User talk:Juiced lemon/Archive2006

ARCHIVE 2006: My talk page on Revision as of 22:27, 30 December 2006.

Do not edit this page!

---

Welcome to the Commons, Juiced lemon/Archive2006!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Category:Useless pages

Hey. I deleted the briefs page, it's a frequent vandal target.

As for this category, I think it is a bad idea that will just delay cleanup. If these pages should be deleted, please tag them for deletion {{Speedy}}. Otherwise they should get proper categories that describe their contents, eg. COM:FPC/HowTo can be put in Category:Commons projects, same as COM:FPC. cheers --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Uncategorized images

Hi,

Although you and I and many other users obviously prefer to use categories for images, many users prefer to use galleries, and that is OK too. These three images are all on galleries - the basic requirement is that each image must be on at least one gallery OR one category. So they are OK at the moment.

However... removing the categories does seem to be removing information about the image. For example Image:Milan Domm.jpg is on Great Milan, which tells you about the location. But Category:Churches of Milan also tells you about the type of structure it is. So I think this is also useful information that is worth keeping. Same with Image:San Lureenz.jpg.

Although Image:Milan Kernel.jpg is on Great Milan and in Category:Milano and I guess they mean the same thing, so removing the category is not removing any information. There is no policy about whether images on a gallery should also be in the category of the same name. I personally say yes, but others disagree, so it's just personal preference.

Anyway I don't like to intervene when you haven't discussed it with User:Mac9 himself yet. He is a good user, so please try and explain to him what I have explained about removing information. If you still can't find an agreement with him then let me know and I will try to discuss it then.

Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, just wanted to thank you for better categorizing some of my contributions. I try to get them right, but usually they need some help :-) . Cheers, Makemi 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Old categories

Please, don't add articles to old categories, in this case, Category:American writers is deprecated. --Emijrp 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't keep anything, and I think that those deprecated categories must be deleted. Why you can't verify before to put it? If you put a wrong category, you lost your time and the person who correct the category lost his time. Please verify, or do not put random categories. --Emijrp 06:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Valencian categories

Please, don't start a editwar against me. Your work checking Valencian categories is very fine, but some changes are wrong. In categories there's no rule about using English name, but instead of sentences in English. Here it's would be able to say "Catalunya" or "País Valencià", but "Rivers of Catalonia" or "Mountains of the Land of Valencia". In category wich there is only the toponym, we usually respect the native language. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The rule of Categories in English is intended for mutual intelegibility in a multicultural project. It isn't an English project, so names in Catalan are also welcome. A toponym is a name, isn't a sentence, if here we must translate "Catalunya" to "Catalonia", so we should translate also personal names such as "Juan Carlos I" (king of Spain) into "John Charles I", or perhaps we sould translate "Don Quijote" to "Sir Quixote". And, in wich criteria we should follow to the names wich are no tradition in English and aren't English? Why to use "Alicante" instead of "Alacant"? Alicante isn't in English, it's Spanish. So your viewpoint is biaised of chauvinism thinkings. And about Catalonia, please, read first Catalonia, it isn't only the Spanish Autonomous Community of Catalonia, and in Perpignan it's very usually to listen they are le Pays Catalan in tourstic advertisement. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want "Autonomous Community of Catalonia", so tell in these exact way. But if you are referring to Catalonia in a general term, it isn't only the Spanish Autonomous Community, it involves also the French Northern Catalonia. Catalonia is not only an administrative border, but also people, language, history, culture, costume, etc. that reach political borders. And, remember, Commons is *** multilingual *** project, and English is used for understanding, but there are also welcome other language in some cases. If you don't want to understand it, perhaps you should prefer yourself to work managing images stored at Wikipedia in English. Cheers --Joanot Martorell ✉ 19:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

PD: You said "... you find the good names in Wikipedia en:; if Wikipedia en: uses the native name, it will be the native name". Please, you should remember that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor an original thougt". --Joanot Martorell ✉ 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for two hours

It isn't about future, it's about present-day. It is not about borders only, it's about culture. You aren't unchanged, you are moving into editwars, and it's no consensus. I've blocked you for two hours because of ongoing editwar crussade, I'm very sorry you aren't willing to reach mutual understanding. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 14:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Martorell: it's not the same Catalonia than Autonomous Community of Catalonia. While the former is divided betwen Spain and France, the latter is a part of Spain. So, if the category is called "Catalonia", it must include also elements from Perpinyà and being included also in the French category.

The problem with the à, á, ä, ... signs, couldn't be solved with a redirection? (Valencia redirects to València, Perpinya to Perpinyà etc...).

The problem with native language: Isn't it solvable adding the corresponding redirections? Alicante to Alacant - Alicante (as in Brussels - Bruxelles), Perpignan to Perpinyà etc... I think it's better to add solutions in spite of destroying the work of the other people.--Xtv 14:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Please see Commons:Village_pump#Arbitration.3F and let me know what you think. And in the meantime, please stop any edits related to this! pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, can you tell me which languages you speak? What is your native language? I can possibly try and find an arbitrator who also speaks this language. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If you accept, User:NielsF will arbitrate. I hope you will accept, because I consider him a very fair-minded user and he will listen to both sides.

Please keep all comments about concrete actions - I don't think trying to guess the other's political motivation is helpful.

User:Martorell is on holidays for two weeks so the arbitration can continue then. In the meantime please continue to refrain from making edits on this topic. Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

As I wrote here, Martorell has been on holidays. When he returns (which is soon), the arbitration can begin. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise. It should be soon then. You should ask User:NielsF since he is running it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Kopjafa and Kopjafá

Hi, Lemon. I am wondering why you are sugesting that category Kopjafa should be Kopjafá. Far as I know fa is wood on hungarian and fá is nothing only if you used as word which is going to explain material from which is, something ,made, but in that case you have to write Kopjafábol, and also Kopjafa is word which are used and they are still using in Erdely, Transilvania. Anyhow, please, can you clear out this for me? Thanks

---

---

--László (talk)

No problems, thanks for answer László

23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Thanks for your opinion at Commons:Deletion requests, but would you mind explaining just a little bit more why you think Image:Sistema lacrimal.gif is better than Image:Tear system.svg? — Erin (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

La Verna

You write:I thought this article concerned the monastery La Verna, and not the insignificant “comune” of Chiusi della Verna. I agree with you, I have started the article vithe the title La Verna to collect some pictures from the monastery. GunnarBach

Arbitration (notification)

Hello, you've accepted arbitration of your conflict. The arbitration will start on August 30, 18:00 UTC. I'd like you to take a look at User:NielsF/Arbitration, where I've formulated the procedure I'd like to follow. Until a day (29 August, 18:00 (UTC)) before arbitration starts, you can comment or ask questions on it on the talk page, please don't edit the page itself, unless its to indicate you accept the proposed procedure.

