ARCHIVES: 2006 | 2007 January - June | 2007 July - September

I should be done with you, and I think that you even asked me to be done with you, but I am not.

That is good stuff, thank you very much for those. I think (after looking quickly at them) that I wasn't doing such a terrible job as I mostly tried to fit the new images and new Category into the existing eh, structure here.

I had a thought while I was reading them about how the strong feelings that happen here are not so much about right and wrong but about conventions that our teachers (and other elders in judgement of us during our youth) insisted upon as everyone was learning. I think about this kind of thing when I watch road traffic with dozens and sometimes hundreds of cars sharing the same roads at almost the same time and each vehicle on its way to a different destination. I am so surprised that the roads are so safe, when you consider it. It is the same such a miracle that so many of our teachers were at least insisting on similar things/ideas to everyone. That being said, all of those teachers who somehow managed to maintain an active image of themselves in my brain/memories scream "Don't do that" when I see things like Category:National Forests being changed to Category:National forests. No wrong or right there -- disapproval and marks on the list of your accomplishments make that feeling. It feels wrong deep in the parts that they made when they formed me. The local laws said that I should be there so that they could do that and I enjoyed it (school) immensely.

The Dewey Decimal System did me in. F=ma actually saved me. I am jealous of people who can do this. The closest I came to being able to do this was with astrology, but it only works when people don't lie about their age/birthdate and then you only learn stupid things like Virgo's have wide feet and Aries only think about what they are going to do when they get there -- not how they will get there and Taurus have a lot more money than even they know (because they conveniently forget it). Useless! Because the knowing does nothing to help.

So I am jealous. There was a cartoon that was on television in United States in the 1990's. Dr. Katz. He was a psychologist for standup comedians. He had a secretary Laura who in one episode declared that she could "Label anything". She had a little label making machine and throughout that episode, proceeded to label everything. The doctor's son (who had a huge crush on her) challenged her by saying "No you can't" to her "I can label anything". She then labeled him "No" and continued with her work.

I am jealous like that. 20 years ago, I would have thought that Commons:Image classification system was cool. Now I think it is inhuman. What do you think changed in me?

Do you ever think that there will be a day when people who can work with the Dewey Decimal System might be punished for this ability? Perhaps euthanized even?

No. I don't dream of that. --Juiced lemon 11:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eek! I have more background in science fiction where you can make interesting scenarios and suggest difficulty in the safety of it not being real and being a way to examine what might happen. I am now very sorry that I used such strong black-comedy to illustrate a thought I had. In real life, I have spent a lot of my time verbalizing a desire that my country stay out of other countries. I was very young when we were in Cambodia and I might not ever understand it. Fiction should be an outlet for frustration. Shakespeare did this (I think) when he wrote about ways to solve lawyer problems.

Did you get blocked because of me? I ask because I have found myself in a strange online world and also a foreign to me real world. While you were blocked (I did not know you were blocked) I was thinking about conversations I had had with friends in my past. The only thing I know to do to figure out new people and new situations is to try to map something from my past into it. When I was a kid, my mom had a garden in our backyard. She did most of the work there and sometimes we would help and sometimes we wouldn't. It was no big deal. Later, I made a friend whose mom had used their garden as punishment when she was a child. As adults, I had a garden and I loved to be in it but my friend was unable to see what I enjoyed about it and never spent time with me in it. I was thinking about home-schooled kids and these wiki-projects and mapping my garden incident onto it: that there are people who volunteer here because they love it and others who are working because they are being punished. I am sorry if I caused you undue frustration or commotion or punishment. -- carol 10:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got blocked following the bunch of edits which is listed here. These edits were part of a banale maintenance operation, so this block was a patent abuse and you are not responsible for that. --Juiced lemon 16:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me when you are sorry that you reverted something I had changed :) -- carol 09:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mention there an inherent difficulty about this project. Individual actions lead naturally to chaos. Ideally, people who works on classification in Commons should be aware of basic principles and undergo some training.

My concern is to bring some order and consistency, in order to maintain the attraction of this website. I revert changes when I think they are a mess factor. That doesn't mean that these changes are necessarily illogic, so my actions can still be discussed. --Juiced lemon 11:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of getting access to more than 3500 images from the USForest Service. I am not interested in making gallery of them. Also, they have been organized already by the USForest Service by state. If I am able to get access to the images, they are probably named by the identification number that the Forest Service used. I found one commons user who seems to have experience with auto-cropping software and I think it should not be difficult to find someone to tailor an upload tool so that getting the images here and Categorized should be somewhat easy. Many of the photographs need and deserve repair -- which would also be a good time to rename them. Would you be interested in helping at any point in that project, in the case that I am able to get the images? So far, almost every image I have seen from this collection is older than 1970; my little upload of 100-110 images was very very interesting so far -- interesting enough that I can't wait to get the whole stack of them.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. -- carol 10:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pertinent informations about pictures from USForest Service are:

• Forest Name
• Subject (deciphered)
• Date (year)
• Serial Number

So, try to build a consistent naming system, based on part or all these informations.

I'll not help you in the recovery process of this set of pictures, but I can learn you how to categorize the files in the topics structure. --Juiced lemon 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this list, it is also the list of things I did with my small upload. -- carol 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi there Juiced lemon, do you think you could give in some of your opinion on this case, not sure what to think about it, I thought categories have to be in English. Gryffindor 11:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, juiced lemon. Havang 20:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I saw an image in the New Images Gallery, at least I think it was this image: Image:SiberianTiger Rome(1).jpg. When I surveyed my browser history to find it, I found the gallery page for Bioparco. When I went to that gallery page, the images themselves had no highlights associated with them to tell me the ones I had 'visited' already. When I search for Siberian tiger this image doesn't appear. I see no way in which this image has been categorized as anything except this Bioparc place, which is to me a shame and a loss because I might actually want or need an image like this of a Siberian tiger and this image never is presented as such.

Can you demonstrate how the image should be Categorized or how it has already been Categorized properly for me (so I can see an example or an explanation) and then how users of this collection can easily find it? -- carol 23:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:AFBorchert has added a correct category to this image. I don't notice other noteworthy features for this picture. According to the description, the location would be correctly specified, because Category:Rome is overpopulated. --Juiced lemon 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I'm here ;-) Let's have a short talk about this one. Category:Musical notation is quite correct (and I nearly lost track of this one, thanks), however, Category:Musical scores was correct, too. If Musical notation exclusively contains files showing notes and other score stuff, we can move it to Category:Musical scores and use Musical notation as supercat for all these cats holding specific notational icons like rests, notes, and so on. Comments? Code·is·poetry 10:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have added a (text) note which states that this category is not intended for sheet music of concrete works. Therefore, I think that Category:Musical scores is not a pertinent parent, since, in the English Wikipedia, musical score is a redirection to Template:W article. --Juiced lemon 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got your point. I tried to establish „Musical scores“ as a rather general term for all notation-related stuff, but I'm not that firm in your language. „Musical scores“ were the proposal of one user on #wikipedia-en. Do you know a better term? Regards, Code·is·poetry 11:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musical notation is for all notation-related stuff. A musical score is only a conventional (and particular) way to display musical notation. So, in my opinion, Category:Musical scores can be a subcategory of Category:Musical notation, but cannot be a parent category for all notation-related stuff. --Juiced lemon 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say. I just want all kind of notation-related stuff in one cat (or its subcats) and this supercat in Category:Music media by type. In this supercat, there should be a place for Category:GNU LilyPond images and the yet-to-create (I'm working on that) Category:MusiXTeX images. If you think Category:Musical notation can be this category, I will reorganize the tree. Regards, Code·is·poetry 11:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misunderstood what you said me. The subject of Category:Musical notation is how to represent music through the use of written symbols, hence a part of Category:Music theory. This category is not planned to classify the music representations themselves.

I envisaged to categorize Category:Musical scores in Category:Musical notation, because I thought about media which could explain how to make up a musical score.

