User talk:Botteville

Read my UP.

I did not edit on Commons for a long time so I have no current discussion. I cleared out the now-irrelevant chatter about other topics. If you have a message just create a section for it below and I will try to give it proper consideration. Most people that communicate with me on Commons have valid points so I try to respond, if I am watching.Botteville (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

PS Don't feel bad about reverting categorizations of mine that you think are wrong. Maybe they are!Botteville (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ancient Olympia categories

Hi. Thank for your edits on the "municipal" page. There is still problem on Category:Ancient Olympia, which scope is vague and overlaps Category:Archaeological site of Olympia; anyway if it is supposed to concern the municipal unit, it should be deeply modified to reflect this. Perhaps we should consider that Category:Ancient Olympia is about the ancient sanctuary (so it can have pictures not geographically or directly tied to the actual archeologial site) and put away the category about the municipal unit since there is no evident usefulness for it?--Phso2 (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Bonjour. I can read Frtench but I'm not fluent in it, so I'm only "partial French" like your "partial English." Aw gee. I was hoping to put off the solution to this problem a little longer. I guess not. Anyway here is my take. The main problem is the Callicrates Law. It is only an English problem really. Consider the ruins of Olympia. They are archaia Olympia. But, there is a caretaker modern village right there. It also is archaia Olympia. This was the municipality. But, too small for government facilities. So in 2011 they threw in a bunch of other villages to the deme, or municipality. Now archaia Olympia is not a municipality, or deme, but is a municipal unit. However, they rechose that name for the whole municipalty. So now archaia Olympia is officially a) a municipality b. A municipal unit of the municipality c. a village in the municipal unit d. Less formally the ruins near the village. The Greeks got no problem with this as they just named them all Archaia Olympia. I don't see that we have any choice but to repeat this scheme in English. But, we don't have the Greek advantage of a single name, Archaia Olympia. We use different English translations. I'm sure if we were to do it in French we would use different French translations (or German, etc.). Whew. That over with, here are some practical problems. For one thing, the pictures of ruins are in two of these categories. Strictly speaking they should be in the very least general category, which would be the archaeology. One of my next moves would have been to place them there. We cannot abolish any of the ascending categories, because they each have a wider provenience than just the ruins. The municipality has other municipal units besides archaia O. The municipal unit has other villages than just archaia O. The village has other topics than just the ruins. Now for your suggestion, totally well-meaning, undoubtedly. The English municipality is "Municipality of Ancient Olympia." The English municipal unit is "Ancient Olympia." The village is "Archea Olympia." And the lowest apt specific category concerns the archaeology. All of these English tortuosities are from one Greek name, archaia Olympia, which is the way Greeks WANT it. I like the word multivocal, meaning the one name has four different applications. Your suggestion to "put aside" "Municipality of Ancient Olympia." But, we can't do that without depriving us of a page on the Callicrates municipalty. Someone after 2010 did a lot of work to put it on there to cover the Callicrates Law. The same can be said of the entire ascending English chain. But, if we look at your suggestion, it is self-contradictory! You have "Ancient Olympia" being about the ancient sanctuary so it can have pictures unrelated to the actual archaeological site. Now, how can it both be about the ancient sanctuary and not be about the archaeological site? The whole point is, it IS about the archaeological site, which is included at the bottom of the chain. With all due respect I must oppose your suggestion. I would also like to say, I am not sure you understand that a simple Greek chain of telescoping categories under the same name, archaia Olympia, is being represented by telescoping English categories, but under different translational names. Ciao, thanks for you interest. I will be on this until it comes out right and will be around to agree or disagree with your perceptions and suggestions, cross-cultural though they may be.Botteville (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank for your answer. I think you misread me a bit, I suggested to "skip" the municipal unit (i.e. the former Kapodistrias municipality) - for the time being, because up to now there is not much material that would justify an separated cat, since everything about the municipal unit is about the village -, i did not suggested to get rid of the page on the Callicrates municipality. I am also aware of the subtilities of Greek administrative organisation and its tortuous history and naming habits. In the present state, Category:Ancient Olympia is not a category about the municipal unit : according to its description and majority of categories, it is about the ancient sanctuary. So either we modify these last to make it a category about the municipal unit (perhaps it is what you intend by saying "One of my next moves would have been to place them there."? - in this case it would be fine for me), or we create a specific (and quite empty until pictures of the other villages of the unit are uploaded) category for the municipal unit.--Phso2 (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Justly you have pointed out the discrepancy between the plan I just outlined and the actual way it is. I don't believe the whole thing developed according to plan. It just grew. Some sort of plan began in 2011 with the Callicrates Law. Suddenly Wikipedia had to come up with new municipalites that included but were more than the old. We as a whole have done a terrific job on that. Everywhere I go, I see the 2011 municipalities. The telescoping arrangement seems to be universal but of course there is many a slip twixt cup and lip. There are these holes everywhere. I have been patching what I could for a few months now. On this one your plan did occur to me as a solution. That is I believe, unless I read you wrong, to empty out at least one category and start with a new category with a name suitable to the topic. Well, then I noticed all the English names are variants of Archaia Olympia. Why not, I thought, make them do? That way we do not have to keep requesting category deletions. We can explain what the category is in the top notes, for me anyway the "en". On this article we are talking about I didn't do that (not yet anyway). But, you have expressed the principle that we should say what we mean and mean what we say, the ideal of serious people. Here we have two alternative modi operandi, yours and mine. Since there are two of us the weight is 50/50. You expressed a willingness to do it my way. I am not entirely sure I understand exactly what you want to do, as you say. I believe you are a serious editor but be that as it may in the end the telescoping set must prevail. The main question is how. To be honest, it is a lot of work either way. At this point I am ready to say, fine. If you want to do it my way, that is easier for me, because I understand what I am trying to do. If you want to branch from that then I suppose I can work around it until I can see what you are doing. I work by successive detail. There is so much detail it will take me longer just to know what to do next. So, I may not have gotten around to everything when you actually look at it seriously. No help for that I fear without using up a whole lot of talk pages. So, I trust this covers it. I don't have to oppose or agree, just work with what I have before me when I get to it. Au revoir.Botteville (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Natura 2000 pics