If you know of anyone that was also involved in the conflict and actively edited the pages at the time of the edit war, and you think that person should also be a party in the arbitration, please let me know at the talk page of the arbitration as well. NielsF 17:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have postponed the start of the arbitration because Martorell seems not to have read this notification. So until 30 August, 18:00 (UTC), you can still leave small comments at the talk page, the arbitration will start 31 August, 18:00 UTC. NielsF 19:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I thought I'd changed it already because it seemed fair to me. Have done it now. NielsF 14:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As I told Martorell just now, English should be the first language of the arbitration, but if you think you cannot express things clearly enough in English, I'll try to understand Spanish (preferably) or Catalonian language translations. The second fase of the arbitration (after you've both made your arguments) is where I can ask you both for clarification of your arguments, so that it might also reduce translation errors. Thank you, NielsF 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Transport in Taiwan

Please revert all your changes and tag articles, cats and/or images back into Category:Transportation in Taiwan to follow the standard Commons category naming conventions. Thank you. --Denniss 01:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for categorizing some of my contributions!!! --Tomascastelazo 17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nature of / in

Sorry, I'm see you are going to move the categories. What a hard work!

Luck. Sanbec ✉ 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Generally, there are not simple moves of categories : I change the contents. --Juiced lemon 23:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Rivers of/in the US

Hi Juiced! Apparently I was wrong in changing Rivers of the US to Rivers in the US. I agree it's a subtle grammatical difference, but it exists nonetheless: do these rivers belong to the USA ( = of), or do they simply run through the country ( = in)? Most would fall into the former category; yet all would be included in the latter. In my opinion in would be a more precise preposition, but hey - I'll leave the USA's rivers alone. Now, you could have told me you were reverting my every edit in the area of American rivers, including not only the USA but México and Belize. It would have even been better if you'd gone the extra mile and explained to me why of is better than in. Cheers! – Tintazul ^talk 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! – Tintazul ^talk 10:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration questions

I've read your statements at the arbitration and am preparing some questions. I'm sorry I've been delayed a bit, but things have been busy lately. I will post the questions tomorrow night both for you and Juiced lemon and I'd be pleased if you'd answer them as soon as possible, but within a few days(3 to 4) is ok. I'll also post a topic in the Commons:Village pump asking for outsider opinions. If you feel like it, you can copy/translate it to fr:, ca: and es: COMMONS talk pages (equivalent of the English Village Pump here), please only translate don't add anything to it, I don't want a flood of ca: es: and fr: users interfering, it's already a difficult issue without interference from the "outside". Let me know if there's some difficulty in answering the questions (if you don't understand properly what I mean e.g.), so I can take that into consideration. The time limit is not exact, but resolving this dispute should be our first concern. I'd like to thank you for your considerated and moderated opinions thusfar. NielsF 01:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi I've posted some questions. See also the Village Pump (English). NielsF 22:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Plant categories (melons)...

Hello, please have a look at how it is done in the plant kingdom: either pics are in a species article, or they are in a genus/familia category. I will put your melons in the resp. article and remove your category. -- Ayacop 15:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Betula nigra. Please stop putting these back in a superfluous category. - MPF 23:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Willebrord Snellius.jpg

Do you see some hidden astronomers, mathematicians or physicists in this picture ? If not, stop to put the mess in the Commons categorization system, which you don't know the basic principles. --Juiced lemon 08:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with what you are trying to do is that it becomes very difficult, if not impossible for people to find those images. By having a picture in only one single sub-sub-sub category people will never find it, unless the already know exactly what they are looking for. Perhaps somebody doesn't know that Snel was Dutch, so if you place a picture only under 'Dutch astronomers" she will never find it. Just try to make it easier for people to find it, allowing for the fact they may only have partial or inaccurate information for what they are looking for. The rigidity by which you are re-categorizing things is entirely counterproductive. JdH 09:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I've deleted County Derry since that was empty, but not Category:County Derry – instead I've used {{Category redirect}}. For categories where there is a reason to believe that others will use the wrong name (in this case, it's extremely likely that someone will use Derry), a redirect is better since it can then be dealt with easier - deleting the category will most likely mean that it gets recreated in the near future. The reason I mention this is that this is something you can fix yourself; I just realized that you're not an admin. You probably have too few edits here to get admin status yet, but hang in there (and try to stay out of trouble ;-) ), for someone like you that would come in handy. Since I'm very interested in the work you've started, I'll probably be following you around a bit, doing the necessary deletions. Cnyborg 22:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Monfalcone

Hi; I redirect the ctegory monfalcone you created because ther was already a page monfalcone and moreover, for italian cities we follow the following path. 1- try not to leave photos under category: photos should belong to a page. 2- if a city has more than one page we use a category, otherwise we use just a page 3- a city, town, village is categorized under cities, region and provice; more specific cat are used for buidings. If you take a look to italian cities you can see how they are organized. Thanks for your comprehension, --mac 09:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Very nice from you. I know that cat are the basis but i've also tried to explain you the way we use them. In which part don't you agree with me? Thank for yor comprenshion. --mac 11:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And so what? I've already talked with admin about that and the only rule is that the browsing facility must remain. So could you kindly explain your point of View? I've tried to explain mine. --mac 11:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point; I must be honest and I've never thought on this possibility. Too me it seemed useless to have a cat just containing one page. Do you agree how I've modified the cat? I've reverted has you make it, but Imho is still useless to have the photo under the cat. Imho it is important to have categories, pages that gives extra info or correct the info carried on the photo, and to regnize immediatly new added photo in order to check the categorization and to link new photos to wikipedia. Can this be affordable for you? --mac 11:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Althought they mainly put photos under Italy or Toscana...but you're right when we should consider all the possibilities. Thanks for giving me a valid alternative point of view. --mac 12:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Colorado river at mckinney roughs.jpg

I removed the National Parks in Texas category from this image. McKinney Roughs is not a National Park. It is owned by the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) -Regards -[[User:Nv8200p|Nv8200p]] 02:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Writer Categories

Hi,

Thanks for the message you left on my talk page and for the tip re: preventing redirecting. :)