Category:Compositions is currently the parent category for musical works. Sheet music is a representation of a “composition” using musical notation. --Juiced lemon 15:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys :). "Sheet music" is a funny term rooted in late 19th century U.S. history (the connotation was something like "pop music" has now). I haven't looked at what's in the category, but it would actually be somewhat vulgar if it was used to describe, say Bach. It's not really a subcat of notation either: it might actually be best made a subcat of Music. As a subcat of notation would be similar to making Novels a subcat of the Alphabet, if you see what I'm saying :). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's see. There is this pretty category Category:Music by media type. I just want one subcategory which holds all these files where notes are present, may they be single notes, keys, bars, or complete works. Since I am not a fluent speaker of the english language, I have no idea of any word describing this. Additionaly, we need some category for the rather abstract images like single notes, and one for noted representations of existing pieces of art. I think, Category:Musical notation is a sort of "topic category", so it should not be used, but rather be a supercategory for, among others, the category holding the abstract files. Likewise, Category:Compositions would be the superior category for the category of the concrete pieces of works. What do you think? Regards, Code·is·poetry 21:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find the name in German, we'll translate it. If you cannot, maybe other users will not understand your concept, that is it would not be a good idea to create a category about it. --Juiced lemon 22:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Category:Music by media type, my concept should be self-explaining. I think, in german we would just say „Noten“ or „Musiknoten“, because „Noten“ not only means "notes", but also refers to more complex examples and scores. I doubt that any "end user" would ever search for this category, just like no one searches for "Music by country" – it's a helper category. I think, we should not put so much effort on this detail. There is no "true" or "best" term. We just have to take one and put in clear definitions. Regards, Code·is·poetry 06:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION, you would have a consistent set of media types in the context of Category:Music by media type. So, you can associate a possible subcategory with each element from this set. If no such subcategory satisfies you, that probably means you think according to an unusual and unexpected logic (in Commons classification context).

If you want to reorganize music-related or sound-related categories, I suggest you to build a scheme at first, like the ones in Category:Commons category schemes.

As regards particularly media types, I think that the media type is generally an useless feature for the topics structure, so I plan to develop a new system using keywords. --Juiced lemon 10:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at Category_talk:Music ;-) Actually, I think that in musicology, there is a big lack of precisely defined terms, but well, we can only work with what we got. I think the category I want to create is convenient, even if I am not able to provide the perfect lemma. Otherwise, we have to divide between scores of work and abstract notes and we have no place for Category:GNU LilyPond images. Regards, Code·is·poetry 11:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of Category:GNU LilyPond images in Category:GNU LilyPond is enough, because we must assume that its content is (or will be) properly categorized in the topics structure. --Juiced lemon 20:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no relation between LilyPond and MusiXTeX files. Code·is·poetry 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GNU LilyPond is music software, and I assume that MusiXTeX files are data for music software. So, I don't understand your comment. --Juiced lemon 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both are software to render notes. Both categories hold / will hold rendered digital scores. Code·is·poetry 23:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you would find Category:GNU LilyPond and Category:MusiXTeX in Category:Music software. Music data files can be categorized according to file formats. --Juiced lemon 07:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Music data files"? Code·is·poetry 10:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media files in authorized audio formats, media files about authorized and non-authorized audio formats. --Juiced lemon 08:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Politcal Map of 19th Century China（時局全圖）.jpg , please don't needlessly move categories up in a page. Though of course it doesn't make any difference to page functionality or display, the stylistically preferred location for categories on a Wikipedia/Wikimedia page is in fact directly above any interwikis, and below everything else. If the categories are already in this stylistically-preferred position, please don't move them elsewhere in the page, as this creates a stylistically non-preferred positioning, and also needlessly complicates the reading of edit diffs when there are many categories involved (as is the case with Image:Politcal Map of 19th Century China（時局全圖）.jpg). AnonMoos 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I move categorization in order to display categories of the topics structure on the left of the page, before the category of other structures. --Juiced lemon 23:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that means -- it probably refers to something in the particular "skin" which you're choosing to use, but it has absolutely nothing to do with anything in other "skins". AnonMoos 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no way in agreeing on the order and placement of the elements in the images and categories ? As far as I noticed here and on the wiki's worldwide, the ordering "habit" seems to be:

1. Main text, including description fields
2. External links
3. Licensing information
4. Categories
5. Interwiki's

I notice a lot of changing back and forward of the category placements which is a real waste of energy for all of us. I don't understand the above rationale or explanation of Juiced lemon. Personally, I would prefer the categories as the very last item as this is the place where most changes happen and I tend to jump always to the end of the screen. But as the IW's are usually placed there (robot habit or constraint ?), I can live with that. --Foroa 06:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think things ought to be left in this order for consistency, moving categories away from the bottom makes them harder to find. (is a category present because it is named off, or because it's brought in via template? If you have to look all over the whole page, that increases the possibility of wasting time traipsing through templates..) ++Lar: t/c 11:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Juiced Lemon, I completed the 12 subcategories of Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of the Netherlands. I had made first as experiment an (hand-made) content and a one-category-up catscan link, which helped me greatly to eliminate wrong files, find doubles and all missing files. This is a semi-closed finite collection now. Could you have a look at it and give your judgment? Greetings. Havang 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Strain gauges, thermocouples, accelerometers, ultra sonic sensors ... are (measurement) sensors or convertors. They convert a physical value into an electronic value (current, resistance, voltage) and need an electronics counterpart (conversion, scaling, linearisation, ...) to form a real measuring instrument. --Foroa 13:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category is for the complete instrument, so we can categorize pictures of any part of the instrument in Category:Strain gauges. --Juiced lemon 13:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you prefer. I think that the most accurate and generic technical term is transducers. Note that transducers are not only part of measuring instruments but as well in controllers (for example train, crane, car controllers), medical instruments (pacemaker, ...), protheses (hearing aid, ...), consumer equipment (weight scales, fridges) and manufacturing equipment. So I would certainly suggest a separate topic/class for this type of devices.

--Foroa 15:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Transducer” is a low differential concept, then it is not important for classification. --Juiced lemon 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, juiced lemon, all dutch users use DOM for the Utrecht cathedral, so if you want to get items lost, you should stick at a name nobody uses. Do you also relocate all items under Utrecht DOM church, DOM tower? Don't bother too much about the lesser problems, that is not good for your nerves. Good luck Havang 09:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, “dom” means “cathedral”, or “stupid”. So I read “Dom church” as “stupid chuch”, because it has no nave. More, the current category name “Utrecht Dom church” is misspelled, so I have added a move request.

The proposed destination, Template:W article, can be discussed in the talk page. --Juiced lemon 09:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to thank you for your previous support when I was unfairly blocked. --Juiced lemon 09:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC) OKE, User:Havang[reply]

Before starting a series of undocumented reverts, it might be wiser to look first in en:Dom, en:Dom Tower of Utrecht and Category:Kölner Dom. --Foroa 10:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JL, it is in fact both "DOM" and "Domkerk", but not "domme kerk". See the site of the church: [1]. DOM is a church with the predicate "Deo Optimo Maximo", often cathedral, but not always. In utrecht, it is Domkerk because its not the Utrecht cathedral. The cathedral is the Sint Catharijnekerk, which is not a DOM. I don't mind what the final name is; but dutch people search for DOM. I have slight preference for "Category:DOM of Utrecht". Havang 12:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you suggest how to fix up the categories Category:Politicians of France and Category:Politicians from France as they are obviously overlapping, and one of them is probably the right one. Thanks. Deadstar (msg) 11:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The right one is Category:Politicians of France, because they apply (or have applied) for offices of France (see Category:Politicians by country). Normally, we should move the contents of Category:Politicians from France, but this category is cluttered up and such move would impede browsing.

This overcrowding is partially the result of the overcategorization of galleries, while a matching category exists. --Juiced lemon 11:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the suggestion is to leave it as is? Thanks. Deadstar (msg) 11:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to sort the pictures in proper categories, to organize galleries and categories, then the contents of Category:Politicians from France will be moved to Category:Politicians of France.

Examples: [2], [3]

--Juiced lemon 11:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: use the pywikipedia bot "category.py tidy". Siebrand 15:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I don't speak English. Spanish only. (In Spanish:) Lo siento, no quería revertir todo. Por cierto: el nombre de la provincia de Alicante en inglés es "Alicante", pero en algunas categorías pone "Alacant". ¿Qué puedo hacer? Gracias y saludos. Jose Garzón 19:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, je comprends le français très bien. Je traduis ce que je dis : "je le sens, je ne voulais pas revertir tout. Certes: le nom de la province d'Alicante est en anglais "Alicante", mais à quelques catégories il met "Alacant". Qu'est-ce que je peux faire? Merci et saluts". Jose Garzón 20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Jose Garzón 18:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you maybe discuss things beforehand a little sometimes, instead of unilaterally proliferating categories needlessly, and then populating the new categories with just one or two images each??

