User talk:Verica Atrebatum

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Verica Atrebatum!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour 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 irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). 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 and indicate your graphic abilities. 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 without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: 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:England in the 1830s

1830-1836 was not part of the Victorian period. Churchh (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Good spotting. Think I must have read it as 1837. I've put it in the Georgian era category. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Megaliths

Hi, I noticed that you are doing great work here. It might be a good idea to have a look in the Commons:Category scheme megaliths and Megaliths by type documentation and if need be, update or complete it. --Foroa (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will have a good read and make sure I'm doing everything right. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Naval architecture/Military architecture

Can I question your re classification of Chatham Dockyard. To me Naval architecture is the craft of designing ships- and military a4rchiotecture is something done by HM Armed Forces? Has something changed or have I lost the plot? - ClemRutter (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I'm missing your point. Can you expand? Verica Atrebatum (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Danebury

I noticed you removed a Hampshire category from a couple of photos of Danebury, may I ask why? The hillfort is in the county. Nev1 (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Danebury has its own category, Category:Danebury. If the images are purely of the Danebury hill fort, this is the only category it needs to go in. The Category:Hampshire is a grandparent category of this category via Category:Archaeology of Hamsphire. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I should've realised, thanks for clearing that up. Nev1 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wall mounted church monuments in Hesse etc.

What is an Epitaph in your eyes? And what is the difference between an Epitaph and a "Wall mounted church monument" How do you differentiate between the two? --Wuselig (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

An epitaph is specifically the inscription. It can appear on any type of grave monument. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Naval architecture of the United Kingdom

Hi Verica Atrebatum I've tagged a category you created Category:Naval architecture of the United Kingdom as having a bad name and moved its contents to Category:Naval buidings of the United Kingdom since en:Naval architecture in nautical terms refers to the design of ships and boats and not buildings. Thanks.KTo288 (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting medieval tombs to church monuments

This is a pretty severe loss of information, and the target category, if related, does not designate the same stuff. Please use COM:CFD when the renaming/redirect of a category is not 100% obvious. --Eusebius (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and please ALWAYS add a summary to your edits. --Eusebius (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. This is almost vandalism now (note: message added just after you reverted me back). --Eusebius (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please bring back the images you have taken from Category:Mediaeval tomb slabs, which was also induly redirected. --Eusebius (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at your latests edits (after my first panic moment). Most of it is very ok (thank you for your work), it's just that sometimes, when you change a category for another, you lose some specific information. For this reason, in some cases, I've transformed your "change cat" action in an "add cat", which was more appropriate. Please use COM:CFD before emptying a category and redirecting it to another one. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish you'd wait for me to finish what I'm doing before commenting. I've spent about half and hour replying to you and I keep getting edit conflicts. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have moved all the images/sub-categories from beneath Medieval Tombs and Medieval tomb slabs to Medieval church monuments and Medieval ledger stones respectively (or to other more correct categories). A tomb is the thing the body is in. A monument is put over the top. If I do not hear from you further, I will do the appropriate redirects. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a few more Medieval monuments into the new categories. Hopefully people will continue to populate them. Church and funerary monument terminolgy is quite specific and images are often categorised in the wrong place. I try and pop into Commons every now and then to correct stuff. 'Tomb' is a word sometimes used incorrectly in English speaking nations for a monument beneath which a person is buried. It is more acceptable on the Continent, but not when using English. The tomb is the structure in which the person is buried, not the architectural memorial.