As for the writer (genre) categories, I've noticed that the only ones that currently seem to crop up with any sort of regularity at all under a given country or nationality category are "poets" and "playwrights," and occasionally "LGBT" and "journalists." That's why I think that in most cases at least, it currently makes more sense to pull these to the top as major subcategories, so as to create purely alphabetized lists of writer names for the rest of the entries. To me, it just seems more accessible that way, though of course I realize that others may disagree. Also, if people were really using all those possible genre categories within the context of a given nationality/country, I'd agree that it would be a different matter again because then the alpha-sorting would assume greater importance with regard to the genres as well. But for all I can see, so far "science fiction writers," for example, seems to exist essentially in a parallel universe to all the nationality/country categories (bad pun, I know), and as long as people have to find their favorite sci-fi author under "writers from" + name anyway (or else by a direct name search, or by accessing the "science fiction writers" category per se), why mix genres and individual writer names? (And frankly, I guess rather than doing that at all, if there ever were too many genre subcategories within a given country/nationality writer category I'd probably prefer to see the genres summed up in an intermediate subcategory entitled something like "Writers from ... by genre," or whatever, anyway.) Again, I do realize that's all just me and I'm new here, so far be it from me to get in anybody's way ... :)

Andreagrossmann -- Oct. 02, 2006

Category stuff

Hi Juiced lemon,

I know you do lots of good edits and are trying to help improve the Commons, so please just try and be extra polite when discussing the category/gallery problems. You have good points to make and if you stay extra calm, no one can ignore them.

cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean any specific comment. Just you often write very short, terse messages that maybe other people interpret as being fairly angry or bossy. Writing ultimatums also can make people frustrated. If everyone can avoid making inflammatory comments, there is a better chance we can stick to solving the problem rather than accusing other users. I didn't just write to you. I want you to keep cool so people will listen to what you have to say, because it's important.

For the arbitration, I don't know. I guess something has happened in real life. You could try leaving a message on his nl.wp talk page. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Agriculture in Canada

Why did you revert my addition of Category:Nature in Canada to this category? I note that Category:Agriculture itself is only in Category:Industries. I suggest that it would be helpful to someone searching for pastoral media to be able to navigate from Nature to Agriculture. Do you think that this is somehow inappropriate? Jkelly 17:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(chiming in only accidentally) You know you could also just make a link at the top of Category:Agriculture saying 'See also Category:Nature'? -- Ayacop 18:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Roman saints

Is there some reason you insist on changing Category:Ancient Roman saints? If not, please stop, you're messing up the categorization system. --Evrik 12:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Of course, I have some reasons to change the wrong categories in this page. You're messing up the categorization system. Time travel is still a fiction, and therefore we don't categorize ancient political regions as current countries. --Juiced lemon 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• We? Please cite your reference. This categorization system has worked just fine until you made your edit. Please don't mess with it. --Evrik 13:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

See Commons:Village pump#Category:Categories by country. --Juiced lemon 15:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Since you have no policy behind you, and since I believe that this fits under Category:Historic states, I'm making a revert. If you disagree so be it, but the categories match the english spanish and italian versions. --Evrik 15:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I was asked to comment here. I agree with Juiced lemon. However, to both of you, please DON'T REVERT WAR. It doesn't achieve anything. Sort out the disagreement first. Evrik, if you think the category scheme is not well detailed, please help to improve it first. But a category scheme should act as an effective authority. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. You already read my more expansive comments on the other page. As a matter of fact, I think the categories have been well thought out, and soundly reasoned as they have been implemented, which is why I don't want this one changed. BTW, depsite what you say ... this isn't a REVERT WAR. ;-) --Evrik 18:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

category florence

There is already a category firenze; why do you want to create another one? is it confusing? --mac 13:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The standard is: name of the city in italian, suc cat in English. I found it this way, it wasnt me. If you create a dobule cat for florence you create confusion. --mac 14:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

For example, Munich (en) was redirect to Muenchen (de). --mac 14:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Pump

Take a breath and start a discussion on village pump or I'm going to ask to band you. --mac 14:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Juiced lemon,

You do so much good work here, that I don't understand why you spoil it by always doing so many reverts. Many Wikipedias have w:Fr:Wikipédia:Règle des trois révocations and although we don't have this formal rule we have the same idea: having a revert war does not EVER improve or help things, or convince anybody. Only talking and explaining can do these things. So revert warring is really a waste of your time too. Editing on any wiki is not about having enough endurance to outlast the other guy.

Even if you are right, it is no excuse to behave like this. Ever.

Pretty much all of the people complaining on your talk page are complaining about a similar thing. This makes me think that you need to seriously work on communicating better and working with other users. We need their help as much as we need yours.

Please stop changing categories related to Florence for now, and start a discussion on Talk:Firenze. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for stopping. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Italian cities structure

I dont' belive that I'll be succesfull with my request; but I'm expeting from you an honest behaviour. Can I suppose that you will apply the same rule to every page\cat I will put under your attention? I've also noticed the way you're categorizing florence; till now we categoried italian cities under: Citiesd in Italy, under the Region, under the Province. Cities ( that are municplaities, belongs to a province that belong to a region. Florence, province of Florence, Tuscany. There are to translate some cities, like Genova, Firenze, Torino, Milano, Venezia, Roma, Napoli, some regions, like Toscana, Lazio, Peimonte, Lombardia, Trentino Alto Adige, maybe Veneto, Puglia, Sardegna, Sicilia and all the provinces (108) because they are in the form of city name+prov. Also some mounain, becuase there apges in the form of Monte XXX, Massicio Monte Bianco appeares in Italian and in french, some island ( in the form isola ) of, and maybe some more other pages need to be translated. I don't undestand the need for Culture of Florence? what is dupposed to contain? Imho everything is culture, specially in Italy. The Palace, the churches, the towers...so what the difference between culture and buldings? When you will start to translate I'll help you, maybe by starting with Munich and Prague. Let me know. --mac 10:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My purpose is to built (with other Commons users) general rules which everyone should easily apply to every file to categorize. I have no general scheme to suggest for cities, because cities, towns, municipalities, villages, etc. have numberous various statutes in the world.

