieen een korte beschrijving en repareer waar nodig. Soms is het even puzzelen voor je door hebt dat bijvoorbeeld de pagina Bojano over een plaats in Italië gaat en de Category:Bojano over een plaats in Polen. Toevoegen van tekst bij de categorie is dan wel nuttig en ik was gearlarmeerd door het wissen van info door Patricia Rios. Groeten, Wouter (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ze is zeer efficient, maar heeft geen enkel respect voor de lokale gevoeligheden zoals bij de basken, catalanen, valencianen (en andere autonome zones), grensgebieden met Portugal; nochtans is het in Spanje dikwijls echt op eieren lopen om daar compromissen te vinden. Het ziet er niet uit dat ze zich in het Engels uit de slag trekt en heb ik haar al een aantal keren geblokkeerd (en de baskische cats zijn beveiligd tegen haar Spanje-alleen visie). Bovendien is het enorm tijdrovend met de diepe hierachische categorieën om uit vissen waar je echt zit Bovendien lijkt er geen enkele Spaanse administrator echtr geneigd de Spaanse boel wat op te kuisen. zodat wat documentatie (IW's) zeker geen overbodige luxe is. Je hoeft er niet mee in te zitten haar veranderingen meteen terug te draaien: ik kan je vier spaanse adminstrators opnoemen die al tientallen (of zelfs honderdtallen) van haar veranderingen teruggedraaid hebben. Als er nog problemen zijn geef je maar een seintje en laat je niet afschrikken. --Foroa (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Churches in Belgium

Hello. I just wanted to help in sorting the medias in this category. The fact is that there are so many files there that you cannot find what you are looking for. I thought the best option was to sort them by gemeente/commune, because sorting them by deelgemeente/section will lead to the creation of too many sub-categories, most of them only containing 1 or 2 files. On the other side, the deelgemeente/sections are categorized inside the gemeente/commune category (for example Category:Thuin contains a Category:Gozée, so I think it would be a little incoherent not to have a sub-category Category:Churches in Gozée inside Category:Churches in Thuin. I am aware that the term city isn't the most appropriate to describe places like Deerlijk, but I haven't found categories such as category:churches by municipality or category:churches by town and on the other side I have found categories such as category:Churches in Murau or Category:Churches in Makó inside Category:Churches by city, and Murau and Makó are rather towns than cities. Finally, I categorized Category:Churches in Schaerbeek inside Category:Churches in Brussels, because Category:Schaerbeek is inside Category:Brussels. I think we could maybe have renamed Category:Churches in Belgium by city into Category:Churches in Belgium by municipality, rather than simply deleting it. Nevertheless, I don't think creating a category by deelgemeente/section would be a good idea. I don't think either it is suitable to leave Category:Churches in Belgium with so many files and sub-categories. Anyway, I don't think I will help again in this project (I mean for the catorisation), because LimoWreck removed almost everything I had made, even Category:Churches in Bierbeek, for example. He suggests to create category:Sint-Hilariuskerk (Bierbeek). Fine, but why not creating it instead of placing the file again in the overpopulated Category:Churches in Belgium? BrightRaven (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your good intention, but if you read the long discussions, amongst others, in Category_talk:Churches in Belgium, you will see that we are truly trying to find an optimal solution (which I feel is far from optimal in most countries). While I feel the village categorisation in Belgium is optimal, along for finding easily their churches, Category:Churches_in_Belgium is another problem. In many aspects, such as visual searching, it is optimal but it might indeed be improved. In the coming weeks, I will try to propose a document about Belgian categorisation, which is different from most other countries, not at least because municipalities are just artificial/politicial constructions from 30 years ago to make it more manageable by the federal state, because a city like Brussels is the only city where there is little or no "village" chauvinisme or sensibility (most people don't know where the current border (that changed frequently for electoral reasons) starts or stops), because basically, Belgium consists of 2000 (mentally autonomous) villages that have nothing to do with each other. The positive side is that Category:Churches_in_Belgium is often the first place that people try to find a specific church style or look as it is one of the few that has such a great visual search capability. --Foroa (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your "rules" are nothing more than sheer arbitrary conventions: [10]. (I can tell you most people don't know that there is a municipality in Schaerbeek and not in Laeken, so why treating them so differently? On the other side, I live in Mons and I don't know where exactly is the limit between Ghlin and Mons, so I totally disagree with your statement about "autonomous villages".) I have also found this and I see you also think the overpopulation of Category:Churches in Belgium is a problem. So why not trying to solve it? Maybe I did it the wrong way, but I think something like a category Churches in Belgium by location/village/municipality should exist, because there are simply too many subcats in churches in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I reverted you. Do you know this: Commons:Categories#Category_structure_in_Wikimedia_Commons? BrightRaven (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need a better solution for the churches, especially due to the poor display capabilities in Commons when there are many images and many subcats (long time ago, I was hoping that this software problem would be solved soon). Concerning overcats, as you can see in category:Cities and villages in Belgium and User_talk:Foroa/archive_2008#Category_Cities_in_Italy, the primary categorisation in Belgium is a two level system. Most category systems however have a parallel system to express relations such as the regions/provinces/cities/villages/hamlets/churches and architectures by style, by place and by architect. I don't think that we have to be a purist on that as the goal is that people find easily the things they are looking for (which implies unavoidably some redundancy or parallel structures). I think that for churches, in the end we need a category Churches in Belgium by location, Churches in Belgium by name and keeping churches in Belgium for the postcard type of pictures. I will formulate a proposal in the coming weeks concerning all that.

It is true as well that the Brussels category is a strange mix between region, the overall Brussels city and the center. This has historically grown like that and it is most probably not easy to untangle that. And it is true that it is not easy to find a consistent system where village borders in a city are much unknown, such as in Brussels and Mons (Hainaut) (and probably a couple of ther dense cities, and artificially composed cities such as Kortrijk. --Foroa (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is fine you think there is a problem with Category:Churches in Belgium. Let me tell how did I come to edit pics of this cat. I was looking for pictures of a church I visited a couple of years ago. I remembered the name of the church in French (église Notre-Dame des dunes, so I guessed Onze-Lieve-Vrouw-something in Dutch) and the approximate place (not far from the coast, not far from the French border). Unfortunately, it was not inside Category:Saint Mary churches in Belgium. The only way I had to find it was to browse the Category:Churches in Belgium. I had never thought this mess was the result of a convention! (It was not the first time I was looking for a long time in this cat.)

If there existed cats for gemeenten/communes, finding pics of église Notre-Dame des dunes, would be quite easy: a quick look at fr:Province_de_Flandre-Occidentale. Near the French border, I see 2 gemeenten/communes : De Panne and Koksijde. Actually, the church I was looking for is in Koksijde.

If there existed cats for provinces, this would also have helped: Category:Churches in West Flanders would probably be overpopulated, but in any case less than Category:Churches in Belgium.

If there existed cats for locations, this would not help me, on the contrary.

So I keep thinking creating cats at an intermediary level (provinces or municipalities, or both) would be a good idea. Your statement about "independant villages" is maybe true in rural area, but it is not the case in urban ones. The same holds for Brussels and Laeken, Mons and Ghlin, Mouscron and Luingne, Charleroi and Marcinelle, etc. One of your argument to discard province level was very interesting: "if there is one intermediate level that will disappear one day [...] it will be the province level." You are probably right, but there is a level who has already disappeared 30 years ago, and it is one of the two you have selected (with LimoWreck).

In addition, your two-level dogma can lead only to two situations:

1. The present one (almost all the files are in Category:Churches in Belgium).
2. The creation of a large number of subcats, with only one or two files inside most of them (there are +/- 2,700 deelgemeenten).

Finally, what is the added value of forbiding cats by municipality? Creating cats by municipality does not prevent categorising by deelgemente, on the contrary.

If your two-level dogma cannot solve the problem it was supposed to solve ("This category contains more than 1000 church pictures, and is not very workable/usable anymore."), maybe you should question your dogma. And don't be surprised if regularly benevolent users try to solve in their manner this evident problem. BrightRaven (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Category:Saint Mary churches in Belgium does not exclude Category:Churches in Belgium, rather it's an additional interesting category-tree. I do add churches to the categories-by-patron-saint too, from time to time, but that doesn't not exclude them from the usual category scheme were people expect them to find.
   
2. Also note that Saint Mary as patron saint is NOT the same as the Assumption of Mary and other Virgin Mary related names; though people have made that mistake on commons. I've seen you made similar mistakes as well...
   
3. Finally, Belgian towns and villages are very much oriented towards the individual village and/or deelgemeente level in everyday life; in fact, it's almost natural to categorise so. I don't know why you seem to find some difficulty with that affinity towards how things are conceived in Belgium, but the fact that different people almost interdependently started to work like that on commons a couple of years ago should give a clue ;-) And I don't see how cats-by-municipality would be "forbidden", as you state ? Actually, the main category at that level IS a category for each municipality. Under that category, everything (bridges, buildings, people, parks, whatever) is simply categorized by the village and/or deelgemeente, as that corresponds best with how things are in Belgium. (as a simple example, the database of protected monuments (heritage) [11] in Flanders is nicely conceived per deelgemeente (similar for the walloon lists by the way); it also follows the way articles are conceived on wikipedia (one of the main purposes of commons); even hobby sites [12] use the same way of "categorisation"). Moreover, all those categories ARE in fact added under the parent municipality category. You should not move categories from one deelgemeente under the category of another deelgemeente, however. That doesn't make sense, it's even wrong; you don't move French bridges under German bridges either, don't you? And adding another indirection category level everywhere is rather redundant, doesn't have much added value at this moment and really doesn't help usability... --LimoWreck (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1 & 2 are just vain attempts to change the subject.

3: As I already said, I am not against categorizing by deelgemeente. On the contrary. I think it is very useful to find this picture in this category and I will never remove this picture from it. It seems to me that category by gemeente are forbidden, because for you a category named churches in gemeente X can only contains pictures of churches in the deelgemeente who has the same name. So the fact is that a category that would contains all the files about the churches in the gemeente Mouscron is forbidden. The only cat who can exists is a cat about the churches in the deelgemeente Mouscron.

I don't agree with about the conception of the articles on WP. The article fr:Mouscron is not about the deelgemeente Mouscron, it is about the gemeente Mouscron, as you can clearly see on the maps.

Your statement about French and German bridge is simply stupid. In Category:Mouscron, I see a subcat Category:Luingne, so it is perfectly coherent to have churches of Luingne inside the cat Category:Churches in Mouscron. A good comparison would be: I put Category:Bridges in Auvergne inside Category:Bridges in France because Category:Auvergne is a subcat of Category:France.