Yo ho my hearties! Some of you might want to know what I am doing with the Natura 2000 in Greece pics. Someone endowed us with about 16,500 pics and there they all were in one cat. I originally wanted to know what other Natura 2000 pics were available for Mount Erymanthus. I found myself thumbing through 16,500 pics. Nuts to that. Some folks had created subcats for some of them based on the area name. You see, a Natura 2000 area is a protected area mandated by the EU. The country must identify them and assign a name an ID by law so the area becomes a national park by law, with a legal name and a legal ID. Each Natura 2000 pic specifies its area and its ID. I thought, how much better it would be to expand the subcategories to include cats based of all the names and also all the ID's. If you do that then you do not need the 16,500 pic category. So, the pics come out of the big cat and go into the appropriate name cat and ID cat. Some of the subcats were not exactly the name and content of the official area so I have had to make subcats of the name. If you look on the Internet you will see that is generally being done now, the areas are being referenced by their official names. This is in keeping with the WP policy of specifying the pics in the general cat under subcats, so you DON'T collect 16500 pics in one useless cat, unless you are trying to store all the Natura 2000 in Greece pics in one cat. I didn't see any use of that. Now if I want to find other Natura pics of a certain range, river, or wetland, I can just find the name under Natura 2000 in Greece or if I have one pic of the area I can look under its ID for the others. So that is what I am doing. Ideally there would be only subcats under Natura 2000 in Greece. Now, don't you think that is better? If not and you have the power to reverse it all just put all the pics under the IDs back in Natura 2000 in Greece and delete the ID categories. I wouldn't advise it. For the name cats, just delete all the subcats with Romanized Greek names I wouldn't advise that either. The main problem is access. How to access Natura 2000 pictures in Greece on a specific topic or in a specific area without trying to sort through thousands of pictures. Other countries don't have this great endowment of Natura pictures. Greece is very photogenic, which is why we like it.Botteville (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:College basketball teams in the United States by name

College basketball teams in the United States by name has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

–IagoQnsi (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Ted_Kennedy_at_funerals

Ted Kennedy at funerals has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)