Your new category category:Vulva symbols doesn't seem to me to have either big advantages or disadvantages over former category:Vulgar symbols, so making the change was pretty much just meaningless busywork.

However, your new category:Vulva is completely redundant and duplicative to the previous category:Female genitalia -- even if you can percieve some difference between the two, I very strongly doubt whether other people can consistently classify images according to such a differentiation, which means that it's pretty much useless for the purposes of Wikimedia Commons... AnonMoos 20:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. In the English Wikipedia, some users have written the article Template:W article. Since this article is correctly illustrated, we can assume that some people are able to select vulva images and classify them in Category:Vulva.

2. In the English Wikipedia, Template:W article is a redirection to Template:W article, so I think that Category:Female genitalia is redundant with Category:Female reproductive system. The vulva is the external part of the female reproductive system.

3. “Vulgar” is a cultural assessment about some situations in a society, and cannot be a classification criterion in Commons. There is no place in Commons for indeterminate categories like Category:Vulgar symbols.

4. It was not my intention to move the contents of Category:Vulgar symbols, but all these images were miscategorized, and I had to edit them to clean other categories.

--Juiced lemon 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, dude -- "Always on the move", as Obi-wan Kenobi says in Revenge of the Sith. The word "vulgar" certainly could have been better chosen, but overall it's not clear to me that the categorizations in this area are in a better state after your efforts than they were before. In fact, I'm rather doubtful that your constant whirlwind of categorizing actitivities does much to improve anything in general. As for Image:Dina-gor.svg, please do tell me what special qualifications do you have to determine the exact connotations of this symbol? The implications are explained in point 3 of the explanation on the image description page Image:Vulva symbols.svg, and User:Dm.insubre.82 was quick to see the symbolism even before this explanation was added... AnonMoos 00:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Also, how is Category:Symbols of human sexuality supposed to interact with Category:LGBT symbols , Category:Heterosexuality , etc. etc.? It would be nice if you would leave clear clues as to the intended purpose of a new category, instead of just populating it with one or two semi-random images... AnonMoos 20:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Symbols of human sexuality is for symbols regarding to human sexuality, that is not cultural symbols like LGBT symbols. --Juiced lemon 21:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little idea exactly what you intend to mean by that, but you need to add a clear explanation of it at the top of the category page... AnonMoos 00:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, currently Category:Female genitalia is for external views, while Category:Female reproductive system goes under the skin -- and the result of all your abstract metaphysics is that you intend to collapse the useful distinction between these two categories, and lump them together in one big undifferentiated category. I really wish you had the basic courtesy to discuss things a little prior to unilaterally implementing radical changes of this nature -- it would save wasted effort both for yourself and for other people. AnonMoos 00:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Genitalia is a synonym for genitals, that is “sex organs” (wiktionary:genitalia)

2. there are external and internal sex organs, therefore genitalia regards both external and internal sex organs

3. vulva is a short term for “external female genitalia”, and since “external female genitalia” are not the same thing that “female genitalia”, “vulva” cannot be identified with “female genitalia”.

4. Category:Female genitalia is useless and would be a redirection to Category:Female reproductive system. I have added a move template in order to initiate a discussion in the proper page: so, don't remove it. --Juiced lemon 09:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD would be better. The two terms are not synonymous. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 09:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

A category move from Category:Female genitalia to Category:Vulva would be neither good nor bad (it would be relatively insignificant busywork of the kind you seem to be so fond of). But a category move from Category:Female genitalia to Category:Female reproductive system would MERGE TWO CATEGORIES WHICH CURRENTLY HAVE SOMEWHAT SEPARATE PURPOSES AND SOMEWHAT DISTINCT IMAGE CONTENT. It's not the names that matter, it's preserving a useful distinction. I don't understand how you can't see that eliminating a useful distinction would be a bad thing... AnonMoos 11:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss on Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/10/Category:Female genitalia. Failing to discuss will have consequences.--SB_Johnny | ^PA! 13:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, establishing category:John Norman was a pretty good idea, and you set it up with the proper category memberships (though it would have been even better if you had included all the Norman-relevant images in the category, not just one), so thanks. AnonMoos 16:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, speaking of nominating things for deletion, if within 3 or 4 days you don't add something to the top of category page category:Symbols of human sexuality‎ which explains in a clear manner its exact intended scope and purpose, then I will consider nominating it for removal... AnonMoos 16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juiced lemon; May I call your attention to Category talk:Religionism, please? Jeff G. and others are proposing a number of new categories and a hierarchy. You may wish to comment. Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning to AnonMoos above. Your effort in doing so is appreciated. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell have you done there?--Notschrei 16:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem? --Juiced lemon 16:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In English: [4]. In Spanish: Comunidad Valenciana. In Valencian: Comunitat Valenciana. In English "Land of Valencia"?! Jose Garzón 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tu trouveras quelques explications ici (en anglais): Template:W article. Quand la catégorie Category:Land of Valencia a été créée, la politique de Commons était d'éviter les formes adjectivales. --Juiced lemon 19:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juiced lemon. Could you please check if the category moves prepared on User:Siebrand/test would be correct? TIA. Cheers! Siebrand 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Give it a quick check in case I made a typo somewhere... Cheers! Siebrand 22:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in the business of renaming it and its subcats right now? Seems so judging on your contribs, but I'm not positive -- it seems half-baked now. Since the scheme of categorization by country subdivision is already adopted for Vojvodina and Kosovo, may I suggest moving the ones currently at Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia and Category:Maps of municipalities of Serbia into new Category:Maps of municipalities of Central Serbia rather than the root category? Duja 15:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually categorize a map in “Category:Locator maps of X of/in Y”, when it shows a like-X location on a map of Y. So, you will find maps of Serbia in Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia.

We have no maps of Central Serbia showing municipalities, therefore I have not created Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Central Serbia.

Maybe you have noticed that most municipalities of Serbia are also categorized in Category:Cities in Serbia. This is temporary, because I need a naming convention in order to differentiate municipalities and cities (there is near always a single article for the municipality and the matching city in the English Wikipedia). Can you suggest such naming convention? --Juiced lemon 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Serbia has two (well, 1 and a sort of) provinces, and the remainder is called "Central Serbia" (city of Belgrade might be considered a part of Central Serbia or as a separate entity). In the past, the main category (now Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia) contained Vojvodina one as its subcat, while the remaining maps were in the root category. At this moment, 17 maps of Central Serbian municipalities are in the root category, and remainder in Category:Maps of municipalities of Serbia.

I suggest the following:

• Change "Maps of municipalities of Serbia" to "Locator maps of Central Serbia(n) municipalities" (proper title?)
• Migrate the remaining 17 currently at the root to "Locator maps of Central Serbia(n) municipalities"
• Category:Maps of municipalities of Serbia should contain only the map of the municipality itself ("large zoom"). Currently, there are only 4 such, located in Category:Maps_of_municipalities_of_Vojvodina
• I'm not sure how to organize (interrelate) Category:Maps of municipalities of Serbia and Category:Locator_maps_of_municipalities_of_Serbia -- as parent of each other, or as two side-by-side subcats of Category:Maps of Serbia?

As for Category:Cities in Serbia, the situation is as follows: there are only 4 cities in legal sense, each consisting of several municipalities. The remaining 150 or so are towns, and each town is a municipality seat. On en:wp, we don't maintain separate articles for town and its municipality for practical and navigational reasons. However, since "city" and "town" are largely interchangeable, the Category:Cities in Serbia should probably remain as-is, to match the naming convention in Category:Cities by country.

I have AWB and I could fix the categories, but not before Monday. Please comment. Thanks. Duja 12:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locator maps of districts of Central Serbia > Category:Maps of Central Serbia

Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia in Central Serbia > Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia

Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia in Vojvodina > Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia

Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia > Category:Maps of Serbia

--Juiced lemon 22:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice also that the locator maps in Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia are categorized in the appropriate municipalities (exemple: Image:Serbia Aranđelovac.png, categorized in Category:Aranđelovac), while the ones in Category:Maps of municipalities of Serbia and Category:Maps of Vojvodina municipalities are not (example: Image:Serbia Barajevo.png which is not currently categorized in Category:Barajevo). The classification process will be easier if the correctly categorized images are kept apart from the other ones. --Juiced lemon 10:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost you a bit with the first part (with those redlinked categories), but I do have in mind a sensible categorization scheme... which is easier done than told. I'll do it in a couple of days, just to find some spare time. Duja 11:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia, you categorize maps of Serbia, where a definite municipality of Serbia is highlighted. Since these are maps of Serbia, the category is categorized in Category:Maps of Serbia.