"Doesn't have much added value at this moment and really doesn't help usability": so you really think Category:Churches in Belgium is easy to use? Let me paraphrase your own words: I think you probably have seen the light a long time ago, but it has blinded you for good. BrightRaven (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• 1. and 2. is simply an answer on the subject you started above, don't remember?
• At this moment, as Foroa has stated, a subject-by-municipality category is simply redundant for many subjects. E.g. buildings: various websites already naturally use this grouping per village, as shown above. Of course category:Mouscron is used for the deelgemeente (former municipality), as it is the only category available to do so. There are no two categories - Mouscron (current municipality) and Mouscron (deelgemeente). Duplicating everything by adding another intermediate category-layer to group parks, streets, squares, churches, buildings, monuments, museums, ponds, sports, people, culture, ... by municipality - between the country-level and deelgemeente-level category - will add LOTS of redundancy. Everything is already accessible by municipality, adding 589 x 20 or more sparesely filled categories in between, though theoretically correct, will hardly improve usability... --LimoWreck (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never proposed to create to cats such as Mouscron (current municipality) and Mouscron (deelgemeente) or worse Churches in Mouscron (current municipality) and Churches in Mouscron (deelgemeente). I just suggest that the existing cat Churches in Mouscron could also contains files about churches which are not in the deelgemeente Mouscron, but are in the gemeente Mouscron. Where would be the reduncancy of such a policy? The redundancy would be to create 2,700 a cats like Churches in Luingne (or a cat by church for deelgemeente with only one church, as you suggested). Another point that there is no rule saying that exactly the same cat structure has to be used for everything about Belgium. Category:Bridges in Belgium is not as full as Category:Churches in Belgium, so there is no reason to create a lot of subcats there. I will summarize my arguments there. BrightRaven (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Salon International de l'Agriculture

Please give me a bit of credit, Foroa. I did in fact CHECK the correct capitalisation - see here, orange bar in the centre upper section - before I put this on the Delinker. Can I please ask you to effect that change? And why should you "waste" your time? Sounds rather negative when I am just trying to improve Commons where I cannot, as I'm not an admin - at the Delinker and at Category:Requested moves I have to depend on people like you. Probably would be the case even IF I was an admin, because it would be problematic if I did my own renames, where the rename might be controversial. Ingolfson (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that you proved my point. Have a look in Category:Salon_international_de_l'agriculture, its subcategories and the French Interwiki's and wikipedia: they are all consistent between them and your requested change would break that consistency. See here, orange bar in the centre upper section is some sort of title, so no surprise to find uppercase, and constitutes no proof whatsoever. In most places, it is in lower cases, even in titles on the same site like here and elsewhere. When google searching for "Le salon international de l'agriculture 2009", roughly half of them use capitalisation.

I fully admire your great efforts here to improve commons, and the last year, there have been a great progress in most aspects. This is not a matter of giving no credit, it is just a matter of cultural differences and commons/English rules that are fuzzy and open for interpretation, while most English speaking people mixup title cases with proper naming as they resemble each other so much. So whenever there is a discussion on that capitalisation, I tend to ignore it because there are as many reasons to move it in one direction as in the other. In this case, it is spelled as in the French Wikipedia and subcats are coherent. When I have to create a category, I look always first to the wikipedia article (in the text) because even there, they are not always coherent. So why wasting time on that or other details (one could argue that the top level category should be plural too; Salons internationaux d'agriculture, in which case one could argue again that it should be in English, ...). --Foroa (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So when should consistency take a back seat to proper spelling, and vice versa? I think it is a problematic precedent if we say "Wikipedia/Wikimedia's projects have grown to use this form over that form that everyone else uses, therefore we will continue". I agree that my example may not have been as clear-cut as I wanted it, but still. Ingolfson (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So far, it sounds good to me that some of the moves are crossing at least two different cultures as each culture has its implicit non written rules that are not at all obvious for the other cultures. This seems to be the case here.

I don't think that I got my point across: I am under the impression that there is in English quite some mixup between title cases and proper names, as you can read in en:Title-case#Places_and_geographic_terms. Especially generic terms are quite mixed up. Moreover, those habits (as the rules are not very clear and solid), are leaning to the culture of the US and Germany, but not so much in other countries. In the US and Germany, one will find often Xxx Castle, while in other countries you will find Xxx castle, where castle is quite rightly to me, a generic term. All this to explain I don't waste my time executing moves that change case in one direction or in the other, until there is somewhere a clear and unambiguous rule for the title/proper noun case. I often check the use of the title case in the articles and very often they are incoherent with the title, meaning that the title case is often confused with the proper name. So there is nor Iron simple rule that specifies if one has to write the one or the other. Just look in en:Category:Churches in Sweden and Category:Churches in Skåne: if they are so inconsistent, it just proves that we have a problem with the rule in the first place, not with its implementation.

So don't twist my words here that Commons should adapt to incorrect spelling. To the best of my knowledge, on Commons, there is no simple comprehensive rule for capitalisation (besides the unfortunate "No Title Case rule"). --Foroa (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Another point. Look here and here. It is clear that in France, the unclear English capitalisation rules apply even less (alhtough coming through under English influence). So, what's the point in accepting "proper" names in French but forcing the spelling rules from another language ? --Foroa (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was not (intending to anyway) twisting your words. I was discussing a hypothetical case where we DO have official sources for names and capitalisations (New Zealand for example has a geographic board which defines official place names) yet the Wikimedia sources have consistently spelled it wrong. How would you proceed in that case? Ingolfson (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is a problem for you, it is worth looking into the problem in the light of international standardisation and proper names. In Italy, we use equally some "standard" community disambiguation terms/abbrevations and in Switzerland they started with it too although it has been removed I think. Do you have a number of examples somewhere ? --Foroa (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a problem important enough for me to devote serious work to at the moment. After my initial change, which you rejected and explained why, beyond that I was just curious about what we would do in the scenario I described, i.e. whrere we DO have an official source. Ingolfson (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct links before a deletion of a category

Hello. When you are moving (renaming) any category, please do not delete the old category before all of the links {{Commonscat}} or {{Commons}} in all Wikipedia projects are corrected. If you are not sure, keep the old category as a {{Seecat}} redirect temporarily. By the way, thank you for your permanent activity. --ŠJů (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See #Deleting_old_versions_of_renamed_categories and referred discussions. I try to avoid to keep bad category names as this trains the users in bad naming and causes creations of similar badly named categories. Nowadays, officially moved or redirected categories show in their deletion log to what category they are moved; this is captured by a Multichill bot that updates most of the interwiki's. {{Commonscat}} is in my opinion a bad approach because this is an internal Commons organisation that changes all the time (I guesstimate around 1000 new categories per day) and is quite different on each wikipedia. There can be 256 different wikipedia's pointing to a cat, so no way to check it. As I am moving 120 to 300 categories per week, creating and managing a temporary {{Seecat}} for all is not realistic; I limit them to the cats that are not plain naming errors. For the first time in 6 months, I have a serious move request backlog, so there is not a lot of space for additional work. --Foroa (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is impossible to repair links from wikipedias, then it is necessary to keep all of the old categories with {{Seecat}} until this fatal problem will be solved. For example, now Category:Vítkovice is moved to Category:Vítkovice (Ostrava), but the link in cs:Vítkovice (Ostrava) remained false. --ŠJů (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the bot runs very often, one should ask Multichill. Anyway, if the link is false, you can click through on the category in the edit summary. --Foroa (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support everything that may help to keep the commonscat links on the Wikipedia pages right. One partial solution may be that a bot checks all links to Wikipedia pages at the page of the Commons Category page for the presents of commonscat links and replaces the old name of the category to the new name. Do you think that that is possible? Wouter (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(Indent reset)I am against commonscats, but nevertheless, I have an agreement with Multichill for a doable solution (in Dutch in #Category:Non-empty_category_redirects). This should work for the formally moved categories and deleted redirects (and deleted via dupe (that corrupts the category counters, but they seem to recover from that when there are less than 200 items in it, so acceptable). In addition, I suggested a number of additional solutions:

• For mass moved categories (such as in/off/from harmisations), each move generates in principle a new category; in its edit summary, it is stated when it is moved from a source category. So checking every now and then new categories would allow to build a list of the renames.
• I think that the move bot itself has specific move logbooks, so this could be exploited too. Since the move bot is maintained by Multichill, there are probably more options open overthere.
• Finally, as you suggested, for each new category, a bot could check the IW's and check if there is no commonscat on the other side. It seems logical that a bot checks these back and forward referencing (and if the referencing is only one ways, it could autogenerate the back linking (I mean Commons to wikipedia and wikipedia to commons). In that case, the coherency is enforced and becomes autorepairing.

I don't know what Multichill is going to do exactly. --Foroa (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I like your counter proposal.

I like your idea and have proposed we go ahead with it for the test run. For the benefit of others who may not have understood what it concretely would look like, could you create a page that would demonstrate how this would apply to Category:Apollo 16? This will also help me as I code the bot, so that I replicate exactly what you meant. One or two languages would suffice. -J JMesserly (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As a starter, I added already IW's on Category:Shenzhou 7. Without other instructions, I will continue on that category tomorrow late. Note that I will not necessarily follow navigation box layout (I have to leave some work for the hand of the master) and I plan to present two cases/options. One where the documentation in the relevant wikipedia artciles is sufficient to document the category, another case where the documentation needs to be tailored by hand for this specific category. And by the way, I disagree with you that Commons is English only; you should have a better look around. --Foroa (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at what you got, so if you are pressed, the shenzhous stuff is probably fine. When you get some time, it might be clearer not to have mixed examples so folks could cleanly contrast them. (eg: Perhaps if you propose there be lang links on the main cat page to the subpages- which seems like you would- right?). -J JMesserly (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops- you meant interwikis. Yeah. I will do a bit of Apollo. Could you have a look and correct to suit your design? -J JMesserly (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I will be able to terminate that today. I still prefer to workout a category which has its base in a non-English country and in Which I can create subcategories to show the interest of heritage and subcategories in other countries. I thought that I could do that with Category:Shenzhou 7 without obsetting the authors of the category too much, but you may have other suggestions. Maybe we could clone something more technical (uncommon vocabulary) like Shenzou test, pulprits, Iconostasis. --Foroa (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rail transport category scheme

Hi Foroa, can I ask your advice on three things regarding this:

Commons:Category scheme rail transport

• I will soon be ready to make the new category scheme go live (for discussion that is). Can I ask you to vet how I have set it up first (I am not asking you for your comments on the CONTENTS yet, only if you feel I have set it out well, and created a balanced proposal in terms of tone and procedure).

• I am thinking I need to place a big link at the top of Category:Rail transport to "advertise" it. While I am certain that it won't exactly make the consensus easier to have many more people jump in than are already involved, I think it will be needed to achieve acceptance, rather than coming as a fait accompli.

• I will also need to be able to respond to and assist the consensus-gathering process, especially if many people weigh in, as I fear they may ;-) I may not be able to do so within the next 1-2 weeks (some big private things going on). What are your thoughts on delaying this a little more - I don't want SJU and the others at the discussion from Category:Railways to feel like I am letting this drag out, but... Ingolfson (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Without going into the content, I would strongly suggest:

• to put on the main page only the baseline scheme which seems already (close to) a consensus from the other discussions. That way, you can maintain a mainline that is updated by one single person as the discussion evolves. Discussions that can start from an acceptable baseline are more efficient than discussions about a number of possible baselines.
• Keep alternatives and options on the talk pages as to not give an excuse to the debaters to start changing the main page. Moreover, you keep a separate place for other alternatives compared to one single reference. I will try to think on the current proposition in the coming days. Don't forget to mention the UK exceptions.
• When you use abstract notations like "by function", "by type", insert always a couple of examples; most people are easier with real cases. Showing categories in tree form helps the understanding and discussion significantly.