In Florence case, I categorized the city in the direct upper administrative level, and in the cities index (Italy). You can create as many indexes as you want; you have just to name it Cities in “area”. Notice that extra indexes need extra work, and do not give so much help for the searcher. You'll spend wisely your time to create lists of main cities, according to defined criteria. --Juiced lemon 11:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I create browsing categories , cities, provinmce and region because it was evident to me that some people likes to browse by provinces and other by regions. Italy is the country of municipalties, as you know. --mac 14:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dirk Bach

Hi, I don't understand why you had a category "Dirk Bach", if there is a page "Dirk Bach" ? It does a redundancy, and in a bad manner: you can comment the pictures, organize them... Best regards Kelson 06:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)... ridicule, tu es francophone... utilise les templates Babel. Kelson 07:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

C'est marqué où qu'il faut créer une catégorie pour chaque (personne, lieu, plante, animal) en double (de moins bonne qualitée) de sa page dédiée ? Kelson 08:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oublions les problèmes de langues, c'est un sujet à part entière. Visiblement cat vs gallery est un point problématique. Cependant, la règle n'est pas de catégoriser systématiquement, ni d'ailleurs de faire une page avec gallery. C'est visiblement comme on veut : l'un ou/et l'autre http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Category. Il faut vraiment que tu me dises où tu a lus que Les pages dédiées sont les catégories en anglais.Donc l'un n'a pas plus de valeur que l'autre, il n'y a pas de consensus sur le sujet. Perso je pense que en bout de catégorisation, dans la pluspart des cas, la catégory restreint les possibilités de mise en page. Si c'est vrai que pour l'instant avec une image on va pas aller loin et que la différence est minime, la page est clairement la meilleure solution _à terme_. Dans tous les cas, et l'on doit pouvoir tomber d'accord sur cela, la redondance est dommageable (deux fois plus de boulot, pas symchro... etc). Il faut donc décider au cas par cas. Je reviens donc à ma question : qu'apporte la solution "category:Dirk Back" avec toutes les images dedans (ici une) par rapport à la page "Dirk Back" ? Moi je dis que la page c'est mieux car cela permet d'ajouter un commentaire. Kelson 09:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

category:churches of Warsaw

Hi,

I`m not very good at english, but I think it should be that name. Just take a look at category:Churches of Poland, and category:Churches of London. Esspecialy conserning this London category I don`t think British people could make an error here. Sfu 12:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK then, just inform people in any some way that you are going to make it. I think it`s big work to do, currently I`m working on Warsaw category and it takes much time to do it. Sfu 13:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Superfluous categories

Please STOP adding superfluous categories. The images are already indexed on the relevant pages, which are then in the relevant category. Adding categories to the images just messes the pages up. Thank you. MPF 18:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed tha same; what sense for categories that contains only one photo or one page? Can't uot wait the time there are at least 2 pages or 2 photos? --mac 11:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No. --Juiced lemon 11:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Volcan Osorno etc.

The Category:Regions of Chile is used for maps of regions etc. The "Region de los Lagos" was the only Subcategory, which had only one sub-sub-category ("Province de Osorno"), which had only one file (Volcano Osorno), which is already categorized in Category:Volcanos of Chile. So I think my changes make sense. Please talk with me before changing it again. Thanks, Prissantenbär 06:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Gjirokastra

The english name is Gjirokastër; can you change it? --mac 11:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also a category here --mac 11:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Korça

The english name is Korçë; can you change it? --mac 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lezha

The english name is Lezhë; can you change it? --mac 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lushnja

The english name is Lushnjë; can you change it? --mac 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Peshkopia

The english name is Peshkopi; can you change it? --mac 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Saranda

The english name is Sarandë; can you change it? --mac 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Shkodra

The english name is Shkodër; can you change it? --mac 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Tepelena

The english name is Tepelenë; can you change it? --mac 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Tropoja

The english name is Tropojë; can you change it? --mac 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Only categories? Are you sure? This means that I made a mistake moving Koln to cologne. Can you confirm that the rules apply only to categories?--mac 11:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; so I made an error. For pages we should use native language. But Gjirokastra is also a category. --mac 11:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting.

Please. Stop removing useful categories with no reason explained on discussion page. Discuss about the disputed content, I would like to listen you. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 17:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You were warned. I'm very sorry, but you're blocked for one day by me by second time because of three-revert rule. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I did'nt break the three-revert rule. That is an abuse of your administrator abilities. You use these abilities for active propaganda, which is prohibited in any wiki project. --Juiced lemon 17:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure? See this and another this histories. Three reversions. Made reversions with no previous discussion is a lack of behaviour in any wiki also. My addings could be propaganda under your particular viewpoint, but your removings could be also "negationist" propaganda under my viewpoint. Why not to achieve an agreement?. Anyway, adding categories because of other concepts always will be useful, but removing useful categories not. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You made first reversions without discussion. I count only 2 reverts for each of your links, then the three-revert rule does not apply to less than four revert in a 24h period.

I didn't invent the classification of pictures regarding Catalonia and the terminology. They matches with what we can find in the en: wikipedia with respect for Commons rules. If you think that en: wikipedia is negationnist, talk to these guys: it's not my problem. --Juiced lemon 18:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked the account, under the condition that Juiced Lemon does not revert changes he disagrees to during the intended block period; should that happen I will reblock. There's plenty of other tasks, and no matter who is right, it was disruptive to Commons so a cooling-off period might be a good idea.

My reasons for doing this are firstly that there is no 3RR policy on Commons (see Commons:Blocking policy), enwiki's rules are not universal; and secondly that there is a conflict between the two in which arbitration has been sought but not yet carried out. Both parties took part in an edit war, they have an old, resolved conflict and I find one of them using his administrator privileges against the other in such a situation is unacceptable. Cnyborg 22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll revert only my own changes in the intended block period. --Juiced lemon 09:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

According on your particular and your uniquelly owned rules about to follow naming conventions from en:wp, perhaps you should first move names of the places of your own country that aren't in traditional English exonym... such Category:Dunkerque to Category:Dunkirk, before of moving other places such from Catalonia or Spain. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 20:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't come to Commons with a flag, and I am happy to work with wise users from every country of the world. If you want to rename Category:Dunkerque to Category:Dunkirk, do it yourself. The order of the countries does not matter: unless a new rule occurs, all non-english categories will be renamed. --Juiced lemon 21:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi, sorry for taking so long to answer. I'm at the moment thinking about what to do with it. I'll let you know in a couple of days. NielsF|talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 22:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Palazzo Ducale di Mantova

This category doesn't respect the language rules for categories. I create the english version of the category: Category:Mantua Ducal Palace. --mac 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This category matches exactly to the article name in english wikipedia: w:Palazzo Ducale di Mantova; so, it's an english category. You have no ability to invent new english place names. --Juiced lemon 12:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you agree? --mac 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't stop to destroy the categorization system, I'll ask an administrator to restrict your activities on Commons. --Juiced lemon 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I inform you that I just filed a complaint for vandalism against used Mac9 for creating rules of his own about Italian geographical files, which do NOT allow categories to be put under pictures concerning Italian town or places, "only text is allowed".