Then, if you don't want put all these maps together in the same category, you can add an extra information to indicate a restricted area in Serbia. The same principle is already used in numberous categories, like Category:Danube: for example, Category:Danube in Novi Sad is a category for images of the Danube, but only in a restricted area matching Novi Sad.

So, Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia becomes Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia in Vojvodina for maps of Serbia. If you had maps of Vojvodina, the name of the category would be Locator maps of municipalities of Vojvodina, categorized in Category:Maps of Vojvodina.

--Juiced lemon 12:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I dislike the contrieved naming of "Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia in Vojvodina". Why not the natural "Locator maps of municipalities of Vojvodina"? Since our categories are not tree-like, it will be a subcat of both "Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia" and "Maps of Vojvodina", and the both are in turn in "Maps of Serbia". Someone may arrive there following the "Vojvodina->Maps of Vojvodina" path, and someone else following the "Maps of Serbia->Locator maps of Serbia" path, and they would both be fine. Duja 14:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Locator maps of municipalities of Vojvodina" is natural for maps of Vojvodina, like Category:Locator maps of districts of Vojvodina. However, we have maps of Serbia, not maps of Vojvodina. If you dislike "Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia in Vojvodina", we can let all the locator maps of municipalities in "Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia", classified by alphabetical order, with every map categorized in the appropriate municipality. --Juiced lemon 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, just now I see what you're aiming at: we don't have any maps of Vojvodina with highlighted single municipality, which would justify the title "Locator maps of municipalities of Vojvodina". Instead, we have maps of Serbia with highlighted municipalities, which happen to be (or not) located in Vojvodina. While I understand the rationale, wouldn't it be a too much of nitpicking? I'd simply like to avoid 150+ images in a category, and 10-word category names. Duja 09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to avoid 10-word category names, too. However, if an user uploads maps of Vojvodina with highlighted single municipality, I don't want to put them together with maps of Serbia with highlighted single municipality of Vojvodina. I try to set up a classification and naming conventions which can be easily understood and implemented, and I have not a better proposal at the moment. --Juiced lemon 10:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered the __NOGALLERY__ tag, which could alleviate the problem of large categories consisting of near-identical images. I'll start the job now, along the lines we discussed. Duja 08:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...except that I forgot that I need a separate AWB approval for commons :-(. Duja 08:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Resilient-silver.png

I'm not sating Tux himself is an icon, but many of the images with him in it are. Category:Tux is for anything with the character in it, not necessarily icons. Category:Penguin icons are for icons only but not necessarily Tux-like penguins. If you think we need a category that overlaps these two, maybe a gallery would be better. See Tux. I apologize for making it speedy, I didn't think it would be contested. Rocket000 20:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, I notice you placed Image:Tux2.png and Image:Slackware-mascot.jpeg in the category for icons. These aren't suitable for icons as they have a background, they are more illustrations. Rocket000 20:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the background does not matter , more you had categorized this image in Category:Penguin icons ([5]). --Juiced lemon 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't mean to do that. However, if backgrounds don't matter, why did you revert me? (I would of reverted myself, anyway) Rocket000 01:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion warning

Category:Buoyancy has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

(deletion fix) --Deadstar (msg) 09:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at the 11 media in category:Photographs; sevral of them should not be there, I think.Greetings.Havang 15:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC) ThanksHavang 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I realised a while ago Commons does not have this vital and useful page. Instead it is crammed on to the main page. I would prefer to move most of the "browse" type stuff to a separate page and have it in the sidebar links.

So I have had it in my head for a few weeks to start work on this page, but I haven't found the time yet. If you are interested, maybe you would like to start?

cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is in my scope, and I agree to cut in the main page. However, I'd like Commons:Contents. --Juiced lemon 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the name is not so important. I was sad when I thought you were ignoring me :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JC, can you look at the appr. 30 images: File:Rosa....gif at [6]. Could it become a category on its own within Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Spain? See also ca:Escut de Reus. Greetings. Havang 19:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can create categories about any subject which can be easily individualized, assuming they are consistent with existing structures and schemes. --Juiced lemon 13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spain Coats has a complicated tree. Do you agree with: Category:Historical coats of arms of Reus within the Category:Coats of arms of Tarragona?16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not really examined the issue, but I think that we don't need special structures for historical coats of arms. So, Category:Coats of arms of Reus would be appropriate. --Juiced lemon 17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OKE  Done Havang 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
If you're creating football categories, it's best to stick to the names of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and treat them as four seperate countries — phrases like "British" and "United Kingdom" aren't recognised by FIFA or football fans, since they all have their own leagues/national teams etc.
Thanks, Responsible? 01:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. In Commons, categories 'by country' are for an immutable list of countries. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are not countries, therefore categories for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will be subcategories of the suitable “United Kingdom” category. --Juiced lemon 01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juiced lemon. I while ago you participated in a discussion on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands about category naming for churches and the like. From what I could see, no consensus was reached, so the rename requests have not been processed automatically. I have copied the dicussion to Category talk:Churches and I kindly invite you to have further discussion there. Once a consensus has been reached, please re-request category renaming on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Thank you for your participation and understanding. Cheers! Siebrand 08:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Category talk:Lazio. Also no consensus yet, as I could determine. Cheers! Siebrand 08:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "Dramas are not related to theatre". Kindly see Drama for the definition. DionysosProteus 00:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already know this article, and my opinion is unchanged. --Juiced lemon 00:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware, then, that since Aristotle and the subsequent 2,300 years of dramatic theory that drama is related to theatre? DionysosProteus 01:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware this article is worthless, and that you cannot get any reliable information from it. So, choose a definition in a dictionary, and we'll discuss about it. --Juiced lemon 01:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence in the article is cited and provides an appropriate definition. Or see ANY textbook on drama. Denial isn't just a place in Egypt, huh? DionysosProteus 01:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This definition don't specifically regards theatre. --Juiced lemon 01:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the citation: The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. What on earth could possess you to maintain such a eccentric view? DionysosProteus 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to fix that. Edit conflict with you. Sorry. You were right. 3 as in the year - got it. Rocket000 01:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We use the same conventions than the English Wikipedia, X for years, and X (number) for numbers. --Juiced lemon 01:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that now. Thank you. Rocket000 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Category:Directory icons first, as I don't wish to argue semantics. Category:Folder icons and Category:Directory icons contain the same thing. In the Windows world, they're called "folders", in the rest of the world we call them "directories". That is why there's two categories in the first place. I'm trying to fix that. I would appreciate if you would discuss the issue at hand instead of simply continuing to revert good faith edits. Edit-warring is not fun :) Rocket000 02:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single “directory icon” in Category:Directory icons. Anyway, regarding to the subject of a given category, any content is pointless. If I fill Category:Vulpes with chicken images “because” foxes eat chicken, foxes will not mutate in chicken.

So, the instructions are: categorize properly each media file according to its features, so we'll get categories with consistent contents.