Process

• Even if it can take weeks, once there is consensus, we can execute moves in days without waits. The current situation is not that bad after all and some moves cmight be started if there is consensus about parts of the structures. Anyway, it is better to prepare it correctly than to restart the process every 6 months. Just mention that your "real life" activities don't allow to be as responsive as you would like.
• Advertising the discussion on some categories and in village pump might attract noise and maybe cause some delays, but on the other hand, in the end, you can claim a community consensus, so you might achieve peace on that front for many years. --Foroa (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound a bit dense - I am overworked (offline) at the moment. Can you elaborate what you mean with "only the baseline scheme" - what would you NOT put on the "main page" (I assume the first page where I give proposals 4.1 etc...) Are you saying I should NOT give alternatives, and only discuss alternatives if they crop up in discussions? Ingolfson (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Category scheme rail transport Should in the end contain only the final and agreed scheme/policy, no alternatives or discussions. All the rest, including alternatives, should go in Commons talk:Category scheme rail transport. --Foroa (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Have stopped the attempt to develop a cat scheme for now. Everyone has their own ideas, and I am not likely to achieve consensus, I am afraid. We will just have to continue to muddle along in the status quo, quibbling over stuff here and there and again. Maybe I am giving up too early - but then I can't see myself arguing over this for weeks for no end results worth said discussion in my mind. Better things to do, online and off. Can I ask you to weigh in on my attempt to at least "salvage" the original discussion starter, the proposal by SJU re fate of category "Railways"? Ingolfson (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Timaska (talk · contribs)

Hi Foroa,
well, I've just seen your post at the COM:AN/U and it made me look on his edits. As far as I see and remember, Timaska is a well-known anonymous contributor to the Polish Wikipedia, especially interested in the Kłodzko County. I am not sure which categories do you mean, as he has created only one: Category:Kanał Młynówka and it seems all right. His pictures do seem all right, too—the only problem is, I think, that he doesn't speak English very well and keeps creating gallery pages in Polish only. I'll try to fix his messy edits if I find any. Best, odder 12:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with Polish only galleries, that is his full right. I just have been alerted by this and the fact that many of his images are blinking with red categories. So sometimes, early detection and guidance can avoid bigger problems. Better safe than sorry. --Foroa (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's right. I didn't see those red categories. I'll create them in an hours or so. Thanks for the information. odder 20:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Confundir las churras con las merinas

¿Por qué en una categoría se tiene que poner enlaces de artículos de wikipedias? Comprendo que se ponga enlaces de categorías, pero no de sus artículos. No tiene sentido, sinceramente. Patricia Rios (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki's are the most efficient way to document what the category is about in all available languages. So people do the effort to place them to help the commons users understand what the category is about. Deleting those interwiki's is an act of vandalisme, and if you continue to remove them, I will react harder. For the tools, it is indeed better that the interwiki's refer to categories, for the humans, references to articles (as they exist in more languages) is better. There is no commons rule about the nature of the interwiki links, except that they are encouraged. But there is certainly not a rule to delete them. --Foroa (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you still follow your old habit to delete category documentation from other contributors and items relating to for example the Galicia structures. From now on, I will revert them straight away without trying to reintegrate your "improvements". I am just tired of having to clean up behind your back while avoiding setting up other Spanish contributors. --Foroa (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Train stations in the Czech Republic

For advance information: I am preparing at my user subpage User:ŠJů/Train stations backgrounds for an unification of category names of all Czech railway stations. By now I completed a sorted list of used names and some expositive comments and possible variants of solution with some arguments. Then I would move the whole paper to CfD or to an other proper place. Please make needed language correction prior to openning of discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about an unification of category names is opened at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/02/Categories of train stations in the Czech Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi ŠJů, this looks like extremely (and I dont use that word often) professional work and proves that you are evolving to a real "international". Congratulations. --Foroa (talk) 15:18, 13 Febrary 2009 (UTC)

I hope you can attract your Czech collegues for constructive contributions as easily as they are attracted massively to delete images. Wait and see. --Foroa (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Foroa, the discussion looks to converge to an unequivocal choice. As it will be concluded, you can use a prepared list of rename templates. I think, we can wait for eventual new ideas about a week. --ŠJů (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

South Tyrol Categories

Hello. Could you run your SieBOT over

• Category:Waterfalls in Trentino-South Tyrol --> Category:Waterfalls of Trentino-South Tyrol (see Category:Waterfalls by country)
• Category:Waterfall in South Tyrol --> [[:Category:Waterfalls of South Tyrol]
• There may be some more categories in Category:South Tyrol which need a change from "in" to "of", but I am not sure what the convention exactly is Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. For the conventions, I keep forgetting too, so in general I look in the "subject by country" category. The quickest and most efficient way however is to put your move requests in User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

unjustified deletion of catredirects without articles

I believe there was no point in deleting the catredirects Category talk:Languages of North Caucasus, Category talk:Languages of Caucasus: if they existed, they would help to find and use the *correct* category via HotCat (first, when you type, you find this name, but then, when you commit, it is autocorrected). Without this catredircet, it is difficult to use HotCat because you can't always remember whether you should use the article or not. They were not created for fun, they really made the job of categorization easier.--Imz (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience. See #Deleting_old_versions_of_renamed_categories and referred discussions. I try to avoid to keep bad category names (with obvious errors) as this trains the users in bad naming and causes the creation of similar badly named categories. For example, you created some categories using the word "Daghestan" instead of Dagestan. The result is that soon, you will see more categories popping up with Daghestan, even when they are redirected. This type of error, I don't delete as it is language specific, but I spend several days per week on merging and renaming categories to get the system more uniform (I am moving/merging 120 to 300 categories per week). HotCat changes dynamically the cat indeed, but few people notice it, so they are badly trained. When editing categories, they show blue in preview, so OK for almost all people. Upload bots and commonsense often use such redirected categories too (which are only changed by the redirect bot once a day) adding to the bad training. The Commons organisation changes all the time (I guesstimate around 1000 new categories per day) and it is quite a job to discover incoherencies and parallel category trees. --Foroa (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand this approach for badly named categories, and support their deletion (e.g., when the idea of the name is not good, or when there is an obvious misspelling). But as for something like spelling variants, I am against deletion. In these cases, deletion just makes the job harder. I can't always enumerate and try all possible spellings and synonyms until I find an existing category; I prefer this to be done automatically. So, such redirects would really be helpful. If they aren't there, there are actually big chances that something doesn't get into the most exact category (for example, me personally would give up trying different spellings very quickly and I will end up putting it into a less exact upper category).

Robots can care about redirected categories.

(As for "Dag(h)estan", I don't think there is a need for excuses from me, and even I don't think that it will be a big problem if another spelling appears in categories, because they can be redirected to the "canonical" one. Simply, my English spelling skills force me to write "gh" (otherwise, "Dagestan" would by default be pronounced incorrectly, with an affricate), and I don't want it to be a torture to add a category (torture = finding out the only existing spelling): I spell it the most natural way, and if it has been already noticed that it should be redirected to another spelling, then there is a catredirect, and HotCat automatically substitutes it.)

If you continue deleting reasonable redirects, this will discourage me (and probably more people) from trying to add good categories, and saving the learned information about spelling variants as catredirects to help future editors.

But, as I said, I support deleting really misspelled and badly named categories.--Imz (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This redirect is no complete solution. It works only after a 7 or 8 days cooldown period, not all bots can move audio and video files and it does not work with items that have a category defined in templates. The redirected Category:Daghestan and its containing Category:Languages of Daghestan will stay there till next week. In the mean time, your changes in that language cat area will attract other people and they will be confused by incoherent category structures and inconsistent names. Someday, a nice soul will do the effort to convert the Category:Languages of Daghestan into the correct Category:Languages of Dagestan. In the mean time, people will hesitate and other people will use equally Daghestan in other categories. Why I tend to clean up as soon as possible as I did with some other faulty categories; faulty written words and habits tend to propagate.

I disagree with your restore of Category:Languages of North Caucasus that redirects to Category:Languages of the North Caucasus, as this implies that we should as well support Category:Languages of north Caucasus , Category:North Caucasian languages, Category:Northern Caucasian languages and God knows what other variations. Nobody will dispute the deletion of Category:Flora of the Belgium or "Castle in the France". But I will not waste further energy on such details. Some other contributor will delete it quite rightly one day or another when the dust is settled. The more "litter" is hanging around, the more problems it creates.--Foroa (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Confusion at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/01

Hello - I have spotted your name on the 'Categories for discussion' boards, and hoping you can help. I saw the discussion about Category:London Boroughs and wanted to express my support. Now I notice that the discussion request doesn't seem to have been set up correctly, and it is appearing as a subsection of the discussion about it, rather than on its own subpage. Is there some way this can be corrected? Also, I don't think the right tags are in place on the category itself, but I'm not certain enough of the processes involved! Many thanks. Tafkam (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Should be repaired by now. --Foroa (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Tafkam (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Gebruik van template voor een Categorie

Dag Foroa, bij mijn activiteiten kwam ik op de Category:Martinengo. Het blijkt dat die is gemaakt door gebruik te maken van Template:ComuneBG_Italy. Omdat ik zag dat jij ook ook een bijdrage hebt geleverd bij die template richt ik me eerst tot jou voordat ik een vraag in de Village pump stel. Zelf vind ik aan de template meer nadelen zitten dan voordelen. Er zijn veel vertalingen. Ik zie liever alleen Engels en in dit geval Italiaans met daarbij de mogelijkheid dat als bijvoorbeeld een Vietnamees er een vertaling bij wil zetten bij die specifieke categorie, dan moet dat makkelijk mogelijk zijn. Bovendien houdt de template er niet rekening mee dat als de naam in bijvoorbeeld het Nederlands anders is dan die in het Italiaans. De categorie Martinengo verwijst naar Category:Municipalities in province of Bergamo. Dat is echter alleen te zien via de edit van de template. Samengevat vind ik dat met zo’n template de categorie minder makkelijk aan te passen is. Is over de wenselijkheid van het gebruik van zo’n template al eerder een discussie geweest? Groeten, Wouter (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Een beetje om te plagen heb ik ook de Japanse tekst erbij gezet. Wouter (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dag Wouter. Die discussie komt om de zoveel weken terug, nogal dikwijls bij Multichill omdat templates die een category aanmaken nog een ergere nachtmerrie zijn en zich niet laten moven door de bots. Vooral by coats of arms en chinese tekens zijn ze een echte miserie. Wat de documentatie kant betreft, ik ben een prototype aan het maken aan wat ik een goede categorie documentatie zou vinden, dus nog enkele dagen geduld, zodat wij een fris debat kunnen aanvangen met eventuele alternative oplossingen. (Zie Commons:Village_pump#Multilingual_search_on_cats-_any_objections_to_this_sort_of_approach.3F). Als je echt ingewikkelde templates will vinden, dan kan je die vinden bij de chinese/japanese lettertekens en by sommige wikipedia foto hunts (Wiki takes manhattan vb). --Foroa (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably of interest to you