This is not relevant; categories must be in english and the category doesn't match the rule you've learned me. Or maybe do you pretentend that Palazzo ducale di Mantova si an english phrase?--mac 21:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism#A_.22good-intentioned.22_vandal Please let us join efforts to stop this vandal. Thank you. --G.dallorto 14:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:River deltas

Hi, could you please stop removing images from the Category:River deltas as you did e.g. here? This shot is one of the finest images of an inland river delta, so the category is _very_ reasonable for this photo. Regards --Überraschungsbilder 00:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Provinces

Yes they are provinces of italy. But you removed the browsing categories I've created befor. Is thsi vandalism? --mac 21:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you speaking about? You created correct province categories, like Category:Province of Lucca, but there were badly categorized in Category:Cities in Italy by Province.

More, you should know that subdivisions of provinces are municipalities and not cities. w:City indicates an important settlement and don't suit for rural areas. --Juiced lemon 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to learn me aboiut administratiove laws in Italy? I don't think you can. Stay on your side. I leave you're category, becuase they are certanly provinces, but if you will continue to remove my cat cities in italy by province (if you don't understand the use of it it's only your problem) I'll consider it a vandalism. I wrote bullshits. The scheme for province is more correct. --mac 21:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Province of South Tyrol

I tihnk that a more appropiate category for the province is Province of South Tyorol. We can leave sout tyrol to indicate an area of Italy, like maremma. Is it ok for you? --mac 21:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Province of Bolzano-South Tyrol. However, there are currently many discussions about the name of this province. At the moment, w:South Tyrol is the name of the province in en.wp (w:Province of Bolzano is a redirection page). I suggest to wait for the end of the debates in the english wikipedia. --Juiced lemon 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. --mac 22:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Piedmont

Since Mountains of Piedmont, Rivers of Piedemnot, Valleys of Piedemont are category of Piedemont I'll consder any modifications as vandalism. If you like to use subcategories such as geography of I don't care, but don't remove principal categories. --mac 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For any territory on the Earth, landforms are exclusively categorized in Geography of that territory (if this category exists). Surcategorization is an embarassment for browsing and understanding the Commons schemes. So, it cannot be tolerated. Your superfluous categories will be removed. --Juiced lemon 22:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is these rule? Imho Geography of ... is usless, so if you'll convice me that useless cats must be removed, I'll remove the geography ones. --mac 08:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Juiced lemon, you are certainly no diplomat, eh? You certainly don't mince words...

It is a bit rich to argue that the "Geography of [region]" category must be used and others not tolerated, when you only created it a week ago.

I think mac feels that you are making the category structure unnecessarily deep. Remember categories can show up to 200 items. Are regions of Italy really in danger of overflowing any time soon? (I don't know, but my feeling is, no.) Category:Geography of Italy looks a bit unusual. It seems to me that at this point, we can split either by location (have subcats such as Geography of Piedmont), or by geographic feature (subcats such as Lakes of Italy). or both, like we have at the moment...

According to CatScan, in all the subcategories of Category:Piedmont, there is a total of 187 items. This includes images, galleries and the subcategories themselves! So I think mac may have a point, that you are overcategorising. (It's all very neat, but it can make things harder to find. It is not always obvious that 'Rivers' will be under 'Geography'. I don't know why, but sometimes this eludes even me!)

For sure, Category:Piedmont can use some subcategories -- I don't suggest to dump all 187 things directly there -- but maybe we can try to reduce the depth of the tree a bit. For lakes in Piedmont, maybe they can belong to Category:Piedmont and Category:Lakes of Italy, and that is enough. Juiced lemon, what do you think? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at the contents of w:Italy. You'll find the article structure, and important divisions as section titles. There are several articles which match these divisions:

1. History: w:History of Italy
2. Politics: w:Politics and government of Italy series
3. Administrative divisions w:Regions of Italy
4. Geography: w:Geography of Italy
5. Demographics: w:Demographics of Italy
6. Religion: w:Religion in Italy
7. Economy: w:Economy of Italy
8. Culture: w:Culture of Italy
9. Languages: w:Languages of Italy

The Commons schemes repeat this structure. These categories:

• first level

1. Category:History of Italy
2. Category:Politics of Italy
3. Category:Regions of Italy
4. Category:Geography of Italy
5. Category:Economy of Italy (*)
6. Category:Culture of Italy

• second level

1. Category:Languages of Italy (*)
2. Category:Religion in Italy (*)

were not created by chance, but to fit with subjects which concern article writers. Of course, the pictures in our categories have to be of some interest for the matching articles. So, we find pictures of rivers in river categories, which are in geography categories.

Now, look at w:Regions of Italy: the Regions of Italy template is at the bottom. Browse among regions: in several articles, you'll find Geography sections, but no Lakes sections, neither Rivers. This is the explanation for the Geography categories for regions of Italy. These categories are useful both to provide media files to article writers, and to improve browsing in Commons. River categories in geography categories is the expected structure: that is the most important. User:Mac9 tries to thwart my work, and I answered him accordingly. --Juiced lemon 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(*) Created by Juiced lemon

We don't have to match exactly everything English Wikipedia (or any other Wikipedia) does. There is a good reason: they are writing text, we are collecting media. It is not the same, you can't simply equate everything. We have different priorities. In Wikipedia, it is not so common to look for articles by browsing the category system. In Commons, it is very' common to look for media by doing so. There is a trade-off between neatness and accessibility, right.

The best thing is to adapt the English Wikipedia structure to suit the Commons, not just import it wholesale. I really don't support creating a lot of categories if most of them are mostly empty. It means you made them too early. It's a wiki, it will keep evolving. We only need to make the structure to suit what we have now, and will have in the near future.

Think, when they first started the Wikipedia, they didn't write an article Geography of Italy. First, they write Italy, and then when that gets too long, they split Geography off. But it's not split from the start!

Rivers can be in Category:Geography of Italy. That's still expected structure, I don't see a good argument for having Geography of regions, yet.

I don't really take either of you seriously until you sit down and write a category scheme, like I have told you both many times. Until you have a category scheme, neither of you has any proper justification. Juiced lemon, it seems to me that you are instigating most of the work, so you should start writing it. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Renaming of categories

When suggesting that Category:Coat of arms of municipalities in the canton of Grisons be renamed to Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of the canton of Graubünden, you will have noticed that the existing categories (which refer to cantons of Switzerland) are named "Coat of arms of municipalities in the canton of...". To be consistent, all of these should be renamed/moved too. Regards, --Bernina 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cities are settlements, so they are in territories, but municipalities are subdivisions, and are of territories. Therefore, yes, all the categories "Coat of arms of municipalities in the canton of..." will be renamed. --Juiced lemon 20:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

English for Categories

What do yuo think about the answer about the question I made? Do you belive that is better to mantein Palzzo ducale di Mantova or to translate it into englis? If I've intended well, it's not a rule to refer to english wikipedia. --mac 22:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The w:Louvre, or Louvre Museum, is inside the w:Palais du Louvre. Most of proper names are not translated, but it's still English. Don't invent translations which are unused by english-speaking people.

