User talk:Olybrius/档案/2021年
|
Languedoc in the 1810s has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
Ricky81682 (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
|
|
Present-day Midi-Pyrénées in the 3rd century BC has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
Ricky81682 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
|
|
Category:English-language_surnames_coming_from_French 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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! |
CptViraj (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Please protect the template {{Month by year in Sicily}} invented by you after it has actively been vandalised by Threecharlie (talk · contribs). See discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Template:Month by year in Bolzano. Thank you for your valuable contributions.
--Labintatlo (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Red cat
[edit]Are you going to create Category:May 1941 Portugal photographs after this edit? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Just don't be so reactive ;) - Olybrius (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
|
|
Mustapha (Algeria) 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! |
191.116.35.119 03:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Anachronism
[edit]Please could you stop this silliness about "present day"? It exists just with french regions and departments and it's absolutely useless. Do you see "Present day Belgium in 1829", "Present day United States in 1775", Present day Poland in 1917", "Present day Baden-Württemberg in 1945"? "Present day Sudan in 2010" ? Even "Present day France in 1945" as the territory was different so it should replace "France in 1945" following your ideas... It's so obvious that what we're talking about is present day, why do you have to mention it? Don't you know that the names in WP have to be as simple as possible? Don't you know WP is a community and that there must be a concensus about the changes and that the different categories have to follow the same pattern, there's no such a "French exception" about it. --Birdie (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, anachronisms are not acceptable. You will never find them on Wikipedia where users are somewhat more thoughtful. It's not because other Commons users are lazy and don't take the time to think that I should do the same.
- We should present the facts and not what is more convenient. Anachronism might be tolerable for places like Ariège but what about entities like Hong Kong, Kurdistan, Tibet? - Like Hong Kong was always part of China and the like? Yes, that's annoying, it takes more time, we have to stop and think, devise complicated templates, but that's what is interesting, we learn things instead of creating alternate realities. The motto of Wikimedia is "be bold", not "be lazy and conservative"! - Olybrius (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, I don't understand anything about your exemples. HK wasn't a part of Chinese state between 1842 and 1999. Since then, it's an Special Administrative Region. Before, it wasn't an entity from itself. Tibet hasn't been really independant since 1246. Kurdistan? What about Kurdistan? There have never been a state named like this. Or do you mean the autonomous Iraqi region since 1992? Anyway, what's the deal with Ariège? It seems you didn't realize this crazyness about "present day" doesn't exist anywhere else. So, HK, Kurdistan, Tibet, USA, Belgium, well everything except french subdivisions isn't well made. France? Neither. I can see "France in the 8th century" category??? So France existed then? That's a news. So, what are you waiting to create all these present day categories? Too lazy urself? Also, isn't it weird to make a fuss about "1764 in Ariège" when "1764 in present day Ariège" is a subcategory of "1764 in the county of Foix"! Is it a joke? So the only subcategory of "1764 in the county of Foix" about a city in Couserans which has nothing to do with the county of Foix. You should stop and think to correct this horror. Don't you think? It's a bit easy to say big words about courage of creating new templates and letting such horrors in front of your eyes. --Birdie (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right, the way County of Foix was categorized was entirely wrong and I should have noticed that right away! That's more or less fixed now and I created the Viscounty of Couserans in the process. Regrettably most of the County of Foix chronology is now empty and will end up deleted, too bad, that was a good idea. And I also agree with your sarcasms that many of the chronologies are anachronistic (and should be fixed).
- I am definitely a bit lazy, but here it's more that I am overwhelmed by all these anachronisms! They are the crazies, not my present-day categorizations which I have been dealing with for many years now (and there already have been conflicts and discussions about them!). Actually, I hate fixing this chronological mess but I hate anachronisms so much more, I am sorry I have much difficulty creating something like 1665 in Ariège when at the time Ariège was just the name of a river. And why being so local? Well that's because that's what I'm familiar with and also because these categories were uncreated and I couldn't create misnomers. Just like I created Bezirk Unterelsaß by year for when Alsace was part of Germany, for instance. Sometimes I wonder though, why bother trying to be so exact? Let's just use Haut-Rhin until the dawn of times.
- And at the same time I would like to fix all the United States in the 14th century things but there is already so much to do with just the French departments and regions. Also staying local reduces the risk of doing mistakes like Ricky81682's with County of Foix. I presume he is not from around there ;) - Olybrius (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, I don't understand anything about your exemples. HK wasn't a part of Chinese state between 1842 and 1999. Since then, it's an Special Administrative Region. Before, it wasn't an entity from itself. Tibet hasn't been really independant since 1246. Kurdistan? What about Kurdistan? There have never been a state named like this. Or do you mean the autonomous Iraqi region since 1992? Anyway, what's the deal with Ariège? It seems you didn't realize this crazyness about "present day" doesn't exist anywhere else. So, HK, Kurdistan, Tibet, USA, Belgium, well everything except french subdivisions isn't well made. France? Neither. I can see "France in the 8th century" category??? So France existed then? That's a news. So, what are you waiting to create all these present day categories? Too lazy urself? Also, isn't it weird to make a fuss about "1764 in Ariège" when "1764 in present day Ariège" is a subcategory of "1764 in the county of Foix"! Is it a joke? So the only subcategory of "1764 in the county of Foix" about a city in Couserans which has nothing to do with the county of Foix. You should stop and think to correct this horror. Don't you think? It's a bit easy to say big words about courage of creating new templates and letting such horrors in front of your eyes. --Birdie (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)