Commons talk:Categories#Category redirects --R'n'B (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirected categories should not be categorised themselves, otherwise they attract bot categorisation

Thank you for your note. However, I'm not sure that I understand the issue. From what I can tell, though, it would seem to me that the bots aren't properly programmed. If a redirected category still contains media, logic and common sense dictate that it would retain its categories (I wouldn't add new ones) until a bot empties it out. Otherwise, that content is effectively impossible to find through the category tree. However, maybe I am misunderstanding the problem, and I apologize if I am.--skeezix1000 (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That's right in a perfect world, and commons is far from perfect. That's why it is better to execute a move and redirect when it is empty. Because a redirect has a cooldown period of 7 or 8 days (against vandalisme), during that time every thing remains in it and results in a unclear and confusing structure, regardless if it is pointing to other categories. We all know that a manual removal of those categories is not realistic and the bots don't clean it. Maybe a suggestion for the bot makers ? (but the bots would reset the cooldown period again) --Foroa (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lockwood

Hi! My apologies, I deleted the category from the images in error before noting the new category change. However this may be giving rise to a problem of too fine a dissemination of categories. Lockwood is actually a suburb of Huddersfield and no longer a seperate village, nor has it been for 150+ years, it is only one mile from the Huddersfield Town centre, therefore should not actually be listed under Category:Villages in West Yorkshire. There are several areas that I have uploaded photo's for that have been similaraly wrongly categorised as villages but are not. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories on Commons tend to become deeper than wikipedia articles. And there is en:Lockwood, West Yorkshire. In some towns, we end up at the parish and street level and building level. And the more one has clearly labelled categories, the easier it is to categorise and to find items. For cities and towns, I don't think that there is such a thing like "too fine a dissemination" except when frontiers have become completely unknown, which is obviously not the case as Lockwood figures on the pictures. Keep up the good work.--Foroa (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay! Based on that I have just placed Category:Paddock, West Yorkshire back on File:Paddock Huddersfield.jpg, as the category was empty. ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion and block needed

I saw from the deletion log that you are currently online and deleting images. Can you please deal with File:Thatwhichis.jpg, an image used to vandalize Enwiki and is a likely copyvio? I tagged it for deletion more than half an hour ago. Can you also block the uploader please? They're also blocked on Enwiki for both their username and for vandalism. Thanks. Acalamari (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done blocked for one day for safety. --Foroa (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Acalamari (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Train stations in the Czech Republic - Cfd

Hi Foroa, the discussion looks to converge to an unequivocal choice. I think, it can be concluded. The bot can use a prepared list of rename templates. --ŠJů (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Great work and great improvement. Do you want me to delete the old categories ? I'll try to execute the whole bunch tonight. --Foroa (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the old categories can be deleted. If you will take note of any interwiki or link to any article, please check a potential "commonscat" link in such article. Some articles about Czech train stations are at cs:, de: and nl: above all. Later I will check it once again. --ŠJů (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving Category:Washington to Category:Washington (U.S. state)

The move of Category:Washington to Category:Washington (U.S. state) seems to have left a lot of unresolved links. I've fixed a few of the more obvious, but see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Washington for what was left dangling. It looks like you are the one who asked for this move and Siebrand seems to feel you are who I should be talking to. - Jmabel ! talk 04:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This was a legitimate request from Multichill. Thank you for changing the templates, but as usual with categories in templates, the links in whatLinksHere will only disappear over (a lot) of time, unless all the states get a normal or dummy edit. I restored the original category, although I don't like it, in order to avoid the 30 or so hardcoded references. --Foroa (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

SieBot cat moves

Botje loopt wel lekker de afgelopen tijd geloof ik, of niet? Vlot, precies, etc... Opmerkingen? Siebrand 11:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Inderdaad, ik denk dat sinds het multi-thread safe gemaakt is dat alles veel sneller en meer in parallel ge-moved wordt. Er is wel een probleem als verschillende moves rond dezelfde categories (of files ?) bewegen. Het ziet ernaar uit dat als verschillende threads een wijziging vragen in dezelfde categorie (elk een specifieke cat rename), dat er soms een van de wijzigingen vergeten wordt. Net alsof er geen concurrency/locking control zou zijn. Ook loopt de display van de geledigde category wel eens vele minuten achter op de moves, hetgeen mij doet denken dat het systeem soms tot op zijn limiten gepusht wordt. Waarschijnlijk zou een kleine wait-timer geen kwaad kunnen. Ik moet dus een beetje meer checken en/of aanpassen na iedere move. Het zou wel helpen indien de bot ook audio en video zou moven, nu laat ik grotere hoeveelheden over aan de redirect bots die er wel weg mee kunnen maar die wachten wel een week.

Op gebied van traceability en meteen een sterke vereenvoudiging van mijn werk zou het wel interessant zijn als de bot in het begin van de source category een commentaar zou schrijven in de zin van "moved to category:bestemming". Als alternatief mag wat mij betreft trouwens de inhoud van die category helemaal gewist worden en vervangen door een category redirect|bestemming. Tenslotte zie ik dat nogal wat mensen bereid zijn om een move te lanceren, maar het grootste werk, het opkuisen, aan anderen overlaten, zodat ook dit probleem kan geautomatiseerd worden. --Foroa (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange : deleted cat

Hi, I see that you have deleted the category Category:"Worst Disaster in Air Force History", but still it does appear in the list of categories, when one clicks on Category at the bottom of a page. Some other categories are in the same situation : deleted and empty, but still in the list. There may be a problem with the Garbage collection. Can you do something ? Or can you ask somebody to do something ? Yours, Frédéric (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I could not find the file, article or category. Could you provide precise names and links ? --Foroa (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, look at Special:Categories, lines 12 and 19. Frédéric (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that. Well, wiki software has some sort of counters that count subcats, images, ... in a category. Those counters get easily corrupted as you can see in for example Category:Non-empty category redirects and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (check "Duplicate" and "Other speedy deletions"). Those corruptions seem to appear when bots and templates are recategorising. So far, I asked a bit around and I could not find a clear explanation why this happens and how to reset those counters. It looks as if a category content gets below 200 items, the counters are re-evaluated. In order not to demotivate you, I can tell you that I never noticed such a counter that stayed corrupted for more than 3 weeks.

Basically, a category exists in the wiki memory whenever there is a reference to it. It turns up blue when it is formally created. --Foroa (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Persian Gulf

Sorry, I added "Category:Persian gulf" to many of the relevant maps, but the "Category:Persian Gulf" already exists. If you have a robot, can you change them. Sorry, Thanks. --Wayiran (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No real problem. Moved by now. --Foroa (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Category problem

There was a move of categories. Category:Flora of New Zealand North to Category:Flora of New Zealand, North Island (or something like this). I look stuff up before requesting moves and share the information. I suggest that it would behoove the people who move categories to get a little experience with looking things up before instigating a move. If it is too much to ask you to do this, let me know

http://www.tdwg.org/TDWG_geo2.pdf <-- page 136, 137 of the pdf. When I review this, I see that I altered some of the original paper I was using to fit into the categorization guidelines here. The original categories I made were not specific to the large islands because of the smaller islands surrounding the country. Species of plants and animals can sometimes be limited to inhabiting one island. Making New Zealand into two geological sections was an attempt to manage information like this.

The species that I had divided into New Zealand North and New Zealand South also occurred on the other islands. So, if you have the time, perhaps you can undo the move or also move all of those species that had been moved to the other islands that were included in the area for the two halves of the politically connected New Zealand.

I am sorry if I have been rude. I suggest that it was a response to what felt to be a rude and perhaps condescending and mostly unnecessary situation. I don't like that feeling and at any given moment to not have that feeling would have been great, welcomed and embraced by me. So perhaps more honestly, I am extremely sorry about the very rude situation which exists. If there is anything that I can do to make the rude situation go away, let me know. -- carol (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories in New Zealand where till recently split in a north and south part, which was not clear at all, so we renamed all related categories to make clear that it concerned the south and north isles. Concerning your categories Category:Flora of New Zealand North and Category:Flora of New Zealand South, as there was nothing documented, we assumed that it followed the same logic as all the other New Zealand north/south categories, so we moved them to Category:Flora of North Island, New Zealand and Category:Flora of South Island, New Zealand. Your reaction proves that the category names needed to be more precise.

Obviously, it makes no sense to move them back, reinstating an ambiguous category name. If you have more precise category names, I will be happy to move whatever needs to be moved provided you can give precise instructions.

I must admit that by moving 100 to 300 categories per week, sometimes we make mistakes and sometimes, we give the impression of being rude (and sometimes, we ARE rude too). But this is rarely intentional and we understand that sometimes, we encounter reactions ranging from irritated, over rude to downright insulting. But we try not to create hard feelings about that. Actually, it is always charming to see a person that "defends" his category names and structures, but in the end, everything has to coexist and have a minimum of coherency. --Foroa (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the other islands?

These were the names that were suggested in that document. They were areas not islands. The areas which include several islands were a way to make it so that each island did not have to be mentioned individually but could be when necessary. Isn't that the way that the category structure is supposed to work where subcats are smaller parts of a larger area?

My intention was not to be charming, by the way. My intention was to open communication. Please do not feel charmed as much as attempted to communicate with. There was a failure of category documentation when commons began or there was a failure to locate it by the people responsible for this. The people who initiated the category structure are not active now to ask questions of.

I feel condescended to. Was that your intention? -- carol (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to explain why we did the things we did. I try to keep an open and unbiased communication, not to be condescending or charming, just simply helpful. I have no idea how the other Islands fit in the New Zealand category system. You can not keep on blaming the people that started categorisation. If you create categories or category structures without documenting their meaning and by using imprecise category names, you are bound to have nasty surprises every now and then. --Foroa (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Precise? The categories I mentioned here were precisely not those two islands. What is the best way to now manage the move that was made to those less precise categories? Add the other islands as categories or perhaps keep the country divided in two in a category system that understands that there are more than two islands in that country? Before the move, the areas were larger containers. Is that understandable to you? Do you have the software needed to review the paper? I can rip the pages out and make them available for you if you were not able to read it and/or look at the pictures. -- carol (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting thing here. I was not here blaming. I was here looking to a person who manages category moves. Perhaps I should have been blaming and that would have been an approach that would affect a knowledgible change?

If I were to need to discuss the undoing of some wrongs with these categories -- what user is there who has access to the bots and spends a lot of time being an authority on the category system here that I could explain the problem to and get a reply which is not so defensive as it is interested in making a logical category structure? -- carol (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File talk:TATA Nano pink.jpg

Sorry, i was a little fast and i didn't see it is on talk page and thank you for revert.   ■ MMXX^talk  19:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Parking lots

I was just curious: why delete Category:Parking lots in the United States? I can't find any reference to any deletion discussions; and "Car park" is a term that I've never heard used in the United States. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This was a commons worldwide harmonisation action as you can see in Category:Car parks by country. Car park seems to fit better in an international and multi-language context. Most of these actions, when obvious, go without discussions. I restored (and redirected) the old category for your convenience. --Foroa (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't a discussion filed? Meanwhile...it would be one thing if the category name were different for no reason (I'm meaning something like "Car park in the United States"), but in this case it will be confusing to the American user, while its inclusion in "Car parks by country" and a soft redirect would suffice for the non-American. Obviously Commons is more international than the English Wikipedia; but is there nothing like WP:ENGVAR on here? Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

With categories, redirects are much more problematic and create bad habits and bad training for non-world-English native people (the majority here). Therefore, uniformisation and consistency is very important on commons. I redirected Category:Parking lots in the United States. --Foroa (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Waarom aircrafts -> aircraft on stamps ?