If you do not specifically mean a ledger stone by 'tomb slab', I assume you mean the top-most slab of any monument, flush with the ground or not. The ledger stone term covers the flush ones. I don't really see that one on a chest or similar structure needs a category other than church monument. A crypt can be (though is not necessarily) a type of tomb. Tomb is a parent category. There is, therefore, no need to categorise a burial crypt in both crypt and tomb. You could add a category of burial crypt, but most of them are, so it's not really necessary. I hope this clarifies my recent edits. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(indent reset) Moving "Medieval tomb slabs" to "Medieval ledge stones" sounds very ok, but moving "Medieval tombs" to "Medieval church monuments" doesn't, at all. I understand your concern about the semantics of the word "tomb", but Category:Medieval church monuments is not essentially related to death/grave/whatever, whereas the images that were in "Medieval tombs" were. Images depicting funeral effigies, for instance, should definitely be, in some way, in a category related to the grave or the tomb. Maybe Category:Effigies of dead people can be of any help (maybe you want to improve it). Second point, I want to emphasize that tombs are not necessarily in churches, even medieval tombs (that's another point against the move). Finally, I'd like to be sure you know what you do when you separate tombs from (funeral) monuments (oh, and what about Category:Medieval funeral monuments? Or something similar? How does it sounds to you?). As I said, I don't question your expertise (I'm definitely not an expert in the field, and I'm not a native English speaker), but you might be a bit too generic, I don't know. If I take this one for instance, I'm 99% convinced that the bodies (or part of them, because organs were often sent to other cities) are inside the structure, not beneath it. I know at least one similar structure in France. Maybe they qualify as tombs, maybe not, maybe there's another term, you decide. In France, in that very case, we use the term "tombe", and not the usual term "gisant" (for effigies). To finish I would like to summarize my frustration with one example. Here, you argued that other categories covered already the relevant topics. Actually, you've lost the information that it was medieval (that was corrected by your next edit) and above all the info that it was (about) a tomb. That's what I think is wrong. I think that the only problem is that "Medieval church monuments" is both not specific enough (tomb-wise) and too specific (church-wise). I feel that something like Category:Medieval funeral monuments would be better, if it can suit you. Finally, please believe that I don't revert you for the sake of reverting, at the beginning I was really worried that you'd systematically ruin categorization, but there's only one point on which we disagree. --Eusebius (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving "Medieval tomb slabs" to "Medieval ledge stones" sounds very ok, but moving "Medieval tombs" to "Medieval church monuments" doesn't, at all. I understand your concern about the semantics of the word "tomb", but

Category:Medieval church monuments is not essentially related to death/grave/whatever.

I don’t agree with this statement, ‘Church Monument’ is a term for an architectural or sculptural memorial to a dead person within a Christian place of worship. Hence the category Church monuments is a sub-category of Grave markers which is a sub-category of Graves which is a sub-category of Death.

OK then. Yet, very few people have knowledge of this precise terminology, and any non-English speaker would take the common sense of the word "monument", so there is a risk of undue inclusions. Maybe you could add a little explanatory note in the category? Additional question, are you sure that "Church monument" should be in "Grave sculpture"? It might not be a sculpture. In fact, it might not be a grave at all, right? Isn't "funerary monuments" enough? --Eusebius (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The question remains: what should Medieval tombs redirect to? I would suggest that if we can find image of Medieval tombs that are not Church monuments, that we let it stay.

Sounds ok. --Eusebius (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Images depicting funeral effigies, for instance, should definitely be, in some way, in a category related to the grave or the tomb.

They are, since Effigies of dead people is a sub-category of Church monuments (a grandchild category of Graves).

Maybe Category:Effigies of dead people can be of any help (maybe you want to improve it).

This does need improving. I might get round to it some time. By the way, a funeral effigy is not the same as a monumental effigy. The former is a temporary effigy for display during the funeral ceremony. The latter is a permanent memorial.

OK, thanks for the precisions. --Eusebius (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Second point, I want to emphasize that tombs are not necessarily in churches, even medieval tombs (that's another point against the move).

Of course, as I defined above a ‘church monument’ is any architectural or sculptural memorial to a dead person within a Christian place of worship (or indeed a Christian funerary building). ‘Tomb’ is a very broad term and any categories using this word should really only have sub-categories beneath them. Terms such as mausoleum or crypt are much better and more specific.

What about Category:Medieval funeral monuments? Or something similar? How does it sounds to you?

Medieval funerary monuments: I have no objection to adding this as a category level between Funerary monuments and Medieval church monuments. I’m sure other sub-categories for it will emerge. ‘Funerary’ is a much better word to use than ‘funeral’. The latter implies a connection with the funeral ceremony rather than death in general.

I leave you judge about what is best to do. --Eusebius (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I'd like to be sure you know what you do when you separate tombs from (funeral) monuments. As I said, I don't question your expertise (I'm definitely not an expert in the field, and I'm not a native English speaker), but you might be a bit too generic, I don't know. If I take this one for instance, I'm 99% convinced that the bodies (or part of them, because organs were often sent to other cities) are inside the structure, not beneath it. I know at least one similar structure in France. Maybe they qualify as tombs, maybe not, maybe there's another term, you decide. In France, in that very case, we use the term "tombe", and not the usual term "gisant" (for effigies).