Yes, it's not a rule to refer to english wikipedia, but it's a non sense to have english titles which don't allow to find the matching articles in the english wikipedia. I suggest you to collect other opinions regarding this point. --Juiced lemon 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Invent? Just to konw how would you transalte it? --mac 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Lombardy

I see that you revereted my contributions in Category:Rivers of Lombardy e Category:Mountains of Lombardy; I think it's contrary on wikipedia policies and I will ask to stop you to an admin. --mac 12:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. You deliberately put the mess in the categories, though two schemes, general custom, and common sense confirm that categories about geographical features are under Geography categories. If you don't change that attitude, I'll ask to an admin to stop you. --Juiced lemon 21:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Category scheme Italy

Please work on this. I'm serious.

You can adapt other schemes you've worked on, but please keep in mind that each country could reasonably be expected to have its own structure.

I can see that you like a very deep structure, but try and stop putting it everywhere. You said as an example, Example: If I categorize a bridge picture in Category:Bridges in Sudan, I'll create also Category:Buildings in Sudan AND/OR Category:Transport in Sudan, but I shall not categorize the new category in Category:Sudan. If the only thing that's going to be in the first level category is your new second level category, I think you may as well just make it a first level category for the time being, until more subcategories are needed. But it's not really that important. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

München, Germany

Please dont move the category again! -- Rüdiger Wölk 07:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Than please Munich, Germany. But I think you are wrong! -- Rüdiger Wölk 10:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make no more changes. we'll talk about that in village pump. --Juiced lemon 10:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

its a german city and its an international project not an english one ...Sicherlich ^Post 13:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The name of the city is MÜNCHEN. And that should the name of the category! Same for KÖLN and NÜRNBERG! -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And why moved again from Munich, Germany too Munich. All german categories ands with Germany! -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Mallorca category names

Hi, I've seen you created some parallel categories in english to the ones I created yesterday in Category:Mallorca in catalan. I didn't read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), but nobody warned me of that. I have been creating categories in Category:Mallorca in catalan since april of this year and noone has written me anything in my discussion tab.

I'm sorry I was wrong. I'll try to correct it.

Paucabot 09:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

your categorisation scheme

hello there, thank you for your contributions. However for the category Category:Bozen-Bolzano you keep on trying to delete it. Pointing out to a discussion on the English Wikipedia is useless, since the Commons clearly allow categories and galleries to be named in the local language of a place, see Commons:Language policy. In this case, South Tyrol is trilingual. The proposed dual naming would be a solution to address this issue and balance both sides, or maybe you have another proposal to make? sincerely Gryffindor 17:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous categorisation

Category:Cupressaceae contains, within the pages categorised there, 384 images. Two of these images (Image:Artsey cypress.jpg and Image:Grizzly Giant.jpg, you keep on insisting must also be duplicate-categorised in the category, as well as via their page. Why? It is complete nonsense, and time you realised it. Note of course that if all 384 images were similarly treated, the category would become unworkable. Please see some sense and stop this ridiculous nonsense of yours. Thank you. MPF 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Who, when, where and why (Praha x Prague)

Hello. I noticed you inserted template with text "It has been proposed below that Category:Praha be renamed and moved to Category:Prague.". Who, when, where and why has proposed such idea? Is there some rule about naming categories? In such case there should be written a link to concrete proposal or rule in that template. --Ludek 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello,Yes, Commons:Language policy states that categories are in English. So, knowledge of a single language allows to browse into the whole database. --Juiced lemon 18:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer and explanation. Now I understand. Could you add this information to the template {{move}}, please? My knowledge of English language is not so good. --Ludek 19:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

X in heraldry

Hallo. We have a whole system of categories of heraldic figures, where the naming convention so far is "X in heraldry", where X is a plural, denoting a group of items. Please, do not change this. --AtonX 13:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Churches in Switzerland vs. Category:Churches of Switzerland

Hi Juiced, I've seen you started a new Category with the in while 99% of all images are categorized in the of Category. My english is not so good to judge wether in or of is better, but please stick to an international convention and use a bot if you like to rename a category. Categorization becomes very cumbersome if some pages are called in and others of. --Ikiwaner 10:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

as with Category:Churches in Italy.--Bo-rhein-sieg 11:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that you still continue renaming cats while a deletion request is pending. Please stop immediatly! I can follow your arguments but you're doing it the wrong way. Wait a few days until we've found a compromise and let's do a bot do the work that renames all categories. Thanks in advance. --Ikiwaner 13:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree to Ikiwaner. Stop your changes of the categories from of to in until there's a decision.--Bo-rhein-sieg 13:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

See my answer in Ikiwaner talk page (Your message). --Juiced lemon 13:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing my best getting your commands executed. Let's see what happens after this. --Ikiwaner 21:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vie di Roma & Tevere categories

Hi Juiced. I've added <Category:Rome> to this galleries because I need link them to this cat - what don't occurs with unique presents. Let stay additional categories, please, or explain why one unique category is necessary. Thanks. --Lalupa 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Catalan flags are not catalan?

Hi. I don't understand why you are removing categories for Perpignan rugby catalan flags.jpg, without reasons or messages in my talk page, and after that you write that i'm doing vandalism. An image called "perpignan rugby catalan flags" it is not ok in a catalan category? --1997 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your revert war with Reisio (talk · contribs)

Revert wars are not good for the Commons. Please stop them. I have posted a message on the AN and also on User_talk:Reisio. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I complained here about this vandal on 09:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC). I stopped the edit war during about ten days. No administrator reacted or even deigned to answer.

So, the repeat of this edit war is all, except a surprise. What do you suggest to resolve the problem? --Juiced lemon 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, this was not a vandalism but an apparent dispute. I've moved this to the dispute section. Please comment there explaining the nature of the dispute (which cannot be determined from all of these nondescriptive reverts. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 04:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Pourquoi Category:Maps of Bretagne ?