Dag Foroa, ik zag dat de naam van "Aircrafts on stamps" veranderd is naar "Aircraft on stamps". Het enige wat mij verbaast is dat er wel nog in de categorie "Transport and vehicles on stamps" staan Automobiles on stamps, Boats on stamps, Buses on stamps, Motorcycles on stamps, Ships on stamps, Tanks on stamps. Die dus allemaal wel in het meervoud. Is er een reden waarom het vliegtuig wel in enkelvoud moet? Bij File:Postzegel_1935_luchtvaartfonds.jpg zijn het 3 vliegtuigen. Groeten, Wouter (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

De reden is eenvoudig. Het woord aircrafts bestaat niet in het Engels, enkel aircraft dat zowel eenvoud als meervoud is. --Foroa (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Bedankt, daar ben ik goed ingelopen. In het rijtje had "aeroplanes" dan misschien beter gepast. Wouter (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me the link to the discussion chemistry (unsorted) Undifined chemistry?

--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you running a BOT?

re: this edit/diff by you...

• 1) I'd deliberately left that to category red, so it showed in the contribs summaries as a to-do reminder...

• hoping someone running a bot could move the pics...

• Rocket000 used to do that sort of batch moves for me, who around here active now does that sort of 'identified needs moves'

• 2) So why did you remove the annotated reasons (which should save time for someone ''completing the task') to whit:

   This page is currently wrongly named... the book is titled with "THE", not "A"


   Added categoryredirect in case someone is patrolling these and can bot move the images first. // FrankB 22:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• 3) Removing the annotation without finishing the task (the major part of which is recatting the images to the correct name is UNHELPFUL to others time and a step back, imho.

• 4 What pray tell, do you mean by "Cool down period?" ("bot should move them after cooldown period" to be precise) Where's a controversy??? Well, outside your unhelpful masking of a clear message?

I daresay, I've likely contributed here as nearly as long (or longer) as you and am certainly qualified to discern recatting needs.

So what are your rationales? // FrankB 14:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The standard procedure for category renaming is inserting a {{Move|new name}} request. Redirecting to a non existing category will make the bot recategorise the items with a non-existing category. The bots that are moving redirects don't do that during the first seven days (or cooldown period) after the last category change to avoid vandalisme.

I created my self the new category and did some moves myself to avoid an empty destination category. I did not have the time to move it all. I don't see where the problem is as in the end, the moves would have been executed. Following the standard procedure would have avoided this discussion. --Foroa (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, understand... Rocket000 and I and a few others like David Kernow used to shortcut that a bit... I'd just identify things needing moved, and they'd run the bots... if not immediately, usually within an hour or two.

We'd usually do that via emails too, which these days I usually ignore as distractions save for a daily check. Mom writes a lot! <g>

• However, having the bot recat to a non-existing category is no different than you or me specifying a cat page, then later creating the category from the redlink... That would be fine, as anyone could create it later. The "gripe" I was making was you took out the very message designed to let someone know the work needed done. So overall, no big deal. Just didn't make any sense in light of what I'd intended. We're just thinking differently about it all.

I'll check out the Move template... things do change a bit over here, and I really haven't been here much since about 2-1/2 years back. Cheers! // FrankB 05:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Building interiors by country

All moved, hope that's how you wished it to be. odder 21:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced, but it is OK. --Foroa (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified

Zoals je vast al door hebt ben ik de hele unidintified boom maar eens gelijk aan het trekken zodat we een boom hebben voor dingen die nog uitgezocht moeten worden. Als onderdeel daarvan heb ik {{Unidentified header}} gemaakt. Wat vind je van dit idee? Multichill (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Had ik al opgemerkt en al de moves versneld doorgevoerd (met wat gezaag vandien). Ik heb de header in een wat vriendelijker toonaard gezet. Lijkt mij nogal wat omslachtig om die overal bijgezet te krijgen. Lijkt mij gemakkelijker om een standaard tekst op unidentified cats te zetten met een link naar de moeder cat en een gelijkaardige melding dat wij die cat zo snel mogelijk ledig wensen te maken (maar daarom niet gewist dient te worden). --Foroa (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben er ook nog niet helemaal uit. Bedankt voor de aanpassing. Als we een versie hebben die we goed vinden dan laat ik m'n bot wel even rammelen om het overal erop te zetten. Multichill (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mocht je trouwens nog zin hebben, hier staat een lijstje. Multichill (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In Milan?

I am curious of what made you think that all of the images in Category:Icons of John the Baptist were obligatory located in Milan? Here is at least one counterexample with an icon of this saint, drawn and located in Sozopol, Bulgaria. Could you, please, revise your actions. →Spiritia 14:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I will check with user:G.dallorto, the originator of the move request of 27/02/2009. With his edit count approching 200 000 and many thousands of category rename requests, he makes rarely mistakes. I assume that he wanted to move to a category where the majority of the images belong to, and reshuffle the remaining ones by hand, but I will check. --Foroa (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also with this request - half of this icons are in Russia. --Shakko (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've cheked every icon in that category - no Milan at all. Obvious slip of the pen. I've reverted all back.--Shakko (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was a mistake of mine. I was trying to revert the images of John the Baptist in Milan that had been moved to "Saint John". I overdid. You may delete that category. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. :) →Spiritia 09:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Membre

Have a look there. Greetings --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Another proof that shortening the names 'for comfort' creates more problems than it solves. Moved to category:Membre-sur-Semois. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Secret renaming operation

You are gonna stop this and put every category you want ro rename to discussion. Otherwise I will report you on the vandalism page. Regards --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unknown vs Unidentified

Category discussion notification

Unknown vs Unidentified 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!

Category:Percussioni circensi

Hallo. I've replaced the tag of deletion on this category simply because this italian football club does not exists. I suppose you have found this "red" category liked in all of portraits uploaded by Allanon2001 (see his discussion, it seems to be an abitué of copyviol and spam) and so you have created it. But i can assure to you that this f.c. is a ghost. I'm italian, i have never heard about a football team named Percussioni circensi. It hasn't a page on it.wikipedia and no one in other else editions of wp. Searching in google i've found that it is a simple amateur squad based in Turin, so not belonging to FIGC, and so not-encyclopedic. It's a simple amateur FC searching for fame on wikimedia projects. Look at this fan site, look at the portrait... All pictures uploaded in this category are also a copyviol, and completely meaningless for the encyclopedia. I don't now how to complete the deletion request, if you could do it (as admin) or simply delete this spam... or this fake. I would only notice this massive-spam. Good work --87.11.18.6 19:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Language-neutral diagrams

Hey, thanks for taking care of my merge request (I would have done it myself but it was before I got my powers back :). I have a problem, though. As user LA2 has brought to my attention not everything in that category belongs there (some are in fact not language neutral). Also, with the size of the current category some sub-division is probably desired. I'm want to fix this but I'm unsure of what to do. If you have any ideas, I'd love to here them. Thanks! Rocket000(talk) 19:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and please reply there. Rocket000(talk) 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Comarques

Hello Foroa, as I've just replied to Jmabel I'm going to copy your messages on the debate. Probably you're right and I can't see the things with the correct perspective, so let's get a consensus before doing some more massive moves that might be wrong. And of course, you're also welcome to participate in the debate, if you need me to translate your comments there, just let me know. Cheers. Anna (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, consensus seems not to be impossible. I replied on Commons:Debate_sobre_la_categorización_de_municipios_en_España#Comarques. Don't worry about translations for me: you need consensus with the Spanish people in the first place, not with me. And in general, I end up knowing what is going on anyway. Redirects execute after 7 days, so if you are unsure, replace them with a {{Move}}. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

category:windmills in West Flanders

Hoi Foroa, waarom heb je deze categorie verwijderd? Ik wilde deze cats juist in lijn met de nlwp brengen. Er zijn een hoop foto's bijgekomen en komen er geloof ik nog een hoop aan. Multichill (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wij hebben in België omzeggens geen enkele tussen-categorie structuur op provincie level en ik zie dat er in Nederland ook geregeld van terug gekomen wordt. Als je bot molens download, dan zou het wel handing zijn dat die in de gemeente of dorp geklasseerd wordt, en niet op provincie level zoals zo pas nog enkele tientallen molens in de provincie Antwerpen gezet werden. --Foroa (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In Nederland doen we het wel voor gebouwen, molens, kerken, gemeentes, plaatsen en een hele hoop andere dingen. Hoe stel je voor het dan voor België te doen? Plaats categorieën lijkt me niet zo handig omdat die veel te leeg worden. Ik zou het ook wel handig vinden als het meteen in de juiste plaatscat terechtkomt, maar ik denk dat er wat Commonscat linkjes ontbreken op nlwp waardoor m'n bot niet genoeg info heeft. Multichill (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

En wat met de windmolens op zee (Thornton bank bvb)? Dat is niet echt provinciegebonden? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycaon (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Die vallen waarschijnlijk niet eens binnen België of Nederland ;-) Multichill (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

O jawel! De windmolens op de Thorntonbank liggen volledig op het Belgische deel (dat is trouwens ongeveer 80% van deze bank) van de Noordzee. Deze wateren zijn echter federale materie en niet aan een provincie gebonden. Lycaon (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Zie User_talk:Foroa/archive_2008#Category_Cities_in_Italy waar het duidelijk is dat België op twee niveaus gecategoriseerd is: locaties en land. Als je kijkt in de relatief eenvoudige structuur in category:sculptures in the Netherlands en de meer ingewikkelde structuur in category:sculptures in Belgium zie je al snel dat de her en der opduikende provincie tussen-structuren meer problemen geven dan er oplossen (plus onderhoudswerk). Bovendien wordt categorisatie alsmaar ingewikkelder. Ik denk dat meer dan 95 % van de Vlaamse gemeenten in commons zitten, dus geen excuus om die niet te gebruiken in de eerste plaats. Ik heb al op verschillende topics in Nederland gezien dat de provincie tussen-structuren weggezwierd worden. Bovendien is België veel minder provincie-minded, dus minder gekend en meer vergissingen. Bovendien vermijden wij zo problemen zoals pseudo-provincies Brussels gewest, Duitstalig gewest en gebieden in de territoriale wateren waar het niet altijd duidelijk is indien ze Belgisch, Vlaams of van de provincie zijn. --Foroa (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You're testing my patience, again.

Instead of denying the request, why don't you take a look at w:Gothic Revival architecture, w:Category:Gothic Revival architecture, w:Category:Gothic Revival architecture in the United States, Google, etc. Notice the spelling? It doesn't matter if the people who made the Commons "Gothic revival" categories screwed up. The requested moves you denied are the correct spellings and should be changed. If that involves changing all of the "Gothic revival" categories to "Gothic Revival", so be it. If you don't want to do it, then find someone who will. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Some comments.