Sorry to be insistent about semantics, but that is the kernel of a correct classification. In Category:Directory icons, I see icons which show:

• file folders
• wastebaskets
• filing cabinets
• no-entry signs

Therefore, all these files are badly categorized and would be moved to suitable categories. If you'd want to rename Category:Folder icons to Category:File folder icons, I'll support you. --Juiced lemon 12:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've contributed far more images than you have to the Commons and I can guarantee you I'm more well-known around here than you, so if you are going to go around making accusations that I'm trying to gain publicity (huh?) than you should think before you shoot your mouth off. I'll revert you, if not simply for your heavy-handed tactics that don't seek to discuss, but impose your will. Then I'll open it up for wider discussion. --DavidShankbone 14:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lodging accusations against long-standing contributors who are held in high-esteem, especially one with my body of work, is neither good faith nor cool. It makes you sound like a jackass to say, "Oh, you want to include photos taken at Tara Subkoff's fashion show in the fashion category? Self-promotion!" Self-promoting what? The only thing I photograph for is Wikipedia and the Commons. I'm not a professional, and those photos are some of the poorest quality ones I've contributed. So don't be such a jerk about it. The photos are topless and have breasts. What's you reason for removing those categories? --DavidShankbone 18:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as Mark Allyn, I can't tell you a thing about him, but he certainly hasn't received the press coverage that the event I photographed did (http://www.style.com/fashionshows/collections/S2003RTW/review/IMTATION) --DavidShankbone 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed some photographs in Cuisine of Catalonia to move them to Food in Catalonia. It seemed that both headings referred to the same matter, and there were far more images in the second class than in the prior one. Maybe a redirection would be necessary, but I don't know how to do it for a category. What do you think? Jordi Roqué 18:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine is an art, food is tangible. We need both “cuisine” categories in order to find illustrations for “cuisine” articles (like Template:W article), and “food” categories in order to find illustrations for economy-related subjects.

Generally, when you have photographs of food (including beverages) in a market, a shop, or at a production venue, these photographs are for “food” categories (example: packaged pasta). When you have photographs of cocktails, cooked food on dishes, food that somebody prepares for cooking, cooks, or arranges on a dish, these photographs are for “cuisine” categories. --Juiced lemon 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your correction here. I understand that these words have different meanings. But I think cleavages are due to low-cut clothing, i.e. décolletés. So if we keep both categories, pictures may alwaysbe categorized in both. Am I wrong? By the way, for your knowledge, décolleté is a French-origin word and actually in French décolleté means both décolleté and cleavage!... Also, if you consider the interwiki links in Wikipedia projects, you can easily see that en:Cleavage (breasts) is linked to any décolleté article on other languages WP (of course you could say that's a mistake but again, I tend to think it would be strange to have different articles for cleavages and for décolleté/low neckline). Regards --TwoWings (jraf) * Wanna talk? ;-) 07:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is not a dictionary. Regarding to categories, subjects are relevant, language issues are not.

• Category:Décolleté needs some “dry-cleaning”. This is clothing-related category, not a voyeurism-related category.
• Category:Cleavage (breasts) focuses on breasts. So, if you see one or several heads on the photograph, it would be probably a very bad idea to categorize the photograph in Category:Cleavage (breasts). --Juiced lemon 02:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Désolé, sorry ! J'avais cru bien faire ! - amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...but you're a big part of it. [[7]].

Thanks, Juiced lemon :). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 23:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I am impressed how this page becomes quiet. --Foroa 08:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't notice it. When you say "don't use anymore" do you mean "nevermore"? The tool won't be fixed? Dantadd✉ 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke about the tool you have used, which don't help when you have to repair the damage. I have not informations concerning to updates or other similar tools. --Juiced lemon 16:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have reverted you at Category:Nature of Gibraltar because, as I explained in the edit summary, Gibraltar is categorised as a country for the sake of taxonomy (en:List of Countries in Europe), and it is certianly not part of the UK (see en:British overseas territories). I will assume good faith and trust you will not revert again. Thank -- RedCoat 07:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just about to unite these two categories, do you really want to separate them? (I decided for logics as the name, because there were already more content). Best regards.

Plural form is not used for domains of knowledge, except when there is no singular form. Examples: Category:Literature, Category:Philosophy, Category:Geology, etc. Contents are pointless. --Juiced lemon 00:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then we can just rename the category logics into logic

Yes, but the content of Category:Logics would be checked beforehand. More, there are two different notions in the English Wikipedia: Template:W article and Template:W article. Logic is not a part of mathematics. --Juiced lemon 00:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion logics belongs to philosophy and mathematics. We could also introduce subcategories mathematical logic and philosophical logic.

I should examine this issue more deeply. However, at the moment, I think you can create Category:Mathematical logic, since there is a matching article. More, most of content of Category:Logics probably refers to mathematical logic. And don't forget your signature. --Juiced lemon 00:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI: there are some fields in logic where "logics" applies, but it's probably better to call them "logical systems". Modal logic, in particular, has a number of mutually exclusive systems (intuitively, any field of logic which allows undeterminable (as opposed to just undetermined) variables would have such mutually exclusive systems). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 19:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion concerning naming conventions for U.S. city categories can be found at Commons:Village pump#U.S. city categories. howcheng {chat} 19:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering whether we actually need Category:Solar System object comparisons, see Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/11/Category:Solar System object comparisons as everything in its superior category Category:Astronomical_object_comparisons except for the stars sub-category would fit in the sub-category leaving it empty, there seems little point in having a subcategory that contains everything in the superior category. I think other sub-categories would be more useful in breaking up Category:Solar System object comparisons. Eg 'Planet size comparisons', 'Satellite size comparisons':-) --Tony Wills 08:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is redundant to Category:SS. I also disagree with renaming "Nazi Germany" categories to "Third Reich" ones. All things considered, "Nazi Germany" is more neutral. --217.186.136.221 13:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazy Germany is only a part of the subject of Third Reich. We have Third Reich-related media files which don't regard to Nazi Germany. Using inappropriate names is incompatible with correct classification in Wikimedia Commons. --Juiced lemon 14:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Category talk:Nazi Germany. --217.186.136.221 14:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this was NOT a military decoration. Don't play silly on me or I shall report you for vandalism. --217.186.136.221 16:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the vandal. You would report yourself. --Juiced lemon 16:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noted grounds for the moving. As for details, please refer Category talk:Sapporo Streetcar. --J o 02:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can you explain why you revoques my modifications here and here ? Category:Chamber of Deputies of France doesn't exist wheareas Category:National Assembly of France does.

Cheers.--Bapti ✉ 22:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no National Assembly of France during the French Third Republic, according to his constitution. --Juiced lemon 22:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit in Category:Population statistics Germany is justified by “forbidden in categories”. Where can I find this restriction? The template is designed for this case (watch source code: “This {{{1|}}} image | All images in this {{ #ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | Category | category | article }} }} should be recreated...”). --тнояsтеn ⇔ 15:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is no Commons policy to replace non-SVG images with SVG ones.

2. Categories are software features to gather media files regarding to a given subject. In the topics structure, this subject havn't media type properties. The properties of the content are pointless.

3. Categories are used for browsing, not for maintenance. Therefore, don't disturb the normal usage of categories with stupid templates which will be never removed since we'll keep non-SVG images.

4. If you want to pin any category for own reasons, mark it on your private notepad, and don't be a pain for the community.

--Juiced lemon 19:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you very kind response.

1. Category:Images that should use vector graphics states that Images composed of simple shapes, lines, and letters [...] should be recreated using vector graphics as an SVG file.

3. I am just wondering why the Template:Convert to SVG explicitly was programmed for the use in categories (see above).

4. That was not my intention.

In a nutshell: if this template has not to be used in categories, the feature of the template showing All images in this category should be recreated... should be deleted. I just wanted to help Commons become better. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix: watch Category:Administrative units of Slovakia, Category:City parts of Bratislava, Category:Red.png stroke order images, Category:AVL-trees, Category:Bronze script GIFs, Category:Burmese script, Category:Glagolitic alphabet, Category:Great seal script GIFs. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find instructions which allow the use of the template in categories. When you drive a car, you have generally to comply with a speed limit, even if the car was built to go much faster. That is the same thing with the template.

When I read Template talk:Convert to SVG, I realize that this format is questionned by numberous other users. In my opinion, this template have a major flaw, because it encourages the creation of SVG images by non-specialists of the concerned subject, so the results are often pathetic.

So, requests for conversion of images to SVG cannot be evasive like requests for a whole category, and I am removing the template:Convert to SVG (and aliases) from all categories of the topics structure. --Juiced lemon 01:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,juiced lemon, good news: yes, for the mills category more and more new files are placed directly in the right categories. However, new uploades sometimes don't find their way through. Also I did still nothing about the subcategories windgenerators, windturbines, windparks, which can use improvemements. Greetings. Havang 22:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to most references Armoured cars "...are a type of armoured fighting vehicle having wheels (from four to ten large off-road wheels) instead of tracks, and usually light armor... It would seem perfectly logical therefore to place armoured cars under the main category of AFV. I look forward to your reasoning as to why armoured cars should not be placed in the AFV category. KTo288 23:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully the article Template:W article. You'll learn that armoured cars have armour. An Template:W article is an armoured vehicle with weapons.