J'ai laissé un commentaire à Category talk:Maps of Bretagne ; je te prie de t'y adresser. Salut, QuartierLatin1968 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro City and Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil

Hi,

I'm working on subcategories of Municipalities of Brazil, Maps of Brazil, Coats of arms of Brazil and Flags of Brazil and I didn't understand why you reverted this. The main category should be the state, like Category:São Paulo and Category:São Paulo city. Another thing: There's no logic in "Municipalities of Rio de Janeiro (state)" 'cause obviously all municipalities will be of the state, what I'm trying to say is: the City of Rio de Janeiro has no municipalities, no microregions and no mesoregions. The maps, flags and coats of the city can be placed in "Rio de Janeiro City" and those from others municipalities of the same state can be placed in "[Location maps|Coats of arms|Flags] of municipalities of Rio de Janeiro".

I will apreciate if you could place a note in my talk before reverting my edits.

I'm still learning how to write in English and sorry for any gramatical mistake made here.

Thank you,

Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 15:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just another pair: Category:New York for the state and Category:New York City for the city. Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 15:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In Commons, categories are in English. The reference for place names is the English Wikipedia. As you can see there, São Paulo is the name of the city in English. Therefore, Category:São Paulo is a category for the city, and I'll create a new category for the state. --Juiced lemon 20:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. São Paulo is also the name of the state and there will be a lot of media for the state and a lot less for the city. Even if you had answered in my talk page (I don't watch yours), even if this rule really exists (I'm not a commons expert) and even if you have showed me where it was written, you can't simply just "move" a category like that without talking to the ones that are working there. It doesn't matter what is the name of the page in wiki XX: "Municipalities of Rio de Janeiro (state)" is wrong just because there will be no other "Municipalities of Rio de Janeiro". I have a lot of work to do and I will apreciate if you could at least talk to me (in my talk, obviously) before start moving things around. (again, sorry for misspelling) Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We choose category names according to subjects and Commons rules (like Commons:Language policy). They are not affected by the amounts of media. Sorry, but I cannot waste my time to speak to users who don't read the rules and create non-English categories.

Category:São Paulo was indeed an English category, but with a wrong subject, that is the same thing. In this category, there were medias about both the city and the state: I don't care to ask to anybody to clear up the mess!

However, if you find any problem in my changes, we can discuss about it. Of course, I speak about real problems (not like “Municipalities of Rio de Janeiro (state)”: see w:Rio de Janeiro (state)).

At last, people will not answer in your user page as long as you'll not provide, with your signature, a link to your Commons user page. --Juiced lemon 00:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with you? You reverted what I did and didn't wrote a single line in the running talk page. It's writed "It has been proposed" and "Upon reaching a clear consensus". You can't move without "CLEAR CONSENSUS". I think you don't even know in witch continent Brazil is. Stop now! Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (p.s.: now you can find my talk in my signature)

You reverted mine and as I can see in "It has been proposed below" and "Upon reaching a clear consensus" no clear consensus was reached and no move should be made. It's easy to talk about rules that I don't known that exists without showing me where they are. Witch rules are you talking about? Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 13:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. This is not working.
2. You said "The move request concerns the media files.", sorry but you may be reading wrong:

It has been proposed below that Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of São Paulo be renamed and moved to Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of São Paulo (state). It obviously concerns the category AND the media.

1. I need you to do not revert without a consensus (not with me, but with other users). We need to concentrate all those discution pages in some place to be easy for other Portuguese users to opine.
2. Hey! Look at Category:Washington and Category:New York. Almost everyone thinks that "Washington" is the capital of US and "New York" is the big apple. Please! Correct that categories for me. If you do that and if you survive to tell your history to your grandsons I will agree with "São Paulo (state)".
3. Why our states categories have different treatment?

Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 16:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You are still moving things without consensus and say that don't know about what user:Lmbuga is talking about. Don't even think in start messing with other states like w:Tocantins (state) or w:Amazonas (Brazilian state). Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem: Category:Brasil

Please, You must not make changes in the category Category:Brasil and subcategories. I'm studying what you have done. The work in Commons must be based on the collaboration: you must not impose your criterion, please: there are many people to whom you bother. Where are the policies on which you base your decision?. Greetings --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 21:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Castagnetten.jpg

Hello, Juiced Lemon. I agree with you that castañuelas were not invented in Spain. Nevertheless, Spain is the country which has incorpored then most to its popular and classical music. They are recognisable wherever you ask as a typical Spanish instrument. Besides, the castagnets of the image look like the typical Spanish castañuelas (The have even the colors of the flag!). Other musical instruments, like flutes, bagpipes, guitars or drums, were not strictly invented in certain countries but they are considered instruments of their local music all over the world. Therefore, I plead for the restitution of the category.

Yours sincerely, --Balbo 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach

You removed Johann Sebastian Bach from the Category:Music sound.

Have a look at the category. Why do you think it shouldn't be a part of it?

Isn't that category intended for all pages and categories containing sound files that can be called "music" ?

Have a nice day, Teebeutel 09:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutly no! --Juiced lemon 10:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This answear is not sufficient. I guess you didn't do what I told you, so again: Have a look at the category !

Maybe this problem must be discussed within a larger audience. If Category:Music sound is not the category for pages and categories containing music files, as you say, then which one is ?

No offence ment, Teebeutel 12:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Music sound is a category for some pages and categories devoted to sound files. It's completly different. --Juiced lemon 12:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is a category for sound files - but why have you cleaned only Johann Sebastian Bach and not all the other wrong subcategoies? Working on the cageries is a hard work. But I don't understand your way through the cagegories... From Munich to Brazil to Brittany and mano other parts. Please finish one work, and than go to the next! And please talk a little more friendly to the other users! And assume good faith for the intentions of others. -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Category:Ogg files and Category:Classical music? Is there a convention, which file to place in which category? If no category complies Teebeutel's thought then maybe one should be created. The idea is not that bad, is it? The other wrong subcategories could be moved to that new category. 129.187.192.86 09:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My mess on Category:Artists from Brazil/Category:Artists of Brazil

Sorry for my recent mess on these cats. I tried to unify them but I didn't know which one was preferred. Are we sticking to Category:Artists from Brazil? If so, why is it a sub cat of Category:People 'of Brazil instead of Category:People from Brazil? I, for one, don't have a favorite one. I just wanted it to be consistent.

In a related matter, don't you think Category:Musicians from Brazil should really be a subcat of Category:Artists of Brazil, as musicians are artists, just like dancers, actors, filmmakers, etc?

Best regards, --Abu badali 16:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

Okay, instead of us playing revert ping-pong, how about you actually justify your reverts to hide the subcategories of Category:Maps, and maybe we can come to an understanding? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Categorising chemical compounds by element

Hi Juiced Lemon. Thanks for your hard work on adding categories to Category:Chemical compounds by element. I noticed, however, that in the process, you deleted categories such as Category:Nonmetal compounds. I don't think this move was such a great one, as people may want to seach by broader criteria than just individual elements. if it's OK with you, I'd like to reinstate those categories. Let me know.