• move requests directly via the delinker are for uncontestable moves, mainly for obvious mistakes and uniformisation of agreed upon naming and spelling.
• your request was an implicit request for changing the names of tens or even hundreds of categories, so it would be equally rejected as a {{Move}}. Such major changes can only through CFD.
• Wikipedia and certainly Google are not a reference for capitalisation, especially as modern publications use title cases all over the place. Even in Wikipedia, you will find numerous places where revival is written with lower case (and Architecture with upper case).
• Looking here shows that the conclusion is not obvious and that "Gothic Revival" is almost not known as a term.
• Personally, I feel that it should be Revival with capital, but I see no clear evidence for the one or the other, so I will not waste my time on it. I mainly try to keep the system uniform. I would not exclude that the term Neogothic is a better term as it is more "international". --Foroa (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And maybe have a look into en:Category:Revival architectural styles to notice why it is hard to believe that the English Wikipedia could be a reference. --Foroa (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want Commons to be screwed up, that's your issue. Now I know why I avoided this place for 6 months. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Horned melon and Cucumis metuliferus

What should be done? --Eusebius (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not having paid attention to the talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No ,problem, I undid the move. To quote en wiki: "A traditional food plant in Africa, this little-known fruit has potential to improve nutrition, boost food security, foster rural development and support sustainable landcare" Along with the items on its talk page, plenty of reasons to keep this as "development category". But it is a bit of a border case. --Foroa (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Percussioni circensi

Category:Percussioni circensi has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Patrícia ^msg 13:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Universities in the Czech Republic

Hello. Why you deleted Category:Universities in the Czech Republic and created Category:Universities and colleges in the Czech Republic, if there are no colleges in the Czech Republic? --Ragimiri (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been harmonised according to the de facto commons world/country level categorisation standard. --Foroa (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Where can I found this standard? Thank you. --Ragimiri (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, we are talking about harmonisation of a (organically) growing "en:De facto standard", as can been seen in this case in Category:Universities and colleges by country. And standards are often like a glove: too big for some persons, too small for others. We just do our best. --Foroa (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Category Dun Cow

You have changed the categorys yet again in category Dun Cow. If you check you will find that the categorys for the Dun Cow should be a sub category in England as not all these Dun Cows are in Norfolk and are spread across the country. Please put the categorys back to how they were first organised Stavros1 (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I improved the category structure, name and interwiki's to avoid that type of misunderstandings. --Foroa (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Foroa

Thank you for your time spent improving the organisation of these categorys, it is now clearear and more user friendlyStavros1 (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to get category:Dun Cow better connected, but those items are extremely old and hard to find. Don't hesitate to discuss, that avoids misunderstandings. --Foroa (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kiwifruits

com:cat says "A category page should contain the following information[...]:"; "Interwiki links to categories or pages with the same topic in the Wikipedias [...].". Gallery Kiwifruit exists where, I think, the links are better situated.
--D-Kuru (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As you state: "A category page should contain the following information[...]:"; Interwiki links to categories or pages with the same topic in the Wikipedias". It is all depending if you give priority to the tools (category links) or multi-language user support (article links) for users from allover the world. Personally, I give preference to user assistance, ,meaning links to articles (I find that categories belong to the internal commons or various wikipedia organisations that change all the time in an uncorrelated way and should not be interlinked). This discussion pops-up every 6 months without clear conclusion (same applies for IW's in pictures, especially when they have no gallery or proper category yet). Anyway, if someone does the effort to document a category (and IW's are often the most efficient way to document), then I see no reason to delete that. --Foroa (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Move of categories

Hi Foroa - I can understand that in cases like renaming "Gothic revival" to "Gothic Revival" you preferred to be on the safe side by not executing a potentially contested move via Commons Delinker - but surely {{move cat|Spanish Colonial Revival Style architecture|Spanish Colonial Revival architecture}} is a bit different? This is two separate cats that mean the same.

I do admit that apparently, based on the Wikipedia redirects, the merge should be in the opposite direction, i.e. the "Style" should be retained. Oh well - my bad. Ingolfson (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

See discussion User_talk:Foroa#You.27re_testing_my_patience.2C_again.. The capitalisation rules are unclear again and it makes no sense to introduce "yet another capitalisation style" again, especially when most of the hundreds revival cats (and many other architecture cats) are mostly coherent with lower case. --Foroa (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I wasn't talking about that (except in the original rename proposal, sorry for not being omniscient) - I was talking about the inclusion or non-inclusion of the WORD "Style" - with Wikipedia redirecting from the form that does not have "Style" to the one that does. At the moment, Commons has images in both forms (Category:Spanish Colonial Revival architecture and Category:Spanish Colonial Revival Style architecture), therefore I was, above, discussing that we should merge them. I have since relisted that change request with the discussed modifications. Ingolfson (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No existential problem. Some comments:

• to me "xxx style architecture" is containing two redundant/overlapping words. If you want to be consistent, then you have to use Romanesque revival style architecture, Gothic style architecture... So I think that you could use "Spanish Colonial revival architecture" or "Spanish Colonial revival style", but no mix.
• so far, it looks that for architectures in Commons, de facto, only the first word of a style is capitalised (Romanesque revival, Modern movement, ...), so I am reluctant to reopen the debate without any decent reference on that, and stick to this de facto standard (I searched in paper encyclopedias, and in many cases, even gothic, Baroque, ... and so are not capitalised).
• Not too sure about your "Brise soleil" move request to "Brise soleils". As far as I know, This french word brise-soleil does not exist in plural, if you would write the separate words brise soleil in plural, I guess you would write "brises soleil". So maybe better leave that as is ?--Foroa (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

* to me "xxx style architecture" is containing two redundant/overlapping words. - well yes, but you usually support following Wikipedia precedents, so I thought that would find more favour. Just merge in the other direction then.

* so far, it looks that for architectures in Commons, de facto, only the first word of a style is capitalised no problem.

* Not too sure about your "Brise soleil" move request to "Brise soleils". Not good enough in French to give a final word, here, though Google seems to favour Brises-solei. Though you could argue that when used in anglicised usage, the English plural conventions apply - as they do with numerous other words that a language appropriates. No need to change if you are uncomfortable doing so. Ingolfson (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

{{move cat|Velum quadragesimale (Fastentuch)|Velum quadragesimale (lenten cloth)}} Hi Foroa - what is the problem with this one? "Fastentuch" is German for "Lenten cloth" or "Lenten veil". Ingolfson (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I searched long time for that one. Problem is that I could not find really clear references on the en:Wikipedia to Velum quadragesimale, nor lenten cloth, nor Fastentuch. Lenten cloth (or something similar) is not really used in the en Wiki, a latin word has been used with a german Fastentuch as explaining translation. I don't think that we should introduce "new" words ourselves and a better/more used term might pop up one day, so I guess that the best compromise for now would be to stick to the latin name till we find something that is really "common". --Foroa (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Driving railway coaches

Category discussion notification

Category:Driving railway coaches 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!

(You are created Category:Railcars (self-propelled)) --ŠJů (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Years in automobile racing

Hi Foroa - is there a way to rename all these subcategories without having to go and nominate all of them on the requests page? Thanks for your work, Ingolfson (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The quickest is to produce a list with catscan, paste and edit it in word or excel, format it properly (potentially with macro's), paste it again in commons as formatted {{Move cat|source|desitnation}}. The problem is more internally where "auto racing" has to be replaced by "automobile racing". I'll have a look into that next week, SieBot should be capable of doing that. --Foroa (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A change full of potential... for angry retorts

Should we change "Category:Steam locomotives" to "Category:Steam-powered locomotives"? We have consistently modified other categories in this way, and it doesn't make more sense here (the locomotives are not made of steam!). Yet I know this would cause some outrage, and I am not sure you would support it anyway.

Your thoughts? Maybe in this case, a "Seecat" at the current name would be acceptable? Ingolfson (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I know the question is not directed at me, but I'd like to make a comment anyway, if I may. It's true that Steam locomotives is inaccurate, but Steam-powered locomotives is just as wrong: steam is not a fuel, it doesn't provide energy to the machine. Coal-powered would probably be more accurate, but then it's not related to the common name of these locomotives anymore. So I don't know which name should be used, but between these two, I don't think there is one better than the other. –Tryphon^☂ 11:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no single category system that is complete. For the power, we could categorise by fuel source, external/internal (self)combustion/hydraulic/air/steam/electric engines too, but that brings us far from the real needs. Steam power is correct as it transports the energy generated from combustion of not only coal, but equally from wood, gas, litter ... I think that we better leave steam xxx as is, we have to be careful not to over-harmonise and to stay in a reasonable line with popular naming. --Foroa (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dutch translations needed

Hi! Bibi Saint-Pol and me are working on autotranslating the meta-template we use for many museums, like {{Information British Museum}}. Could you please help us find Dutch translations for every tag name:

• artist/maker
• description
• dimensions
• credit line
• accession number
• location
• source
• references
• other versions

'Credit line' is mainly about the mode of acquisition: what collection does it come from? Did it join the collections by gift, purchase, on loan, etc. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Our penultimate tag actually reads 'source/photographer'--source when you picked the picture from the Net (PD-Art), photographer when you can name someone. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Eastlake High School

You have Category:Eastlake High School very oddly categorized. Why would a high school be under Category:Sammamish River? What is the connection? Perhaps under Category:Sammamish, Washington if that's the community it's in (and under whatever community it's in if that's not where this is)? Also, why is it under Category:Universities and colleges in Washington? Isn't it just a high school? What university or college is it associated with, if any? - Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, several times per week, I am trying to find a home for emerging undefined categories and uncategorized categories as to help newbies in the right direction. Because this happens with hundreds of al sorts of categories per week, I try to be precise when I feel categories belong to an emerging country or area. When the categories seem to belong to a reasonably developed country or domain, I just try to "steer" them in the right direction. In the case you mention, I added the Sammamish category (which has been converted by hotlink to Sammamish River, which I did not notice and proves why one should be careful with redirects) and I added Category:Universities and colleges in Washington because the schools in Washington did not exist at that time. I noticed that there are not many volunteers which work in the uncategorised or wanted categories area. So indeed, some of my "top-level" categorisation work is very crude or occasionally downright wrong, but at least, there is a fair chance that it is being picked up by people that specialise in the area. In this case, I am really surprised it took so many months. --Foroa (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I hit it because I'm in the process of taking photos in the eastern part of King County, Washington. So I gather this was based on nothing, and I should re-categorize. - Jmabel ! talk 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

nu we toch bezig zijn

Hallo,

mag ik toch nog eens komen storen voor iets niet-commons gerelateerd. Nu het toch over scholen gaat.