You cannot classify Category:Armoured cars according to fictional features of this subject, for example “Category:Armoured cars with weapons”, or “Category:Armoured cars with flowers”: that would be hightly moronic in both cases. --Juiced lemon 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it, your reasoning is that only vehicles with both armour and armament should be considered as AFVs, and since armoured cars are not normally armed, even if images of armed armoured cars appear in the armoured car category, the category as a whole should not be placed as a sub category of AFVs. However the armoured car article states that there are three types of armoured car, the armoured limousine type, the armoured security type and the military armoured cars which are AFVs. The majority of the vehicles in the category at present most of the vehicles are the military type. Have a look at these images from different eras taken from the category. Mentally replace the wheels of these vehicles with tracks, and what do you see?

• 
  September 1918: A Light Armoured Car patrol
• 
  M8 Greyhound armored car
• 
  Alvis FV 601 Saladin armored car
• EE-9 Cascavel
  EE-9 Cascavel
• 
  AMX 10 RC (Not in the armoured car category but described as an armoured car in its wikipedia page.)

You do not have to imagine the presence of turrets and weapons in these pictures, these are not fictional features but intrinsic elements of the design. Your demarcation between armoured cars and AFVs is for example armoured cars like the AMX 10 RC have weapons as a capable as many main battle tanks, whilst APCs such as the M113 and FV432 for the most part were armed with one or two machine guns most often in open mounts, an armament arrangement inferior to many armoured cars even historical ones. If it troubles you, perhaps one compromise would be to divide the category, into military and civilian armoured cars, and place only the military armoured cars into the AFV cat. KTo288 01:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you can create categories in order to classify the media files in Category:Armoured cars and categorize them according to their more specific features. However, if your interest lies only in military armoured cars, you could as well leave the other images in their current category. --Juiced lemon 11:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topics structure is a browsing structure which is intended to find media files according to their subject. SVG files, as every file in the Commons database, must be individually categorized in the topics structure according to their “subject” features. The SVG structure is a media type structure, and have nothing to do with the topics structure.

The mix-up of these structures is harmful to the searching of the media files and to the classification process in Wikimedia Commons.

So, stop your reversions. --Juiced lemon 14:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comment here to keep discussion in one place. I will watchlist your talk page for awhile.

We discussed this before. Images can be categorized in multiple categories.

You recently tried to remove relevant categories. I put them back. Please stop removing relevant categories. --Timeshifter 14:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivisions of the topics structure which don't match topics are undesirable. If you don't respect the accepted organization in Commons, and want to make a mess with the topics structure, I'll request to limit your activities in this project. --Juiced lemon 14:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal categorization schemes do not set the rules. Please stop removing longstanding, relevant, applicable categories. Please stop your threats. You are going back to your old habits, and many people have pointed out these problems with your edits before. And you were doing so well for awhile... --Timeshifter 15:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind to have a look at the discussion `linked circles', what is your opinion? Darapti

Stop to impair the Commons organization. Categories are linked to Wikipedia articles, categories by default. This is not an option. --Juiced lemon 15:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Interwiki links on category pages link to other category pages in other-language wikipedias. --Timeshifter 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons is not a Wikipedia project and we have our own rules. Most users follow these rules and link Commons categories to Wikipedia articles. If you don't want to follow our Commons rules, find an occupation in another project. --Juiced lemon 17:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are going back to old habits in the tone of your comments. Just because French is your native language does not allow you to be uncivil. I know that your understanding of English is good enough to avoid being uncivil. Admins have pointed out this incivility problem on your part in the past. By the way, it is uncivil to put back discussions on a user's talk page after the user deletes them. I moved the discussion here. Please keep it here. I am watchlisting this page here.

Interwiki links on category pages on both the commons and Wikipedia are supposed to link to category pages on other-language wikipedias. Please stop removing those category interwiki links. --Timeshifter 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should start studiing the interwikilinks including dijambisme and leveldifferences: 1 item in one wiki wikilinked to 2 or even more other items in oneother wiki . If that has been resolves, commons category can be interwikilinked to both article and category (leveldifference). At several wikipedias people are discussing similar problems, notably the english wikipedia. May-be we should do the like and think over the problem more thoroughly. greetings . Havang 19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia projects have problems because they allow stupid bots to destroy correct interwiki links. The issue is quite different in Wikimedia Commons: when there are an article/gallery and a category about the same subject in any project, they must be linked together. Therefore, in such case, we havn't to bother with categories. Users come in Commons from articles, so they'll return to articles. --Juiced lemon 20:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users come to the commons in many ways. From images they click in various-language wikipedias, and then follow back to the source image on the commons and its categories. From image categories on the various-language wikipedias, and the sister links to the commons categories. From articles in various-language wikipedias, and then the article categories and the sister links to the commons categories.

The commons is about images mostly. When people go to commons categories they like being able to use the interwikilinks to go to the same categories on other-language wikipedias in order to view other images in the same category.

If they like those images, and want to do more, they can copy them to web pages outside wikipedia, or they can upload them to their-language wikipedia, or better yet, they can upload them to the commons if they are public-domain images, and not fair-use images.

The introductions to commons categories are a good place to link to the commons galleries of the same name. I do that often. I also add "See also" links to related categories on the commons. Those are in addition to normal categorization and subcategorization.

There needs to separate locations on commons category pages for interwikilinks to articles and categories. The labeling of those locations needs to be clear. Right now it just says "in wikipedia". Many casual viewers, and many editors, do not know what that sidebar section is for. Since the links are in other languages it is not obvious what is being linked to.

The section needs to be clearly labeled with something like this: "Links to CATEGORY of the same name in other-language wikipedias". On commons article/gallery pages we need to decide whether to link to articles or categories on other-language wikipedias. I believe it makes more sense to link to categories since that is where similar images will be found. Similar to the commons gallery images.

If we also want interwikilinks to articles, then we need a separate location on the sidebar, and it needs to be labeled with something like this: "Links to ARTICLE of the same name in other-language wikipedias". --Timeshifter 04:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter, I'd say the majority of categories on commons won't have a corresponding category on the wikipedias, because while we might have hundreds of images on a narrow topic, it's rather unlikely that the 'pedias will have hundreds of articles on a narrow topic. The wikipedia links generally serve as a way of directing our audience towards an article that explains what they're looking at. If there are categories of images on the wikipedias that are not on commons, the best route would be to just upload these to commons (commonshelper was developed for just this purpose).

By the way, Juiced lemon is being at least as civil as you are, Timeshifter (if not considerably more so), but frankly this discussion belongs on the Village Pump, as opposed to J.l.'s talk page. Would one of you mind perhaps starting a thread? --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 20:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have promoted this new way to link Commons categories for months, but now it is a custom practice, because most users realize the advantages to get more links about matching subjects in the Wikipedia projects.

Here, Timeshifter leads a rearguard action, which appears to me rather as a personal conflict. I feel no need for a discussion, while I have no doubt about the outcome. --Juiced lemon 10:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you, Juiced lemon, have been using a personal system for months does not mean it is a new standard for the commons. I only recently noticed your changes in this area on the many categories and images I watchlist. --Timeshifter 11:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SB_Johnny. If you read some of the other talk sections here you will see that Juiced lemon has been very uncivil recently with me. Many admins on the commons have pointed out this incivility to him. This is rude: "If you don't want to follow our Commons rules, find an occupation in another project." One, it is not Juiced lemon who makes up the rules, and two, it is not Juiced lemon who tells people to leave the project. Juiced lemon is not an admin, and even admins have to go through procedures.

I have no problem if this thread is copied anywhere, if it is not a problem with Juiced lemon. But Juiced lemon does not seem to want to do this. Probably because he can't just impose his will on notice boards, etc.. He has had a lot of problems at notice boards, etc..

To the topic at hand... Juiced lemon is changing a longstanding interwikilinking system on his own, and messing up the interwikilinks on many categories. If the Village Pump or other notice board reaches consensus to change this longstanding methodology, then fine. But Juiced lemon can't just change something so major by himself.

People can't upload images to the commons if they can't find them. To me that is the best purpose of the category interwikilinks. Plus one can't find the equivalent categories easily any other way. Linking only to the articles in other languages means one has to go to the bottom of the article and decipher the meaning of the categories listed at the bottom of the article. Categories in other languages.