Cheers

Ben 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert my edits, they were good. A nonmetal compound is any chemical compound containing atoms of a nonmetal. I'm a chemistry student so I'm familiar with the terminology. Also, you commented on my user page. You should comment on talk pages. Sorry for sounding angry, but you're behaving in a provocative manner.

I hope we can sort this out and get on with making the Commons better.

Cheers

19:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The category nonmetal compounds is not useless - a nonmetal compound is not any compound without a metal, it is any compound that contains a nonmetal, even if it also contains a metal. NaCl is a nonmetal compound. It is also a metal compound. This is well established, I am not mistaken. Please don't start a revert war, it's a waste of time. Some people will want to see what categories are part of nonmetal compounds. Please allow them to do so.

Ta

Ben 21:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop this tirade now. Chlorine IS a nonmetal. This is a fact. Wikipedia says that chlorine is a halogen. On the halogen page it says that all halogens are nonmetals:

The nonmetals are halogens, noble gases and the following elements in order of atomic number (nonmetals as chemical series):

• Hydrogen (H)
• Carbon (C)
• Nitrogen (N)
• Oxygen (O)
• Phosphorus (P)
• Sulfur (S)
• Selenium (Se)

Therefore Wikpedia is saying chlorine is a nonmetal.

Ben 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You've really annoyed me now. Stop reverting. Your sources are poor quality. Some dodgy website is not a good enough source. I use proper chemistry textbooks. Your personal opinion that Category:Nonmetals is useless is not shared by everyone. Let's have a discussion with other users of the Commons. I'll ask for you to be blocked if you carry on like this, it is very bad form.

Ben 00:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page: The category Category:Nonmetal compounds is for the chemical series, because it's the classification in the English Wikipedia. Your categorization is wrong and useless, so stop your edit war. We can discuss if you stop to revert my edits.

Firstly, sorry for reverting your edits, I did it because I thought that until the dispute is settled, nonmetal elements' compounds should exist as subcategories of both Category:Nonmetal compounds and Category:Chemical compounds by element.

Secondly, my categorisation is not necessarily useless and is certainly not wrong. It is factually correct. For instance, all sulfur compounds are automatically nonmetal compounds. That cannot be changed. As far as usefulness is concerned, you personally feel the a nonmetal compounds category is useless, but I don't, so what are we going to do about it? You can't just tell me to go away and let you have what you want, I just won't. We'll have to either compromise or have someone else decide for us.

I won't revert your edits any more, otherwise I'd contravene 3RR. But stop reverting my edits, too.

What has classification in the English Wikipedia got to do with anything?

Sorry for being aggressive, I'm tired.

Ben 00:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reversions

Don't revert when I put Category:Halogen oxides in Category:Nonmetal oxides. It belongs there. Unlike Category:Nonmetal compounds which covers the vast majority of chemical compounds, most oxides are not nonmetal oxides, so the category is not even slightly redundant. Nonmetal oxides are very notable and worthy of a category for their acidic properties. If you have a good reason, let's here it. Otherwise, let's not carry on edit warring, it's dumb.

Why are you so determined to guard the chemistry categories? Are you a chemist or are you just eclectic?

Ben 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Halogens and noble gases are nonmetals. It says that in the English Wikipedia, you're just reading it wrongly. Anyway, Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. A textbook or journal is.

I know you think I'm wrong, but that's not a good enough reason to revert my edits. We have to agree a policy along with all other interested editors. This is not about me vs. you.

Ben 18:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Juiced, I've replied to your latest message on my talk page.

Cheers

Ben 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Juiced, halogens are really non metals. Please do not start a revert war without talking to the user you are having a revert war with. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Juiced, please don't revert war on this. Please! We don't have a formal revert rule here but it's just not good. Maybe you're not the only person warring over this, whoever is reverting you back should also stop but please don't ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The other person warring is me, but I know it's stupid so I've stopped. Instead, I started a discussion at Commons talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Categories. That's where the action is! Sorry.

Ben 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Juiced Lemon. I see you have not contributed anymore to Commons talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Categories. Can I conclude from that that you have no further objections about my last comment regarding the fact that non-metals can both mean all elements that are neither metals nor intermediates and also a chemical series? -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

in/of

See User talk:Siebrand.--Borheinsieg 21:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voivodeships

Hi,

I see You want to change Polish names for administrative divisions into English ones. I don`t think that simple fact that current names already exist is an argument for You. But there is still this aspect, well ... I don`t think such name helps non Polish speaking users understand what this Voivodeship is. What is more, I think every intelligent human being will understand from context that this Voivodeship is the biggest division of country. But Polish name helps Polish people. It`s better to use Polish names instead of quarreling. Sfu 00:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I`m not all that shure voivodeship is more English than województwo, at all. But there is this ó. Ok, maybe it`s better. Sfu 11:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Basilica di san Zanipolo in Venice

San Zanipolo is a dialectal an archaical form, no longer in use. The official name of the church is "Santi Giovanni e Paolo", and to it must remain. When in doubt, please ask. Best wishes. --G.dallorto 22:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your objection made sense, so I followed your advice and renamed the English entry. I also profitted from the occasion to put back into the category the pictures of San Giovanni and Paolo I had shot, and that mac9 had "kindly" cancelled... Love --G.dallorto 13:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

National parks of ...

Hi Juiced lemon; I nominated Category:National parks of Texas and several similar categories that you created some time ago for deletion. Please see my contribution history. The capitalization of "parks" is inconsistent with Category:National Parks of the United States, and should be upper case. However, I'm not convinced that state categories are needed since most will have only one or two entries. California, Washington, Alaska and Utah are probably the main exceptions. Anyhow, if you feel strongly that they are needed, I'd be happy to create them (with "park" capitalized) and categorize the relevant gallery pages. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 18:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Park is spelled with a first upper-case letter in the name of a specific park. If we gather several parks in a category, “park” becomes a common name and is spelled in low-case letters (see the English Wikipedia en:Category:National parks of the United States). --Juiced lemon 18:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This official site does not use the same conventions than Wikipedia: en:Category:National parks in the English Wikipedia, Category:National parks in Commons. --Juiced lemon 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Belatedly, I see that the move tag that you added 13 October 2006 to Category:National Parks of the United States garnered no opposition. Category:National parks suggests broad support at Commons for the lower case convention and it is the convention on enwiki, as you point out. I'm sure that I will become accustomed to it in time. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 22:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-December/001175.html Lugusto • ҉ 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)