Op nl:Wikipedia:Te_verwijderen_pagina's/Toegevoegd_20090406 vindt men het nodig 2 West-Vlaamse scholen, waaronder nl:Ter Poorten te nomineren, tot 2x toe op rij zelfs. Nochtans, vergeleken met de "artikelen" (ahum) uit nl:Categorie:Basisschool in Nederland hebben deze Vlaamse artikeltjes heel wat meer om het lijf... Blijkbaar ligt voor sommigen de lat voor Vlaamse artikelen toch heel wat hoger :-( Misschien moet ik je totaal niet lastigvallen met dit soort gedoe buiten wikipedia; maar goed, gezien je afkomst en kan ik het m.b.t. dit soort onderwerpen maar eens vragen hé ;-) Mocht je er aldaar een idee over hebben, je vindt de weg wel zeker ? ;-) Groeten --LimoWreck (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Met plezier, ik ben dikwijls verwonderd door de variable verwijdercriteria. Dit gezegd zijnde, de artikelen lijken mij nogal rommelig, maar het is inderdaad niet eenvoudig om een dergelijk artikel opgestart te krijgen met weinig informatie. Niettemin lijkt mij het interessant om er van meetaf aan er een structuur met kopjes in te krijgen, een aantal referenties/links naar "chiquere" namen, zoals patrimonium, oprichtingsacte, schoolstrijd, architecturale stijl, namen van bekende personen, burgemeesters, architecten, ... en uiteraard geven foto's het geheel een meer encyclopedisch aspect, zelfs als het ruines zijn die beter afgebroken worden. --Foroa (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ik heb op de verwijderpagina ook mijn bijdrage geplaatst. Als je naar de Engelse wikipedia kijkt barst het van artikelen over (basis)scholen. Kennelijk kijken velen niet verder dan de Nederlandstalige neus lang is. Wouter (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Coquín

Could you delete the Category:Río Coquín ? I wanted to create Category:Río Cosquín, but I forgot the "s".  :(

Thanks.

--Roberto Fiadone (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would if I could find it. No trace of it in the deletion log our in the list of your contributions. --Foroa (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Maybe I need a psychologist. :(

--Roberto Fiadone (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Info

Thanks for the explanation re the category renames. Ingolfson (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I watch your talk page. It is not always easy to summarise the rejected moves in an edit summary. But a fireless-powered vehicle was too bizar/contradictional to me. --Foroa (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you are way too concerned with making sense rather than beating the category structure into shape, Foroa ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Categorization

Hallo Foroa, thanks for the message. Yes, the categorisations are wrong. I think it's happened at my first trial to upload files by using the "Commonist", and I forgot to verify it. Now I have deleted these categorisations in the program. It were nice if You could remove these wrong categorisations with a bot. I think there is no need for a new categorisation. Thanks and best regards --Großkomtur (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done The best I could do is to replace it with [[Category:]]. --Foroa (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Jersey

Hi Foroa

Is en:Jersey a "country" in the Commons sense? I have been moving Jersey stuff out of the "by country" categories and into United Kingdom, under the same logic like Hong Kong being moved into China. But apparently, Jersey's legal status is a weird in-between one as a en:Crown Dependencies, and a user has been moving them back. Any precedents or rules how we handle this? Ingolfson (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan has the same problem and I guess all regions that fight for independency (Balcan, Tibet, Kurds, ETA, ...), so we better define a strict rule to avoid endless discussions and edit wars. (see en:Category:Countries by status) Maybe a dump of the country category structure from en:Wikipedia ? Anyway, on the practical side: if there would be substantial additions of countries, we will run into troubles as we might have to add a continent level intermediate structure, a thing that I want to avoid absolutely. --Foroa (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmh, meaning there is no rule. How about using the UN definitions en:United Nations member states for criteria of what is a country in this case? Then we can let somebody else do the arguing for us, and don't needto fight over it in Wikimedia. We would still need a logic where the others would go to, though. Ingolfson (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting Jersey under the United Kingdom is incorrect. It's not part of the United Kingdom, it's directly under the crown (similair to Isle of Man). This is a somewhat difficult situation. To make it easier for users to find things we should just place these special countries in the by country trees. Multichill (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not totally opposed to that. But Foroa raised the valid question of what we do with disputed cases? Jersey's status is not disputed, just tricky. Ingolfson (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no "hard" preference, but there is a need for a rule and a way to include non formal countries (Kosovo for example or other en:Category:Unrecognized or largely-unrecognized states). Adding Jersey as country will imply adding 30 to 50 dependent countries. --Foroa (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hello!

Where are the "various linked discussions"? Greets, High Contrast (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Two linked discussions and/or here. Recurring problem indeed with scattered discussions and when category documentation is not updated properly. --Foroa (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the information. --High Contrast (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Presidents of the United States

Hi Foroa - thanks for the move - however, the above category has not been tagged with the correct categories and interwikis - as the other category spelling has already been deleted, I can't add them (I have just removed the now-wrong redirect and added two "emergency categories" and an explanation) - can you go into the deleted cat and grab the correct ones? Thanks Ingolfson (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done My bad, normally, I check this before moving. Corrected by now. --Foroa (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hondenrassen vraagje

Hallo - ik hoop dat u een prettig Pasen heeft gehad! Ik kwam het volgende tegen: Category:German shepherd dog verwijst door naar de Duitse naam van deze hond, blijkbaar omdat de categorieën zijn opgezet naar naamgeving volgens de FCI (zie List of dog breeds). Ik dacht dat de naamgeving altijd in het Engels was OF per de Latijnse naamgeving? Heb ik iets gemist? Ik kon er geen discussie over vinden, maar omdat ik me er niet zo mee bezig houdt kan het zijn dat ik niet goed heb gezocht, vandaar mijn vraag. Weet u hier iets over? Anders zal ik het eens elders aankaarten wellicht. Alvast bedankt -- Deadstar (msg) 07:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dank je wel. De paasklok is langsgekomen met een vredig weekend; hopelijk bij jou ook. Die hondevraag is inderdaad een goede maar hondsmoeilijke vraag. Ik heb er indertijd even naar gezocht en geen enkele andere "hondenstandaard" gevonden; Zelfs die FCI naming vind ik soms maar dubieus, (met taalfouten en op het eerste gezicht niet echt standaard) maar als we naar Engels overschakelen denk ik dat je weer in "een zelf uitgevonden wiki standaard" valt met alle problemen van dien. Zover houd ik dus de stelling aan dat iedere standaard beter is dan geen standaard, en dat de taalkeuze maar secundair is. Niettemin lijkt het mij wel nuttig de FCI standaard en -naming uit te diepen (soms heb ik de indruk dat iedereen de taal kiest die hem het best uitkomt zoals in Belgium Griffons) en als er dan eventueel een betere/universeler standard naar voren komt: des te beter. In een tweede stap zou er inderdaad naar een engelse naam-uniformisatie kunnen overgestapt worden, maar alleen indien er een aparte Engelse naam is voor alle soorten en dat de relatie ook een-op-een is, en dus geen groepen die anders georganiseerd zijn van de ene taal naar de andere. --Foroa (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hier was Pasen ook goed, het regende alleen non-stop (en dat is wel bijzonder voor Ierland). "Belgium Griffons" doet wel een beetje zeer aan m'n ogen... dat ga ik wel aanpassen naar "Belgian" als zijnde spelfout. Hartelijk dank voor het uitgebreide antwoord, het lijkt erop dat ik m'n neus er beter uit kan laten want ik weet er simpelweg te weinig vanaf. Vriendelijke groet, -- Deadstar (msg) 09:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(PS:Ik weet dat "Belgian Griffon" waarschijnlijk ook niet FCI approved is, maar de spelfout is in ieder geval gefixt. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Cat toevoeging

Ben je je ervan bewust dat je een bot opdracht hebt gegeven om 9000 afbeeldingen in Category:Scans te dumpen en zo'n 4000 bestanden in Category:Windmills in Germany? Voor al die molens waren veel betere cats beschikbaar op User:Multichill/Fotothek building categories. Multichill (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Achteraf ben ik wel even geschrokken: SieBot is nog steeds bezig. Ik heb inderdaad gezien dat je vele tientallen speciale categories aangemaakt hebt, alsook speciale functies in SieBot. Ik ging er dus ook van uit dat je een oogje in het zeil hield op het hele process en het feit dat de move aanvraag niet gecontesteerd was leek het mij Ok. Vermits ik echter niet op de hoogte ben van het download process, de mogelijke categoriën en de nieuwe bot functionaliteit, ben ik niet echt in staat een oordeel te vellen, dus van nu af aan voer ik dergelijke opdrachten niet meer uit. --Foroa (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, kan gebeuren joh. Ik genereer een hoop tijdelijke categorieën met behulp van {{Fotothek-Description}}. Dit zijn natuurlijk tijdelijke categorieën. Als iemand een tijdelijke categorie vindt waarin alle foto's naar een permanente categorie kunnen dan is het makkelijk om dit door een bot te laten doen. De uitleg staat hier. Het is nooit mij intentie geweest dat het voor zulke algemene categorieën werd gebruikt (nou ja, niet meteen, wellicht wel op het eind). Ik denk dat ik de bot maar aanpas om dit op te lossen. Je helpt toch wel even mee met opruimen? Multichill (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wil je helpen met User:Multichill/Fotothek mill categories? Ik begin met de eerste sectie. Multichill (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Natuurlijk, maar niet meteen. Die laatste parameter in de template (default windmills in Germany), waarvoor dient hij ? --Foroa (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ik dacht dat ik die nodig zou hebben, maar misschien toch niet. Het idee is dat je alle onzin verplaatsingen eruit gooit en voor de goede de cat aanmaakt (bijvoorbeeld Category:Wassermühle Krobnitz). Als dat gedaan is dan laat kunnen die sjablonen zo bij de commonsdelinker geplakt worden. Multichill (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Efkes geprobeerd, en dat werkt prima, maar het blijft veel werk. Kunnen wij de mannen van de Fotothek niet ter hulp roepen om op die lijst te werken ? --Foroa (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ja, ik ga morgen eens proberen of ik een stel Duitsers kan optrommelen. De bot doet nu ook bewerkingssamenvattingen dus die is er wel klaar voor. Multichill (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cucina -> Cuisine

Hallo Foroa. The Category:Cuisine of Italy has all the sub-categories wrong, written as [Cucina...]. It is necessary to move all with a bot to [Cuisine of...]. Can you do this? Thank You very much! The correct name are: Ligure -> Liguria; abruzzese -> Abruzzo; calabrese -> Calabria; lombardia -> Lombardy; piemontese -> Piedmont; pugliese -> Apulia; salentina -> Salento; sarda -> Sardinia; umbra -> Umbria; veneziana -> Venezia; vicentina -> Vicenza. Bye --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, and there was no reaction in the Italian café. I don't have time right now, but you could accelerate things if you put a list of botmove requests in User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands in the format {{move cat|Source|Destination}}. I could execute that later in the day. Otherwise, I'll do that somewere next week. --Foroa (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Trentino-South Tyrol

Hallo Foroa. There is a similar problem in the category of Provinces of Italy. Somebody ask for deletion the cat. Province of South Tyrol, but this is the correct name. If you look at the Category:Provinces of Italy, you will see that it is necessary to move Category:South Tyrol in the Category:Province of South Tyrol, and the Category:Trentino in the Category:Province of Trento. Can you do this also? It will be a great work! Thank You! Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't read your answer before I have written this second message. Thank You again! --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have seen some discussions on the naming for Italian/german categories in that area, I would prefer that you issue a {{Move|Destination|Reason}}, so it is a bit more democratic. --Foroa (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Barracks of Austria