This is a tricky one. Generally speaking, architectural church/funerary monuments do not contain the body and so are not therefore tombs. However, some, like the example you quote, may. Generally these are either a) very old examples which have developed from a sarcophagus; b) very high status examples (such as those for kings) which are big enough to accommodate the body. I know that some of the monuments to the English kings in Westminster Abbey are actually tombs as well (and then there are shrines which can be rather like caskets). You could use a term such as Monumental tombs. However, I don’t know that this is very useful. Usually you wouldn’t know if a monument was also a tomb (not even guide books specify), and I still think that ‘tomb’ is a term best avoided except in its broadest sense for high-level categories. Even if you do know that a monument is also a tomb, is telling people actually helpful, or will it just cause further confusion? I would say the interest in the image lies largely in its artistic and sculptural qualities, but perhaps I’m just biased.

The examples I know relate to sovereign dukes, almost as powerful as the king of France (duke of Brittany) or much more powerful and richer (duke of Burgundy). The term sarcophagus is not used in French in those cases (maybe because there are several bodies inside). The fact that they are tombs is quite emphasized by their curators. In the case of the dukes of Burgundy, it is because the tomb and effigy were transported from place to place with the bodies inside. However, this kind of info can be given in the explanatory text of a category, a gallery, or in the related WP article. If you think it's not worth complexifying the categorization, ok for me. Just wanted to bring this to your attention. --Eusebius (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To finish I would like to summarize my frustration with one example. Here, you argued that other categories covered already the relevant topics. Actually, you've lost the information that it was medieval (that was corrected by your next edit)

Sorry about that. I realised just after I’d done it. Actually, I wonder if it ought to be two categories, Gothic and Romanesque rather than Medieval, but I suppose someone can split it later if they’re that interested.

and above all the info that it was (about) a tomb. That's what I think is wrong.

Unfortunately, this example is not a ‘tomb’. It is a monument over a tomb (even this is an assumption: it is a monument, but we do not know if it is over a tomb or simply a grave; the tomb/grave could be somewhere else in the building completely or it could be a cenotaph). Alternatively, and more specifically really, it is an effigy on a monument. Church monument is linked to Tomb via its parent category, Grave marker. Grave marker and Tomb are sibling-categories, both being sub-categories of Graves.

Linked with the original issue about "church monuments", already explained. (And note the "about" in my original sentence :-) --Eusebius (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the only problem is that "Medieval church monuments" is both not specific enough (tomb-wise) and too specific (church-wise). I feel that something like Category:Medieval funeral monuments would be better, if it can suit you.

I have not chosen the term Church monument at random. This is the term used in English by those who study such things. There is a Church Monuments Society and there are numerous books written about ‘Church Monuments’. As above, I’m happy to add Medieval funerary monuments and I think this should cover your concerns.

Again, already addressed, you choose what's better. --Eusebius (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I will add in your suggestions in the next few days and hopefully you’ll like the results OK. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your work and explanations. I really think you should put a bit of this knowledge in the descriptions of a few galleries, since it is necessary to understand existing category organization. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, Eusebius. It's very useful to a get the Continental perspective. I will certainly try and put an explanatory article or two together. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Side note: there's a category cycle between Category:Funerary buildings and Category:Funerary monuments. I'm not sure which link I should break. --Eusebius (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed this. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Categorzation of Swedish royal graves

Greetings! These grave monuments are over the actual graves. I do not understand your recategorization or the removal of the relevant categories. Please use discussion pages befeore reverting! Thx! EmilEikS (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied to your kind message here. EmilEikS (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this? EmilEikS (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now done my best to make use of the new category you created today Category:Church monuments to Swedish royalty and have put it in all over, in place of Category:Monuments to Swedish royalty, that is wherever I am knowledgeable. Thanx again! EmilEikS (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi! One moment please

This is not really bronze: File:Fidel Binz-Mutter Erde fec.jpg The Germans name it de:Galvanoplastik. They were "cheap", because the bronze is only thick as a sheet of paper. The rest is gipsum. Some more examples: WMF-Abteilung für Galvanoplastik. Regards Mutter Erde 79.194.89.251 21:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. That's fascinating! I shall have to have a think about how best to deal with these. I suppose we could add in Galvanoplastik grave sculptures. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you get them anywhere other than germany? Verica Atrebatum (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Germany once was big. So you can find them in today Poland and Oblast Kaliningrad. Furthermore I have seen some of them in Belgium. But I guess, they were sold mostly in Germany. To estimate them is a bit hard, because all these were sold in bronze for rich people by the sculptors too. WMF has bought the copyright to present them as "Galvanoplatik" later. Is there a word in English for them? Regards 79.194.89.251 21:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The equivalent in English would be 'Galvanised plastic', but they're not really galvanised or plastic. A description might be something like 'Bronze coated gypsum', which is a bit awkward. I suppose 'Simulated bronze' would be OK. Are we allowed to use trade marked names for categories? Verica Atrebatum (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. WMF still exists (but as far as I know they gave up these sculptures). And WMF was not the only producer, but the main one. I think, as there is no article in wp.de about WMF-Abteilung für Galvanoplastik this chapter/cat is too hard to understand for Germans and all others. Regards 79.194.89.251 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll put a note on the 'Bronze grave sculptures in Germany' category about Galvanoplastik for now. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Eulogie or memorial?