I actually agree with you and Juiced lemon that we also need a second sidebar section to articles with the same name as the category. But that would be a major change. It would be an ADDITIONAL sidebar section. --Timeshifter 11:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are using spurious argumentation. Many other users link Commons categories to articles. The links to only categories was consistent with an old and obsolete conception of Commons organization, when media files were supposed to be in galleries, while the categories were only a way to access to galleries.

This conception was clearly incompatible with classification operations, considering the growth of the size of Commons database. Therefore, there is no more reason to restrict interwiki links to categories, above all a lot of classification errors are the result of ignorance about the concerned subject: informations are in articles, not in categories. --Juiced lemon 11:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Till now, I have not seen any convincing argumentation for one systematic approach above the other. So I'd suggest not to waste our energy and destroy the work from the others: if there is an interwiki link, just leave it as is till we can agree on a sensible and systematic approach. --Foroa 16:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that, with my linking system, man cannot establish more interwiki links from Commons categories? --Juiced lemon 17:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the purpose of the commons was to find images, not articles. Therefore all interwikilinking should serve that purpose first and foremost, I would think. Categories are the best way to find images. Related images can be found in subcategories. For example; I see native English speakers drilling down in interwikilinked French categories in order to find more images to upload to the commons. In order to use those images on English wikipedia in articles in the same category.

It is also useful to look for the few images found in the article of the same name in other languages.

I would like to see 2 sidebar sections labeled:

• Article interwiki links.
• Category interwiki links.

Then people can leave both types of interwikilinks. The MediaWiki software could be adjusted to automatically separate the 2 types of interwikilinks into the 2 sidebar sections.--Timeshifter 18:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When an image is uploaded in any Wikipedia project, we can assume that it has not been uploaded in Commons. We don't need any human operation to notice that. We only need human operations to check eligibility of these files for the Commons database. Therefore, interwiki links have no utility to find new images.

The MediaWiki software don't sort or filter the interwiki links. Hence, you can create as many lists as you want with articles, categories, duplicates, if you like the mess.

Because I prefer order, I promote the most complete ordered list without duplicates (article+category). Links to categories could be tagged with a special symbol. --Juiced lemon 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is no reason why both article and category interwiki links can't be used. They should be alphabetized though. Then people will more easily see when there are both types of links. For example; the English article link will be next to the English category link in the interwikilink list. It would be nice if articles or categories could be tagged with a special symbol. The MediaWiki software would have to be changed.

Images on other-language wikipedias can't be found by many editors without the interwiki links. People natively speaking that language may know about those images. But editors who are not native speakers of that language will not likely know of those images without the interwikilinks in the commons allowing them to view the images in the same category on an other-language wikipedia. So if they don't know about them, they can't upload them to the commons. --Timeshifter 22:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was not intended to be vandalism. Don't you think, the categorization would be correct the other way round? I think, all the history of e.g. Montenegro belongs to the history of the Balkans. But the whole history of the Balkans is not part of the history of each countries. This means, Category:History of Albania, Category:History of Bulgaria, Category:History of Greece, Category:History of the Republic of Macedonia and Category:History of Serbia should all be placed in the Category:History of the Balkans - but not vice versa. This would IMHO be logically correct. FelixReimann 08:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The region of the Balkans don't belong to the partition defined in Commons:Territorial division of the World, so it's a secondary territory as regards the classification process. Secondary territories are categorized in primary ones (those defined in the previous page), not the contrary. --Juiced lemon 09:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've tagged several categories to be renamed from Railway stations in... to Train stations in.... The term "train station" is generally considered incorrect in British terminology, therefore I think Category:Train stations in the United Kingdom and all sub-categories below should be renamed accordingly. I don't know whrther Commons has a British/American use policy, but the (equivalent in English Wikipedia) (where I suspect most of the photos in these categories are used) would certainly justify this. I've been meaning to bring this up at Categories for discussion for some time, but have been too busy in recent weeks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Universality principle in Commons:Naming categories: we should not use different names to point out an unique subject. Hence, either we keep Category:Train stations with all the subcategories named accordingly, either we rename it Category:Railway stations (and we'll rename the subcategories).

The title of the English Wikipedia article is Template:W article, and they were discussions about it in the talk page. Otherwise, in dictionaries, I find station, railway station, railroad station, but not train station. So, I don't want to favour this last term, but we have to standardize the category names in Wikimedia Commons.

The only way to change the current situation is to bring the issue at Categories for discussion, in my opinion. --Juiced lemon 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read this? 222.153.9.50 01:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem? --Juiced lemon 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. You? Juiced, I am disappointed by your behaviour.

In your above comment and on your user talk page you all but accuse me of making a nuisance out of myself for no reason, and behave like I had kicked you in the shins out of spite! I agree in retrospect that I should have discussed the move beforehand ('Be bold' DOES apply, though - sometimes comments on talk pages here get no answers even after months - it's not Wikipedia). In my defense I did not re-move anything after it was reverted, I started discussing with you and the other admin who reverted me. And all it gets me is a 'bugger off, pest' from you.

Now to the facts:

This is a discussion of maori emigration trends based on Census New Zealand statistics. Some key points are:

• "By the time of the 2001 Australian census, this number [Maori in Australia] had grown to 72,956.
• "between 1986 and 2001, Maori emigrated to Australia at a considerably faster rate than white New Zealanders."
• "...this concern notwithstanding, Maori emigration has greatly outpaced return migration, to the point where "if current demographic trends stay the same, within a few decades perhaps one third of all Maori could be living in Australia."

This article (5 long pages of it) in New Zealand's OFFICIAL government-written encyclopedia also discusses overseas Maori, from Australia to England.

So obviously there is a pretty sizable and growing group of Maori who are not IN New Zealand, and increasingly, as young kids are born overseas, not even FROM New Zealand, except historically. There are also discussions about building marae's in Australia, as they eventually will be. Then, categories like Category:Maori buildings will become incorrect as subcats of Category:Buildings in New Zealand etc and will have to be renamed Category:Maori buildings in New Zealand....

I will also point out again that I was not seeking to create empty categories. I was trying to get the name of the existing cats changed to reflect that they all point to NZ Maori, which would help ensure that future sorting will be into the correct categories. You can disagree with me as to whether that name change is necessary NOW - but I would appreciate a bit less defensive reactions from you - whether or not you have to deal with that kind of thing all the time or not. Thanks. 222.153.9.97 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Juiced lemon. The Image:PyramidenSteine.jpg is of the western face of the pyramid of Khafra, in Gizeh, recognizable by the granite stone fragments, and because the first steps are of natural rock carved.

I am an architect; I have been in Egypt three times; I have seen it personally; and I participate actively on wiki.es

• See: [8] [9]

Thanks by take care of the objectivity of wikipedia. Greetings, José, --JMCC1 15:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Warning: Stop vandalizing categories about constellations and Western astrology signs. If you remove again usefull categories, I'll request administrators intervention. --Juiced lemon 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Quisiera creer que existe mayor raciocinio que argumentar con base en ataques personales, pero tal parece que se estila usar una y otra vez el calificativo de "vandalismo" y la amenaza de los administradores. Por lo demás, haz lo que quieras; dudo que algún administrador considere que las constelaciones del zodíaco son una categoría taxonómica. --200.40.88.182 21:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been warned by other users that your changes were inappropriate. The classification in Commons Wikimedia is not similar than in other Wiki projects. So, don't disrupt the organization and make sure that you are doing is correct. --Juiced lemon 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ese es el problema, justamente, la costumbre de acusar de vandalismo en vez de actuar en base a algún argumento racional. No me parece ético que hagas tu acusación porque otros la hacen (y supongo que otros la hacen porque la haces tú?) pero, como te digo, no creo que se pueda razonar nada cuando lo que se estila es hacer ataques personales. Dejo el tema en manos de un administrador [10]. --200.40.88.182 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juiced lemon, you're definitely moving towards trouble again right now (and I'm sorry I haven't given you warning until now, but I've been busy in real life and on other wikis). Calling people "vandals" when they're actually just having a content dispute with you is a serious breach of civility, so you need to try to just discuss the issue with them rather than dismissing them from the start. We talked about this earlier in passing, but please be clear that I consider this to be a very serious breach of civility, poisonous to the spirit of collective work and respect we need on commons, and will absolutely block you if you cross this line again.