Why did you delete the category Barracks of austria? It makes a sense becaus ther were uplistet the former military facilities of Austria, today to find in countries like Poland, Bosnia, Italy and so on - onece belonged to the Austia-Hungarian Empire. It makes certainly a diffrent to the barracks in Austria of today. --Steinbeisser (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This category is redundant with category:Barracks in Austria, is uncategorised and so is of any use. --Foroa (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire idea of categorizing as "barracks of country" is very difficult, and I don't thing this is useful for commons (commons must provide all historic details). Although many barracks may not be in Austria, I don't think it's useful to categorize them as barracks of Austria because they have been in use by the Austrian army. So what? Most military buildings are used by whomever is occupying the territory. So a barracks, fortress, ... is used by Austria, decades later by the French, later by Holland, later by Belgium, later occupied by the Germans,etc... That is trivial, and we won't add ten categories for each nation that has occupied the military infrastructure during its history. --LimoWreck (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

SieBot heeft er nu wel een zooi van gemaakt. Nu zit de categorie met Barracks in Austria vol met kazernes die helemaal niet in Oostenrijk liggen, maar doorheen Europa, en toevallig eens in gebruik geweest zijn door de Oostenrijkers. De categorie Barracks of Austria moest gewoon verwijderd worden, niet overgeheveld. Nu zit het vol fouten. Ik stel voor dat Steinbeisser eigenlijk gewoon van de categorieën blijft, hij maakt er een puinhoop van, snapt het niet (voegt te veel redundante oudercategorieën toe, introduceert ongewone categorieën, linkt zijn cats niet in de boom, etc) , en veel gebruikers hebben hem al gerevert (zie zijn overleg), en zijn edits overlopend gisteren heb ik mensen gezien die mbt Frankrijk, Finland, etc al hopen hebben gerevert ook... --LimoWreck (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Voila, de verplaatsingen van SieBot nagelopen en gecorrigeerd waar nodig. Hopelijk stopt Steinbisser nu met de dingen om zeep te helpen... --LimoWreck (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, maar ik had niet gezien dat hij er zoveel barracken van andere landen had bijgepoeft. In het verleden heb ik al een paar keer snel moeten tussenkomen om zijn schade te beperken, en ik dacht dat hij het nu wel geleerd had. Niet dus... --Foroa (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If your talking about me, so you could do that, I'm able to understand what you're saying. Seems to be an act of respectability. By the way - I think you will not understand - but now you created a category Barracks in Romania with one lonesome File - that is at last not simply a barrack in Romania because only used until 1918 by the Austria-Hungarian Army. But if the background knowledge ain't available, doens't matter....you keep right..... (Um mich mal auf euer Niveau zu begeben - man sollte die Finger von Sachen lassen, von denen man nichts versteht!Kapiert!) --Steinbeisser (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, you'd better keep your hands off the things you can't understand. People on your talk page did give you pointers and links how to study the categorization system, it seems in vain ? --LimoWreck (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

En voilà, weer een ronde correcties er op zitten; ontbrekende of niet-precieze categorieën, redundante oudercategorieën etc,... dit lijkt dweilen met de kraan open. --LimoWreck (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I denk mir amol, daß se dir mit ahn Oachkatzlschwoaf durch dei Owastübl gfohrn san uh dobei die letztn voh deini graua Zölln davuagwedld hom. Bessawissa, greislicha. Moch Lecha in ahn Kahs des isch waarscheinli s' oanzige wos'd richdi konnschd! Uh iwerhaupts - du mi aah. --Steinbeisser (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Special:UnusedCategories

Help me delete some of these. Rocket000 (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Opletten dat de voorlopige lege Belgische deelgemeenten niet klakkeloos gewist worden natuurlijk; of we kunnen weer van vooraf aan beginnen met de categorie-bots die afbeeldingen niet kunnen thuisbrengen. Die categorieën zijn normaalgezien correct. En er zijn blijkbaar nog heel wat groepen categorieën die om de systematiek blijkbaar (al) leeg bestaan (van amerikaanse interstates tot duitse foto-archieven, tot weet ik veel wat)... --LimoWreck (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's certain empty categories that we keep. As long as someone wants them around, then I leave them alone. Rocket000 (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned already hundreds of categories created by user:DonabelSDSU.bot and his operator, and I warned him, so the first thing to do is remove his bot status and delete his empty categories to start with. Then we can see for a more systematic approach.--Foroa (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I started to delete some of those. They were way too specific of categories and unlikely to be used by anyone else. Even if he completes the 50,000 uploads, I don't think this approach is the best way to do it. The ones he uploads, he's not even putting in some of the categories. For example, File:PDB 1qgw EBI.jpg says it belongs in Category:Phycoerythrin 545 alpha-subunits, but that's still empty. I'm not sure the extreme subdivsion is helpful for navigation anyway (unless you're a specialist), broader categories and more specific galleries would be better. However, if he's using it for mass uploads (and he would flood the logs), I'm not sure we should debot him. Plus, it won't stop him; it will only throw up ignorable warnings in pywikipedia that he's not a bot. Rocket000 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Difficult case. This means that anyone can create a bot/script that adds thousands categories and links in categories at random in a couple of hours. Good luck to undo that. Does Commons have somewhere a safety backup ? --Foroa (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

All we have is the block function. Too late for that now... and it looks like he completely stopped. The bot's been inactive since April 2. Rocket000 (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Would be interesting to have the opinion of an expert, especially concerning naming and maintenance of those 11000 or so categories. --Foroa (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Safety backup? You mean like a database dump? You can't revert the whole wiki :) Rocket000 (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant a backup of the category structure. I will not enter into details, but it seems very vulnerable. --Foroa (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

deleted category

You deleted Category:First Aid for being Incorrectly named. But the category isn't empty. What's the correctly named category? Category:First aid? That's a cat redirect. Please fix that. --Slomox (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a redirect to Category:Prehospital care, but yeah, it's not empty. Rocket000 (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I had little time and several problems with SieBot (that don't execute some transfers), so I could not complete the transfer list. Problem was that "First aid" got a redirect to "First Aid", so another bot moved it back. Moreover, with all those bot changes, my watchlist holds only a couple of hours, so I am losing the oversight. --Foroa (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope

---

Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content, Islamic symbols, was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote. If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. Otherwise, consider an alternative outlet. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.

 

--Wutsje (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Them? The page history says you created the page. Please pardon me, but a 35+ K text page on Commons is almost per definition out of scope. Wutsje (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This was a contribution of a newbie in category:Islamic Symbols. I isolated the text part in the gallery and deleted the category. For newbies, I try to give them a couple of days, so my plan was to delete the file whenever they did not converted it in a real gallery. --Foroa (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry, I had missed that. From the looks of it, it seemed like just another text dump to me. I wouldn't have tagged it had I known this. Wutsje (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, you were completely right. Its probably me; I am sometimes too tolerant with newbies, but in a "harsh" environnement lile Commons, it is not easy to find the right compromises. --Foroa (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, deleted it as it was definitely out of scope: It appears to be some religious text which can easily be found in the internet using Google et al. Regards, →Nagy 19:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I just wanted to give the author some time to potentially adapt. All beginning is difficult. --Foroa (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What?

You actually corrected the spelling of test/vandalism. lol. Rocket000 (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right. I was just hunting for causes of non-existent categories, without paying attention to the whole history. Luckily that we have all different focuses and priorities ... --Foroa (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Flora of the coast of Coromandel

Shouldn't there be a Coast of Coromandel and that be located within India category scheme and have a few more things like perhaps maps and stuff like that? To make a category which is double nested without installing it every where it should go is, in my opinion, a pain in the ass.

As you left this, it is double nested for no apparent reason. Without researching the area a lot (I knew it to be a book) I think that the area was defined because it was different in climate and oh, those non-political things which are seemingly not the goal of the categorization scheme here.

There seems to be a lack of research and needless nesting of categories without the research needed to make it a node instead of a hole. -- carol (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Because I noticed that there was confusion between Category:Flora of the coast of Coromandel and the book category:Plants of the coast of Coromandel, I isolated the book in a separate category category:Plants of the coast of Coromandel (book) to avoid the confusion. This does not mean that the category is fully categorised; I am mostly operating where one has naming errors and conflicts but I do not have always the necessary time to deepen categorisation or to fill up the thousands of holes in the categories.

I think you are wrong with your statement: "those non-political things which are seemingly not the goal of the categorization scheme". However, most downloaders relate in the first place to the political geographical categorisation, so those must be simple and right in the first place. Further refinement in ecozones is specialised work and very few people have the time or knowledge to work that out further. --Foroa (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC).

texts vs books

On the assumption that you know the difference between these I can clearly state that I don't know the difference between these and have run into a lack of "texts" categories in other year categories.

Can you explain the difference to me and perhaps spend some time making this to be consistent through the other years (not just the ones I touched)? -- carol (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the mix of books and texts, and seemingly, there is no proper definition or category scheme description. Again a problem caused by lack of definition and documentation. Cleaning this up will require a proper definition, an agreement on it and then several days of work to implement it. I have no time for it right now, but anyone could do that. --Foroa (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Verplaatsen

Hoi Foroa, probeert er nou iemand hier {{Move}} te omzeilen? Multichill (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ik heb het al verschillende keren gezegd: de meerderheid (onbetwistbare) moves, vooral de systematische groep moves, worden op die manier uitgevoerd. Is ook veel efficiënter. --Foroa (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

About time......

that you get this

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Nice work with maintaining categories, Foroa. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You always pop up in my watchlist too ;) Specifically, User:CommonsDelinker/commands. Thanks for taking your time, espescially in the category area. Best, --Kanonkas_(talk) 19:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate. --Foroa (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, understand our culture.

I recently see you added Category:Zodiac and Category:Astrology of China to Category:Chinese Zodiac. This is more or less improper. Although named Chinese Zodiac, it is not a variation of zodiac. The Chinese zodiac refers to a pure calendrical cycle; there are no equivalent constellations like those of the occidental zodiac. Hence Astrology of China category is also not proper, as it have no relation with stars and the astrology. Thank you. 百家姓之四 (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed some of you recategorisations to the proper categories as used in Commons. I fail to see why the Chinese Zodiac should not be categorised in Zodiac: not only they do share the name but both denote a cycle of twelve stations. I equally fail to understand why Chinese Zodiac ("In Chinese astrology the animal signs assigned by year represent what others perceive you as being or how you present yourself ...") should not be related to Chinese astrology (which is indeed different than in other parts of the world). Without very clear documentation, I can assure that someone will restore quite rightly sooner or later the categories you just removed. --Foroa (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Immune systems

I consider this to be vandalism. Why don't you finish things you started like the unidentified stuff before you start to make more mess? The same goes for vaccination/vaccinations. There is a difference between the two cats. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Protests against nuclear energy

Hello,

Why did you delete this category? I don't think you have any valid reason for that, therefore I will recreate it. Please do not delete such kind of category without any proper procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)