Hi Verica, a number of photos of memorials in Category:Postman's Park have just be uploaded and are not properly categorised yet. As non of these people are buried there I was wondering if Category:Eulogies (fine words) is more correct than Category:Memorial tablets in England. File:OatesSignMeanwood.jpg could almost be both. What do you think the right cats are for these individual tiled monuments. The Eulogie cat appears rather too under-used at present. --P.g.champion (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi P G Champion. The individual tiled inscriptions like this, File:Elizabeth Boxall.jpg, are really Category:Epitaphs in England. I see you've put one in there already. The category is really only for close-ups of inscriptions on monuments like this. I would say this, File:Postman's Park memorial.jpg, is the monument itself, or rather the centotaph. Cenotaphs can have epitaphs just as grave markers can. I'm can put these categories onto the Postman's Park images if you like. Images like this, File:OatesSignMeanwood.jpg, are more difficult because, while to is clearly a Category:Memorial tablets in England, it is also a close-up of the epitaph. I see no particular reason why it shouldn't go in both. As Eulogies are usually speaches, their category will probably never get many images in it. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As Alexander Pope said: "A little learning is a dangerous thing". It was placing the first of the Postman’s Park epitaphs into that cat that focused my mind on what little classical Greek I could remember. As WC is international I had no idea if the vernacular use of these terms over-ride the literal meaning. However, I knew the King of the Atrebates would know. Now that I know, I can add the remaining others to this cat myself. I was wondering though, if this courses other people difficulties? Would it be worth adding a short note at the top of the cat pages to give their modern usage? Perhaps even give a ‘see also’ section to closely related cats. --P.g.champion (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Before seeing this, I removed the Postman's Park images from the "Epitaphs" category, but I won't edit-war if someone wants to re-add them. As none of the people are buried there, I'm not sure "epitaphs" are really an appropriate description (I'd agree that "Eulogies" on "Memorials" would be preferable). Watts's "wall of heroes" isn't a celebration of the dead, per se, as a celebration of heroic acts by the civilian population (Watts did plan a conventional bronze monument, but it was never built); although all those listed are dead, there was no requirement that they be dead to be commemorated. Since, as you say, "Epitaphs" is a category that, in England, is unlikely to be heavily populated (there's no tradition of lengthy inscriptions in the Church of England, and most earlier monuments were destroyed in the Reformation), this will end up swamping the category with items that are only tangentially related to it, particularly if all 54 memorial plaques are uploaded (at present, I've only uploaded one male and one female representative sample of the different designs of plaques used, plus the plaques for those like Alice Ayres that are still famous today).

Postman's Park is a bit of a confusing place, as it's gone from a burial ground, to a public park, to a memorial, and back to a public park, so different parts of it have differing significances (the fountains, for example, date to its time as a park and have no significances; the early graves have had their bodies removed and reinterred elsewhere and the gravestones and tombs used as decorative features and benches respectively. I will be writing a full-length article on the topic on en-wiki shortly which should make things clearer; there's a book to be published shortly on the park which will likely raise its profile as much as the film Closer (set in the park) did, and I want to have it in place before then. Category:Postman's Park is itself a subcategory of Category:Memorial parks in England, and it may be easiest to leave it as part of that. — iridescent 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A tricky one then. As the the monument commemorates events rather than dead people, I would agree that cenotaph and epitaph are not really appropriate. Your solution sounds fine to me. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ledgerstones

The Grave marker gallery omits any examples of ledgerstones, so I thought of adding these:
File:Petschow_Kirche_Grabstein_02.jpg
File:Sankt_Nicolai_Kirke_Koege_Denmark_stone041.jpg
File:Münnerstadt_Stadtpfarrkirche_Epitaph_Sylvester_von_Schaumberg_1534.jpg
File:Jerzmanowo-kosciol.sw.Jadwigi.wejscie.jpg
File:Konczyce_Male_mariuszjbie_PL.jpg
However, you will see the last three are vertical, which is a full 90° out from the true meaning of ledger. Therefore, these shouldn’t be added. This may be a problem of translation because all the ones I’ve looked seem European examples. Therefore, I thought of adding this explination to the gallery as well:
Ledgerstones are gravestones always laid flat at floor level, and mark the burial place below the floor inside a church or abby. They sometime show a representation of the deceased but are always in very flat relief. Today many have been moved from their original position and some times stood upright so as to make them more visible to the public. Vertical 3D representations of the deceased with more realistic depth are most often monuments.