Accusing people of "ruining commons" is also inappropriately shrill, and I will consider that to be the same thing of accusing someone of vandalism.

You've really made an impressive effort of reaching out to people and helping them understand the category trees over the last couple months, but when you approach others in this manner you're really putting your reputation (not to mention your value to the community) in jeopardy. Please try to be more thoughtful and considerate, because if you can't do that I will need to step in as a moderator again. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't call people “vandals”. I am looking for means to protect the structure of the Commons database. This structure becomes more and more sophisticated, but also frailer. In Commons, we have not a sufficient team to control most edits. If a link is removed or corrupted, it will take months (sometimes years) to repair the damage, unless the edit is immediatly reverted.

Wikimedia Commons cannot continue to work like an Wikipedia project. This project is rather similar to a software project, because most people don't realize the effects of the changes.

If I had not reverted this edit (by user:200.40.88.182), the Aries constellation couldn't be found in Category:Constellations anymore. Such situation generally leads to the creation of a duplicate category.

This user is not a vandal, but he'll make us waste more time than a vandal. --Juiced lemon 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but the people you are accusing of "vandalism" might not. Please just slow down and explain things rather than accusing people of ill intent.

Keep in mind too that we'll never have a team to control edits. Commons isn't a Wikipedia, but it's still a wiki. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 10:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juiced lemon,
I've seen your recent edit on Commons:Bistro and discovered that you have very good French skills :)
May I suggest you to add a {{Babel}} template on your personnal page and/or on your talk page, so that other contributors know your language skills? I guess that you are here before the template was created :)
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you are adding incorrect categories to uncategorized files, like in this edit. If you are unable to find better categories, I strongly advise you to stop any classification activity in this project.

Competent users have other occupations than the correction of your glaring errors, and the cleaning of categories you have cluttered: classification is not for dilletantes. --Juiced lemon 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. OK, then fix it yourself. Rursus 10:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not very politely said, BTW. Rursus 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The heading above is the reason: treating other contributors in that way is absolutely unacceptable, and you have been warned repeatedly about this sort of thing before.

You are blocked indefinitely until you can agree to be civil in the future, including specific points about how you will approach conflict in the future. I appreciate the work you do categorizing, but (again) your price is too high. I will open a discussion on the admin noticeboards and try to get more people involved in drawing up a plan for you. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treating other contributors as you are treating me is UNACCEPTABLE. Therefore, there will be no agreement with you as long as you retain an harassment behaviour.

I have no conflict with the user above, and my message was perfectly justified. I could have used a more diplomatic wording, but my message was not impolite. Your action is improper and disrupts the dialogue with this user. I have not yet answered to him, because I wanted to complete the organization of the Messier objects beforehands. That was done on 01:03, 6 December 2007 (my previous edit). --Juiced lemon 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salut, tu m'écrivais : je viens d'être bloqué indéfiniment (...) et tu me demandais mon aide.

En fait, j'ai vu le message de SB_Johnny sur le bulletin des administrateurs, ainsi que d'autres messages à propos de ton comportement que certains trouvent problématique, et je suis cette affaire avec intérêt. Ce n'est apparemment pas la première fois que tu communiques de manière qui peut être perçue comme plus ou moins abrupte avec des nouveaux.

Je ne me prononce pas sur la validité du blocage, et par conséquent je ne tiens pas à m'aventurer à te débloquer sans en avoir au préalable discuté avec les autres administrateurs.

Ton implication dans le projet est énorme, et j'espère que ce qui t'arrive ne te découragera pas de continuer. Bien catégoriser les images est effectivement une tâche cruciale ! Cependant, je crois qu'il est essentiel que chacun d'entre nous contribue pour partie à "éduquer" les nouveaux, en les guidant et en discutant avec eux. Ceci permet autant d'aplanir les différents points de vue sur la manière de procéder, mais aussi d'en comprendre les critères sous-jacents. Je ne peux donc que t'inviter à plus de modération dans tes prises de contact avec des personnes qui ne catégorisent pas de la même manière que toi, et t'encourager à les aider de ton mieux à comprendre le "category scheme" de Commons. :)

Bien cordialement,

-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 22:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should both be grateful that Rursus stayed around after you slapped him like that. However, you shouldn't make assumptions about how well another person will react to your abusive behavior.

If you would rather work with another administrator (or similarly trusted fellow user), that's fine with me. I will keep myself available to serve you and the community, but frankly I need to see effort from you: the community has a better record of making an effort to accomidate you effort than your record of trying to accomidate the community.

You have served us well as a visionary and a hard worker. If you won't come to an agreement, we will miss your hard work and your insights, but we will forever benefit from your vision. Please think about this.--SB_Johnny | ^PA! 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darapti requested user:Rursus to improve his choice of categories: User talk:Rursus#Mathematical subcategories. I read Rursus's answer, then I wrote my message. I could have been cooler, but if nobody tells to this user he is doing a poor work, he'll ask us why we let him doing an useless work.

Classify cluttered up categories is one of the more laborious tasks in Commons, because the files are mixed up. So, I prefer to have uncategorized files than files in main categories. --Juiced lemon 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my doing. Regarding my categorization: I think it was justified. A sundial is an instrument using astronomy/geometry to timekeep. Now, please come back and edit, make a deal with SB_Johnny et. al., and regain your right to edit! For my part you're forgiven. Rursus 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your friendly message. I started a discussion in your talk page precisely because you think your categorization is correct.

Unfortunately, the documents which explain how to categorize files are not very clear. Regarding the sundial, the file would be put where other people are supposed to search it.

People who search sundials write “sundial” in the search field, then they find easily the Sundial gallery and the Category:Sundials category.

There was no suitable subcategory for Image:Sundial (PSF).png, so I have categorized directly in Category:Sundials. In the same category, you'll find also a .svg version of the same drawing.

The shared features of sundials are used to categorize properly the category Category:Sundials. So, the files in Category:Sundials or “sundial” subcategories would not be categorized according to these shared features. Extra categories may regard only specific features.

If we don't proceed in this way, the main categories would be cluttered up with unsorted files, and the browsing in the database would be very slow and difficult. --Juiced lemon 18:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juiced lemon, may I trouble you with a question related to categories? While sorting some so far uncategorized images of King George Island, I came across this post office at Villa Las Estrellas, a Chilean settlement on an Antarctic island. I've already put this image into a newly created category for this village (which in turn has been put into a newly created category for this island). But I wonder how to put this image best into the category tree of post offices.

The above referenced category for post offices consists so far just of country-wise subcategories plus a sub-category fulfilling the same purpose with some additional countries. There are so far no post office subcategories for Antartica. I have the following questions:

• Should this image be put into a subcategory Post offices in Chile as it is an Chilean post office? But it is not really in Chile, even if it belongs to Chile.
• Should this image be put into a subcategory dedicated to post offices in Antartica? But where to put such a category? This category should surely not grouped with by-country-categories, should it?
• Or, giving up on this strange case, should I simply dump it in the top-level post office category?
• And finally, how is the current inconsistency best resolved? Shouldn't all post-office-in-country-categories be moved into the by-country-subcategory even if it will be the only subcategory of the general one to be open for other criteria?

Anyway, as strange as this case might be, I hope to learn more about the category system through this case. Thanks for your help, --AFBorchert 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The preposition in refers usually to the location, if possible selected according to Commons:Territorial division of the World. You can create Category:Post offices in Antarctica, otherwise Category:Post offices is correct for this image.

I agree this image wouldn't be put in a subcategory Post offices in Chile. However, Category:Post of Chile suits, since this category don't depend on the location: a postal system includes also the mail from embassies, ships, military units abroad, etc.

There are notable inconsistencies in our classification system, because we have categories for a specific location which are categorized in categories related to national origin. As long as people can find what they search, I think we have to adapt ourselves to this approximative logic. --Juiced lemon 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Juiced lemon, I've followed your advise and put this image into Category:Post offices in Antarctica and Category:Post of Chile (which I had not noticed before). Regards, AFBorchert 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will only ask you just once nicely: "Do not call me stupid again and stop threatening me." Lycaon 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't call you “stupid”. I was talking about one or more edits which are an infinitesimal part of your life: nobody is perfect (me either). I don't threat you neither: significant changes would be discussed. --Juiced lemon 00:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]