Or perhaps the last three 'could' be added to show what they are not so as to avoid confusion.

Suppose one could go further and suggest that true ledgerstones shouldn’t be lifted and built into walls as it will encourage the surface to spall off, because the compressive force will no longer be perpendicular to the bedding plane, and so should be left free standing... but how far do you go. What are your views?--P.g.champion (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I was going to put ledger stones in the Church monuments gallery - when I eventually finish writing it! What goes in the ledger stones categories has always been problematic. I created them, but as I began to populate them, I came to the conclusion that a lot of the early Continental European ones have been moved into an upright position and the later ones have been designed to be installed that way and, as you say, become of deeper relief. I have still included them together because they seemed to naturally fit together. However, I would very much welcome suggestions of how to be more descriptively accurate for those that are not really ledger stones. I'm sure there must be some European term that I've yet to discover. My experience is largely limited to UK church monuments. How about you? Of course, this deepening of relief happened in the UK too, but the slab always remained horizontal. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My limited knowledge is limited to the British Isles as well. We could do with the input from a international academic like the late Nikolaus Pevsner. I am not happy with vertical ledger stones but until we get some clear pronouncement by a reliable authority it is probably better to keep things as your doing them so that we know where to find them. If I come across anyone that knows and can provide a reference, I’ll let you know. So far, I have just got back blank looks from the people I have asked. --P.g.champion (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Enfeus

Hi, Do you have any suggestion about this query brought up at the Village Pump?--P.g.champion (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Locksbrook Cemetery, Bath, military graves.jpg

Hi. I see you are reorganising the CWGC categories. There seems to be a categorisation difficulty for plots of military graves within a non-military cemetery, as in File:Locksbrook Cemetery, Bath, military graves.jpg. It is not a military cemetery, nor a photo of an individual gravestone. This new category system does not seem to have a logical place for photos like this. Do you have a view on how this should be resolved? Rwendland (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. They could go under Commonwealth war graves in a particular country, without going down to the soldier/sailor/airman level. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put it in Category:Commonwealth War Graves Commission gravestones in England now, which I think is right as the photo is of "gravestones", if not individual ones. But that is essentially undoing your removal of Category:Commonwealth War Graves Commission gravestones in the United Kingdom. Can you check if you think that is OK. Ta. Rwendland (talk)

Category:Commonwealth War Graves Commission gravestones in Belgium

Hello. Recently, you have removed the reference to category Category:Commonwealth War Graves Commission gravestones in Belgium from several images of the Adinkerke Military Cemetery. See for example the following edit: [1] As a reason, you have given "Czech". I oppose the edits. Well, it's Czech(oslovak) soldiers buried there, but the cemetery indeed is situated in Belgium. And as far as I understand the name of the above mentioned category, it should list (and the few files remaining in there actually do so) gravestones situated in Belgium, but not necesarilly of Belgian soldiers (i.e. also Czechs would apply). Could you please give clarification of your edit? Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

When was Czechoslovakia part of the Commonwealth? Verica Atrebatum (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Grave sculptures

Hi Verica,

I was thinking of ordering the subcategories of Grave sculptures : in this category are all the categories "Grave sculptures in X", X being a country name, along with the categories "Grave sculptures of Y", Y being the subject of the sculpture (hourglasses, animals, ...). Shouldn't we create the category "Grace sculptures by country" and moves all the country-related subcategories in it ? I'd be glad to have your advice on this. --Pethrus (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Mediaeval tomb slabs

You redirected to Category:Mediaeval tomb stones. Now we the problem, that there are tomb stones and in many churches also Category:Monumental brasses used as tomb slabs, which are, as the category states, not stone but metal, not always of brass, often they are casted with bronze. For single churches we need a category for tomb slabs of all kinds. Since you probably had proper reasons I ask for a hint, how we might solve the problem. Regards.--Kresspahl (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Churchyards

Churchyards 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!

Note: I am not the user who nominated this category. - dcljr (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Public_footpaths_in_the_United_Kingdom

Public footpaths in the United Kingdom 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!

Nilfanion (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:British_countesses

British countesses 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!

Wikimandia (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Ledger_stones

Ledger stones 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!

AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:United_Kingdom_by_decade

United Kingdom by decade 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!

Themightyquill (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Eglinton_Country_Park

Eglinton Country Park 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!

Robby (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)